• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Mayor Bloomberg’s Throat Clearing

Chait Wonders: Why Is No One Talking About Bloomberg’s #MeToo Issues?

Because we’re too busy discussing his racism? Besides, we had this conversation earlier, when Michael Bloomberg first began doing some throat-clearing late last year about a run for the Democratic presidential nomination. That was fourteen months after The Atlantic first raised the issue of Bloomberg’s treatment of women during his career. Jonathan Chait raises it again in the context of the oppo research emerging over Bloomberg’s old defenses of stop-and-frisk.

SEE ALSO: Falwell Jr: I’ve heard speculation this week that Romney is positioning himself to be VP to a Democratic candidate

Bloomberg’s #MeToo issues should create an even bigger problem for him, Chait argues (via Twitchy):

Before we get to Chait’s argument about which story is bigger, let’s recall Megan Garber’s initial report in September 2018 about Bloomberg’s office comportment:

In an interview with the paper, Bloomberg defends stop-and-frisk. And, voicing “doubt” about some of the revelations that have been made in the course of #MeToo, Bloomberg mentions as an example Charlie Rose, who had broadcast his show from a space in Bloomberg’s corporate offices. He declined to say, specifically, whether he believed the many allegations against Rose. “Let the court system decide,” the former mayor said.

What is not fully addressed in the Times article, however—and what is not fully explored in the many similar pieces that consider the current iteration of Mike Bloomberg’s presidential ambitions—is a series of stories about him, accumulated over decades, that suggests in the aggregate a distinct pattern when it comes to his treatment of women: reports of disparaging comments made about women’s bodies and appearances. Allegations of a deeply sexist work environment at the company that Bloomberg founded and, for many years, ran. Stories that linger like exhaust in the air every time Mike Bloomberg is mentioned as, potentially, the next president of the United States. …

From 1996 to 1997, four women filed sexual-harassment or discrimination suits against Bloomberg the company. One of the suits included the following allegation: When Sekiko Sakai Garrison, a sales representative at the company, told Mike Bloomberg she was pregnant, he replied, “Kill it!” (Bloomberg went on, she alleged, to mutter, “Great, No. 16”—a reference, her complaint said, to the 16 women at the company who were then pregnant.) To these allegations, Garrison added another one: Even prior to her pregnancy, she claimed, Bloomberg had antagonized her by making disparaging comments about her appearance and sexual desirability. “What, is the guy dumb and blind?” he is alleged to have said upon seeing her wearing an engagement ring. “What the hell is he marrying you for?”

Bloomberg denied having made those comments, claiming that he passed a lie-detector test validating the denial but declining to release the results. (He also reportedly left Garrison a voicemail upon hearing that she’d been upset by the comments about her pregnancy: “I didn’t say it, but if I said it, I didn’t mean it.”) What Bloomberg reportedly did concede is that he had said of Garrison and other women, “I’d do her.” In making the concession, however, he insisted that he had believed that to “do” someone meant merely “to have a personal relationship” with them.

Some of this has seeped into the political campaign already, especially Bloomberg’s alleged demand to “Kill it!” Pro-life voters have followed that story, at least. That comment and the “I’d do her” remark made it into the New York Times’ profile of Bloomberg’s potential #MeToo problems last November, along with quite a few others of note, including a 2012 party comment about a party guest of “look at the ass on her.” That, by the way, was while Bloomberg was mayor of the Big Apple and not just a private-sector mogul.

The NYT ran that story as a way to explain Bloomberg’s attempt to pre-empt the attacks Chait suggests now. It seems to have worked, at least until now:

“Mike has come to see that some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong,” said a spokesman, Stu Loeser, who served as Mr. Bloomberg’s City Hall press secretary and is now advising his prospective presidential bid. “He believes his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life.”

Mr. Bloomberg is loath to admit fault, and the statement stops short of an apology. But it signals a recognition among aides that his behavior — little-known outside New York City circles — will face heavy scrutiny should he enter the 2020 presidential race, at a time when questions of gender and workplace conduct have taken center stage.

That’s sufficed for the past three months, even after the eruption of the stop-and-frisk comments. Contra Chait, however, that is the bigger issue. Bloomberg’s alleged #MeToo issues revolve around his personal conduct; the stop-and-frisk issues revolve around Bloomberg’s use of executive authority and civil rights. Both of them are potentially big issues, but the latter has a whole lot more implication for how a potential president would behave.

Whichever team is running the current oppo-research drop on Bloomberg might have more interest in one than another, too. That might tell us something about the source of the stop-and-frisk comments on audio and video lately, although both have been hiding in plain sight for years. Which candidate in the 2020 chase needs to split minority voters away from Bloomberg without raising #MeToo/misogyny visibility too high? Don’t rush to answer that, because … there are multiple correct answers to this question.

Chait wonders: Why is no one talking about Bloomberg’s #MeToo issues?

Fascistic “Comedienne” Attacks Prager U!

Dear Friend,Earlier this week, late-night “comedian” Samantha Bee devoted her show to attacking PragerU. She decried the influence we have on young people, calling us “dangerous.” (She has a point there.)

Her mockery was lame; worse it wasn’t funny. We also doubt she counted on the pushback she got. Yes, Samantha, we are having a big impact.

In a 6-minute segment, Bee mocked and tried to discredit PragerU and other mainstream conservatives — but the response clearly displays PragerU’s impact and that the leftist media feels threatened:
Samantha Bee is right: we are dangerous — to the Left. And that scares the daylights out of them.

Have All Dem Candidates Become Fascistic?

Don’t believe the lies. Not a single 2020 Democrat is a moderate.

by Peter Heck                      Article sent by Mark Waldeland:

Not that there was an overabundance of them in the first place, but with former Vice President Joe Biden’s staggering collapse in the polls, the Democrat electorate has remarkably left itself no viable political moderates to choose from in their 2020 presidential primary.

While Biden had certainly carved out a policy agenda that was left of center, he was at least arguably committed to offering a semi-convincing appeal to independents and anti-Trump Republicans. Conversely, despite the best efforts of the Democrat Media Complex, there is simply no intellectually honest way to portray any of the remaining frontrunners as even remotely centrist.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are outed socialists with the former even being identified [warning: language] by long-time Democrat party strategists as a “communist.” Though Sanders feigns objection to the label, a couple decades ago he actually embraced it.

So perhaps it is this radical nature of Sanders and Warren that prompts observers to instinctively slap the moderate label on their closest remaining competitors, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar. But being to the right of those two revolutionaries doesn’t take much, and it certainly doesn’t qualify one as a moderate. There is a wide swath of liberalism that spans the gulf between the socialism of Sanders/Warren and political centrism.

Thus, responsible, rational thinkers won’t use Bernie as the fixed point of leftism by which they calibrate their ideological compasses. They’ll look at the policy proposals of Buttigieg and Klobuchar and see where they truly fall on an objective political spectrum.

For his part, Mayor Pete has:

  • Signaled his support of achieving the ultimate goal of a single-payer healthcare system.
  • Scolded a pro-life Democrat that there was no room for her in their party. His abortion extremism goes so far that he not only lobbied to facilitate the practice in South Bend, but actually sought to obstruct the opening of pregnancy resource centers that offer free medical and parenting supplies to those who would otherwise be most likely to consider abortion.
  • Pushed policies to grant welfare and government student aid (both financed by tax dollars) to illegal immigrants.
  • Spoken out about his desire to abolish the Electoral College.

Likewise, Senator Klobuchar’s public Congressional voting record quickly scuttles any argument that she’s a moderate. She has:

  • Publicly lobbied for government entrance into the healthcare field, a move she knows will destroy private health insurance in the country.
  • Scored a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
  • Earned an “F” rating from the NRA for her enmity towards the 2nd Amendment.
  • Never ranked below 85% rating from the left-wing Americans for Democratic Action for her commitment to liberal causes.

Klobuchar’s own hometown newspaper concluded about her:

“These are the ADA scores of a very solid liberal, which is what Klobuchar always has been and still is.”

And before you’re tempted to ask, “Well, what about Mike Bloomberg?” let’s be clear that his past affiliation with the Republican Party was one of political expediency. Attempting to follow two successful terms of Republican Rudy Giuliani in the Mayor’s office, the billionaire businessman abandoned his lifelong membership in the Democrat Party to pursue what he correctly assumed would be a more navigable path to victory. In his second term, he left behind the Republican label and has been sprinting leftward ever since.

On social issues, he’s earned a reputation as one of the most radically pro-abortion politicians in national politics. In his first campaign for NYC Mayor, for instance, he pledged to compel all aspiring obstetricians and gynecologists to learn how to commit abortions. His record on religious liberty issues was equally appalling. And Bloomberg takes a back seat to no one when it comes to advocating gun control or seeking massive expansion of government to combat anthropogenic climate change.

Economically, consider that in 2008, Barack Obama proposed cutting taxes to the tune of $2.9 trillion. By 2016, Hillary Clinton had abandoned that approach, moving leftward to propose tax increases of just over $1 trillion. Bloomberg in 2020? He’s proposing tax increases of $5 trillion over the next decade.

So enough with the “moderate” sales pitch. In 2016, Democrats lost what was an easily winnable election largely because their nominee abandoned middle America. The rust-belt recoiled against far-left intersectionality and chose a populist message that appealed to their actual interests. When it happened, Democrats vowed not to make the same electoral mistake again in 2020.

At this point I’d have to agree that they aren’t duplicating their 2016 mistake. With these remaining primary candidates, it appears they’re digging even deeper.


DOJ Fascistics Win Their Day….Won’t Charge Crooked FBI Lefty Liar, Andrew McCabe!……Yet?

Whoa: DOJ Won’t Charge Andrew McCabe

by  Allahpundit   at HotAir:

“Remember kids,” said Drew McCoy in reaction to this news, “if you want to lie to the FBI it’s important you work for the FBI. Otherwise you’ll get in big trouble.” Somewhere Mike Flynn and Roger Stone are nodding.

SEE ALSO: AG Barr assigned outside prosecutor to review Flynn case

Two points up front in light of this post a few hours ago. One: The president’s going to have a fit, to put it mildly. WaPo reported yesterday that the new DOJ recommendations of light sentences for Mike Flynn and Roger Stone aren’t nearly as important to him as seeing political enemies like James Comey and Andrew McCabe prosecuted. He was irate when no charges were filed against Comey; he’ll be climbing the walls watching McCabe skate too. But like I said in the earlier post, there’s only so much Bill Barr can do with the evidence he has. No doubt he’s willing, maybe even eager, to haul Trump’s antagonists into court. (He’s the patron saint of the Durham investigation, isn’t he?) But if he doesn’t think a conviction’s possible, he’s stuck.

Which brings us to the other point. Does this explain Barr’s sudden eagerness to intervene in the sentencing of Flynn and Stone? He must have had some inkling over the past few weeks that McCabe wouldn’t be charged before today’s announcement made it official. He knew what Trump’s reaction would be. He may have feared, not incorrectly, that his job would suddenly be in peril when the news broke, with Trump lambasting him on Twitter a la Jeff Sessions as an AG who just couldn’t deliver what the president wanted of him. Maybe he tried to get out in front of his problem by wading into the Flynn and Stone cases, hoping that a turn towards leniency for them by the DOJ would soften the blow to Trump once he heard the news about McCabe getting off.

I don’t think it’s going to soften it much.

Jake Tapper


DOJ tells former Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe that it will not pursue charges against him.

What happened here, exactly? Could it be that Jessie Liu, the now-departed former U.S. Attorney of the D.C. office that investigated McCabe, was somehow in his corner? No, not according to the NYT: They reported back in September that she and her deputies all recommended charges against McCabe, even after his lawyers met with them and pleaded their case for why none should be filed. Another wrinkle is the fact that a grand jury was called in this case and convened more than once, although there was an odd months-long gap between sessions last year. DOJ lawyers informed McCabe’s attorneys last fall that he should expect to be charged, something prosecutors usually say right before an indictment is issued. But … no indictment followed this time. Legal observers were left scratching their heads at the time at reports that the grand jury had met again and nothing had happened. McCabe’s lawyers heard through the grapevine that they had refused to hand down an indictment — an all but unhead-of occurrence — and wrote to Liu in September asking for confirmation:

Natasha Bertrand


Just in: Andrew McCabe’s legal team says in a new letter to Jesse Liu that based on their conversations with the US Attorney’s office in DC yesterday, “it is clear that no indictment has been returned” against McCabe by the grand jury.

They got no reply. “A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asks it to,” goes the old legal adage. If the DOJ couldn’t meet the “ham sandwich” threshold in this case, even with the D.C. office willing to go forward with charges, what might be the reason? Did the grand jury cut McCabe a break because of his FBI service? Or were they sticklers about the law in this case, which isn’t normally applied to the circumstances in which McCabe lied?

Hints of the case’s weakness had emerged. One prosecutor assigned to the case recently left, an unusual step so close to a potential indictment. Another departed for a private law firm and has expressed reservations about how the case was handled.

A key witness testified that Mr. McCabe had no motive to lie because he was authorized as the F.B.I.’s deputy director to speak to the media, so he would not have had to hide any discussions with reporters. Another important witness testified he could not immediately remember how the leak unfolded. Both would have been crucial to any prosecution.

Additionally, people who are charged with lying to the F.B.I. are typically accused of committing the offense in the course of a criminal investigation, not an administrative inquiry. For example, Mr. Horowitz determined last year that a senior Justice Department official committed wrongdoing by viewing pornography on his work computers and then providing false statements to investigators, but prosecutors declined to bring charges.

Right, right, but still. What about the “ham sandwich” standard? This is a moment when we need FBI director James Comey to burst through the wall and violate half a dozen different DOJ norms by telling us exactly what happened in the secret grand jury proceedings. Without him, we’re left to wonder.

There’s another interesting line in the Times report: “The president’s relentless criticism of the Justice Department likely complicated the prosecution of Mr. McCabe.” No doubt Trump’s endless tweeting about McCabe would have been exploited at trial by the defense, citing it as proof that McCabe’s prosecution was a political vendetta by the president being carried out by his deputies at the DOJ. That couldn’t have influenced the grand jury, though, since the defense’s attorneys aren’t in the room for those proceedings. Is it possible that, instead of the grand jury declining to indict McCabe, the DOJ quietly abandoned the prosecution in the expectation that Trump’s public grudge might make McCabe unconvictable at trial? I’m thinking of Bill Barr telling ABC yesterday that Trump’s tweets are making it impossible for him to do his job. Maybe there was more to that sentiment than we realized at the time.

One more question. If, per the rumors, the grand jury declined to indict McCabe last September, why is he only hearing today that he’s in the clear? Maybe the DOJ went back to the drawing board afterward and looked for a different path towards obtaining an indictment, only finally abandoning it now. According to Lawfare, prosecutors are free to take a shot with a second grand jury at indicting someone whom the first grand jury refused to indict so long as the U.S. Attorney approves. That would have been tricky in a politically charged case like this, though; if news leaked that the first grand jury had refused to indict and then Barr and the D.C. office pressed ahead with a second try at indictment, critics would have savaged him for pursuing a political grudge on Trump’s behalf.

It could be that the timing is a byproduct of the Stone sentencing fiasco. Possibly the DOJ was planning to inform McCabe soon-ish that he wouldn’t be charged and then all hell broke loose over Stone, with Barr attacked as a political hack. Barr needed something quickly that would prove that he’s not doing Trump’s bidding. Voila — the news that McCabe was free was hurried up and released.


Whoa: DOJ won’t charge Andrew McCabe

It’s True: Pelosi’s Dems are LIARS of the Communist Order!!

Trump: The Lesson I Learned From Impeachment Is That Democrats Are Crooked

A reminder from the president that while Ted Cruz and other Senate Republicans may have settled expediently on “bad but not impeachable” as the grounds for acquitting him, that is … not his take on the matter. The only badness here was on the other side. Watch, then read on.

Reporter: “What lesson did you learn from impeachment?”

Trump: “That the Democrats are crooked. They’ve got a lot of crooked things going”

Embedded video

The clip’s enjoyable whether you’re a Trumper or an anti-Trumper. If you like him, you like to see him defiant after his impeachment ordeal. If you don’t like him, you at least like to see him exposing the cynical lie told by Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Lamar Alexander that he might be more circumspect about his behavior after being reproached by Congress over the Ukraine business. Literally no one believed that but Collins and the rest seemed to have calculated that the mere possibility might help justify their votes to acquit him. If — theoretically — the stigmatization of impeachment taught him that he can’t get away with petty corruption like squeezing foreign governments for dirt on Democrats without consequences then it wasn’t really necessary to remove him. He’s learned. He’ll be better now.


Trump: The lesson I learned from impeachment is that Democrats are crooked

Goodness and Truth Still Exist in Our USA Despite Pelosi’s Dem Fascists!


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

This post has been bouncing around the internet, so you may have seen it. But it is worth noting: “After Attending a Trump Rally, I Now Know Democrats Have No Shot in 2020.” The author is a member of the knitting community–yes, there is such a thing.

You might not think of the knitting world as a particularly political community, but you’d be wrong. Many knitters are particularly active in social justice communities and love to discuss the revolutionary role knitters have played in our culture. I started noticing this about a year ago, particularly on Instagram. [I]t was impossible to ignore after roving gangs of online social justice warriors started going after anyone in the knitting community who was not lockstep in their ideology.

The author, Karlyn Borysenko, writes that she considered all Trump voters to be “racists.” But seeing the hate within the left-wing knitting community caused her to question her assumptions:

I started to question everything. How many stories had I been sold that weren’t true? What if my perception of the other side is wrong? How is it possible that half the country is overtly racist? Is it possible that Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing, and had I been suffering from it for the past three years?

And the biggest question of all was this: Did I hate Trump so much that I wanted to see my country fail just to spite him and everyone who voted for him?

The answer to that question, for pretty much every member of the Democratic Party, is Yes.

Ultimately, Ms. Borysenko’s disquiet led her to attend President Trump’s New Hampshire rally the evening before that state’s primary:

In chatting with the folks at the [MSNBC] taping, I casually said that I was thinking about going over to the Trump rally. The first reaction they had was a genuine fear for my safety. I had never seen people I didn’t know so passionately urge me to avoid all those people. One woman told me that those people were the lowest of the low. Another man told me that he had gone to one of Trump’s rallies in the past and had been the target of harassment by large muscle-bound men. Another woman offered me her pepper spray. I assured them all that I thought I would be fine and that I would get the heck out of dodge if I got nervous.

What they didn’t know is that they weren’t the only ones I had heard from who were afraid. Some of my more right-leaning friends online expressed genuine fear at my going, but not because they were afraid of the attendees. They were afraid of people on the left violently attacking attendees. This was one day after a man had run his car through a Republican voter registration tent in Florida, and there was a genuine fear that there would be a repeat, or that antifa would bus people up from Boston for it. Just as I had assured those on the left, I told them I thought I would be fine….

She was, of course, fine. What did she see at the Trump rally?

As I waited, I chatted with the folks around me. And contrary to all the fears expressed, they were so nice. I was not harassed or intimidated, and I was never in fear of my safety even for a moment. These were average, everyday people. They were veterans, schoolteachers, and small business owners who had come from all over the place for the thrill of attending this rally. They were upbeat and excited. In chatting, I even let it slip that I was a Democrat. The reaction: “Good for you! Welcome!”

Once we got inside, the atmosphere was jubilant. It was more like attending a rock concert than a political rally. People were genuinely enjoying themselves. Some were even dancing to music being played over the loudspeakers. It was so different than any other political event I had ever attended. Even the energy around Barack Obama in 2008 didn’t feel like this.

I had attended an event with all the Democratic contenders just two days prior in exactly the same arena, and the contrast was stark. First, Trump completely filled the arena all the way up to the top. Even with every major Democratic candidate in attendance the other night, and the campaigns giving away free tickets, the Democrats did not do that. With Trump, every single person was unified around a singular goal. With the Democrats, the audience booed over candidates they didn’t like and got into literal shouting matches with each other. With Trump, there was a genuinely optimistic view of the future. With the Democrats, it was doom and gloom. With Trump, there was a genuine feeling of pride of being an American. With the Democrats, they emphasized that the country was a racist place from top to bottom.

That is a pretty good on-the-spot window into American politics, circa February 2020. If the knitting community is starting to wobble, who knows what might happen next?


Rebellion In the Knitting Community

Clean House of the Never Trumpers!

from THINK…
President Donald Trump should consider firing every single never-Trumper political appointee in his administration.


In the days following President Donald Trump’s impeachment acquittal, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah — the only Republican to vote with Democrats to convict the president in the Senate trial — has been the object of almost daily scorn. Over the weekend, Trump singled out Romney in a long tweetstorm, claiming that he “hurt some very good Republican Senators, and he was wrong about the Impeachment Hoax.”

Donald J. Trump


Romney hurt some very good Republican Senators, and he was wrong about the Impeachment Hoax. No clue! https://twitter.com/kimstrassel/status/1225142633384665088 

Kimberley Strassel


Mitt Romney may think he’s taking a shot at POTUS. But any real damage he causes will in fact be to Senate Rs in tough races. Schumer’s goal with all this was retaking the Senate. If he succeeds, he’ll hopefully remember to send Romney a thank you.

Earlier in the impeachment saga, Trump had directed his anger at officials who testified against him during the House impeachment inquiry, calling them never-Trumpers. They included career diplomats William Taylor and George Kent and former White House aides Jennifer Williams and Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Last Friday, Vindman was fired from his position at the National Security Council.

Few observers are surprised by Trump’s fury at those who participated in the effort to oust him from office. Most, however, have failed to notice one of the biggest ironies of the Trump administration: It has repeatedly endorsed, hired and elevated critics and opponents.

November 2019: Vindman tells Himes: ‘I’d call myself never partisan’

Want more articles like this? Sign up for the THINK newsletter to get updates on the week’s most important political analysis

No Trump supporter who witnessed Romney’s gratuitous attacks on Trump in the last presidential election should be surprised by his impeachment vote last week. Nevertheless, Trump not only vetted Romney as his potential first secretary of state; he gave a full-throated endorsement when Romney ran for the Senate in 2018.

A Trump endorsement can decide elections. It might or might not have made a difference in Utah, but the president still offered it to a man who had repeatedly gone out of his way to hurt him. After Romney voted to convict Trump, a Trump observer called for the firing of the entire political staff that persuaded Trump to make the endorsement.

But the problem is much bigger than Romney, who was elected by Utah voters and has never served in the Trump administration. The current White House has also welcomed other never-Trumpers into the executive branch for political positions, which number about 4,000 and are filled by each presidential administration. They range from senior officials, whose nominations require Senate confirmation, to policy professionals, lawyers and speechwriters. In past administrations, a candidate’s allegiance to the president was vetted and considered a plus, if not a must. So why is the Trump White House filling any of these spots with people who have been openly (or privately) hostile to the president?

Why is the Trump White House filling any of these spots with people who have been openly (or privately) hostile to the president?

Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor summed up the absurdity of the situation on Fox News. “I think President Trump lost control of the whole appointment process in staffing the government shortly after the election,” he said. “He ended up appointing large numbers of people who subsequently brought in their friends, almost all of whom were opposed to Donald Trump and his agenda.”

Indeed, the appointment of never-Trumpers was aggressively championed and insisted upon by some senior Cabinet members. Some candidates were directly approved by the president himself, while others were proposed by White House political staffers as compromise picks with Cabinet secretaries. Many others slipped in because, despite their anti-Trump sentiments, they had not revealed — or were not asked about — their views in public. Some of the appointments appear to have been downright disastrous. Although many never-Trumpers hired early in the president’s term have departed, others have been elevated or reshuffled as new never-Trumpers continue to enter the administration’s ranks.

Despite reports that no one wishes to work for the Trump administration, the staffing mistakes aren’t being made out of desperation. A number of never-Trumper hires have been communications aides or foreign policy staffers with little specialized expertise. Washington is a town full of people boasting of public affairs skills or claiming to be policy generalists; if you aren’t finding these types of qualified candidates who support the president, it’s probably because you’re not trying hard enough.

Some Trump observers blame senior White House staffers for not acting in the best interests of the president, while others say the president himself has not given staffing the attention it deserves. It’s probably a little of both. Vocal Trump supporters, such as Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham, have tried to persuade the president to spend more time thinking about his personnel, without whom he will have a harder time pursuing his vision.

When those hostile to Trump occupy positions of influence inside the administration, they can create political chaos and policy incoherence.

No president can navigate the federal bureaucracy himself. Which is why past presidents have relied on political appointees to help them execute their priorities. When those hostile to Trump occupy positions of influence inside the administration, they can create political chaos and policy incoherence and erect obstacles to Trump, rather than help him implement the promises he made to voters in 2016.

We know of at least one senior official who is doing precisely that, because the official bragged about it in The New York Times. Yet the administration still has not figured out who the person is, nor has anyone been held responsible for elevating never-Trumpers like the anonymous op-ed writer to senior positions.

Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson regularly sheds light on the policy consequences of hiring people who don’t share the president’s views. For example, when Republicans like John Bolton were beating the drums of war with Iran last month, Carlson noted that the American electorate chose Trump precisely because he promised to reject the “endless wars” pushed for by Washington’s foreign policy elites.

Since Trump’s impeachment acquittal, he has been firing staffers and attacking political opponents who participated in the failed effort to remove him from office. One thing he should seriously consider is firing every single never-Trumper political appointee in his administration. It would go a long way to helping Trump achieve the “Make America Great Again” goals he campaigned on in 2016.