• 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

“Trump is, at this hour, topping Joe Biden in the polls”

DeSantis, Inc. Underestimates Donald Trump

Like so many commonplaces one finds on the lips of talking heads, “electability” may prove to be a confection of partisans blinded by their own preferences.

By Matthew Boose at American Greatness:

February 6, 2023

The 2024 Republican presidential primary has hardly begun, but a consensus has already formed in conservative media that Donald Trump is toxic and unelectable. This narrative, commonplace but seldom challenged, is being pushed aggressively by pundits who are obviously partial to Florida governor Ron DeSantis. Many of these personalities insist that Trump has an obligation to step aside, and they pretend that Trump is attacking DeSantis unprovoked, despite the governor’s obvious intentions to run.

The DeSantis hype is not limited to media personalities, but their lockstep support of the governor is out of sync with the Republican base, where Trump remains quite popular. The self-satisfied euphoria of predestined victory that has swept across DeSantis, Inc. needs a reality check, and it may just get one before long. The reality is that the DeSantis narrative, with its overemphasis on a facile notion of “electability,” is based on a tendentious and superficial reading of recent history and our present political situation. Moreover, it is a reading the MAGA base overwhelmingly rejects. 

Most critically, the overconfidence of the pro-DeSantis camp often comes paired with a complacency about elections. While some might find it futile to keep pressing the matter, the 2020 election was a sham, and it would be a fatal mistake to trust any man to challenge the Left who willingly echoes their fabricated history of the subject. Yet, this is exactly what DeSantis is now doing, with his own Pollyannish spin. “In my case,” he said recently, “not only did we win reelection, we won with the highest percentage of the vote that any Republican governor candidate has had in the history of the state of Florida.” While not naming Trump, DeSantis, sounding a cutesy, above-it-all tone, left little doubt about his meaning. 

It is not surprising, given DeSantis’ obvious ambition to replace Trump, that he would downplay election integrity and reject Trump’s “Big Lie.” But DeSantis’ position puts him at odds with the majority of Republican voters, even those who are skeptical of Trump, who share his belief that he was robbed of a second term and that our elections remain fatally broken. DeSantis’ measured actions on this issue also leave reason to doubt his commitment to taking on the corrupt establishment. He could easily ban the scourge of no-excuse mail-in voting, for example, but this would require him to change how things have been done in Florida since 2002 (incidentally, when George W. Bush was in the White House.) 

If DeSantis is a once-in-a-lifetime political talent, he hasn’t proven it yet. Trump already has. His 2016 upset was the biggest shock in modern American history, and despite what revisionists on the Left and the Right say, he narrowly “lost” re-election under some of the most adversarial circumstances an incumbent has ever faced. Democrats weaponized hysteria over a pandemic and racial unrest, completely changed the nation’s voting habits, and systematically suppressed a major corruption scandal about Joe Biden. Despite unprecedented headwinds, Trump “lost” by about 50,000 votes. It’s easy to forget now, but many Democrats were outraged at the time that Trump came so close to a second term. 

It’s too early to divine what the political climate will look like in 2024, but a Trump-Biden rematch is not destined to be a repeat of 2020. Democrats seem to have tapped out the COVID “emergency” at last, and Democrats will be left with defending Biden’s disastrous record of failure. Notwithstanding challenges with mail-in voting, the historic, contrived chaos that the shadowy “cabal”—to use the memorable phrase of Time’s Molly Ball—orchestrated to force Trump out of power was an aberration that cannot easily be replicated (if for no other reason than that Trump is not the incumbent). A post-COVID election might also work against DeSantis, who has built a political brand largely as a crusader against lockdowns and vaccines (which he initially supported.) 

The DeSantis camp also underestimates the power of the media to shape, even to dictate, public opinion. Trump has a rare political agelessness, an ability to avoid being defined by the endless ephemeral scandals pumped out by the press. DeSantis, while decades younger, has little charisma and shows nothing of Trump’s killer instinct or his street smarts. While Trump takes the press by the collar, DeSantis appears almost obsessed with tweaking the media, tailoring his stunts to provoke a reaction. He is a slave to the news cycle, in this way, not unlike your typical soundbite-spewing Republican on Fox News. 

Like so many commonplaces one finds on the lips of talking heads, “electability” may prove to be a confection of partisans blinded by their own preferences. DeSantis might look “electable” for now, but he has been playing the game on easy mode. He has been puffed up with endless praise by Fox News, despite facing little resistance in imposing his “anti-woke” agenda. Sure, he has dealt with his fair share of mean headlines, but nothing like the scorched-earth, whole-of-society persecution Trump has endured, and overcome, since entering politics. 

Somehow, despite being investigated more times than any man in American political history and being compared to Hitler virtually every day for the past seven years, Trump is, at this hour, topping Joe Biden in the polls, including with the elusive “independent voter.” This is the man who we are told to believe “can’t win” because he isn’t smooth enough for suburban moms. 

Monday morning quarterbacks on the Right tend to exaggerate Trump’s failures and whitewash the unprecedented opposition he has faced from every angle. That he is still competitive at this stage is a testament to his extraordinary character, which remains, as always, underestimated by his critics. 

About Matthew Boose

Matthew Boose is a Mt. Vernon fellow of the Center for American Greatness and a staff writer and weekly columnist at the Conservative Institute. His writing has also appeared in the Daily Caller. Follow him on Twitter @matt_boose

“Since the Biden Institute was established in 2017, the University of Delaware has received $6,704,250 in funding from China, $23,610,996 from Saudi Arabia, $2,513,646 from Oman and $1,673,847 from Turkey, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education”.

FEBRUARY 7, 2023 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


In an alternative universe where the bigfoot media reported the news, Alana Goodman’s findings would be a major story for reasons that require no explanation: “Foreign Nations Poured Millions Into University That Houses Biden Institute.” The university is of course the University of Delaware, about which no one beyond the borders of Delaware should bestir himself. Goodman reports:

China, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Turkey have poured millions of dollars into the University of Delaware since the school launched the Biden Institute, President Joe Biden’s domestic policy think tank led by his sister, according to U.S. Department of Education records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

Since the Biden Institute was established in 2017, the University of Delaware has received $6,704,250 in funding from China, $23,610,996 from Saudi Arabia, $2,513,646 from Oman and $1,673,847 from Turkey, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education.

* * * * *

The University of Delaware has declined to disclose the Biden Institute’s donors and told the Free Beacon in 2020 that these records are not subject to public information laws because the Biden Institute is privately funded.

Well, in the era of the Trump administration, a comparable story about Russia! would have generated days of follow-up stories along with “analysis” and “commentary” about posible “compromise,” “collusion,” “emoluments,” et cetera. Now the story can’t even make the news. The commentary is left to Senator Cotton.


“Almost one year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war is entering a new phase”.

Making Ukrainian Victory Possible – OPINION

 13:31   02 February 2023    Read: 1917

   at azvision:

  Making Ukrainian Victory Possible -   OPINION

by Josep Borrell

Exactly one year ago, it was still unclear whether Europeans would be able to come together to support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. But, following the latest announcements of stepped-up military aid, there can no longer be any doubt about Europe’s willingness to furnish what Ukraine needs to win.

Almost one year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war is entering a new phase. Following the failed attack on Kyiv last spring and the Ukrainians’ stunning counteroffensive that liberated Kharkiv in the north and Kherson in the south, Russian President Vladimir Putin has embarked on a punitive campaign targeting civilians and energy infrastructure with drones and missiles. Stymied on the battlefield, Putin is seeking to maximize the number of Ukrainians forced to spend the winter in the cold and the dark.

The front line has not moved much in recent months. But the fighting remains fierce (with many casualties), and Russia seems to be preparing for a major spring offensive. The Russian economy is on a war footing, and the Kremlin propaganda machine has gone into overdrive, peddling a mix of apocalyptic threats and imperial delusions. Russia’s last independent news outlet, Meduza, and its last human-rights organization, the Sakharov Center, are being forced to close. The mood in Moscow is defiant.

Under these circumstances, Ukraine’s allies are right to scale up their military assistance, including by providing battle tanks. The goal is for Ukraine to prevail against its aggressor. But we cannot wish for that end without giving Ukraine the means to achieve it. The alternative is a prolonged war of attrition, leading to more deaths in Ukraine, greater insecurity for Europe, and continued suffering around the world (owing to Russia’s weaponization of energy and food supplies).

Ukraine’s partners had already committed to provide advanced air defenses like the US-made Patriot missile system, more capable howitzers, and additional armored combat vehicles. But before the recent big breakthrough, there was an intense debate about whether to supply tanks like the German-made Leopard 2 or the US-made M1 Abrams. I, for one, have long argued that we must provide Ukraine with the means to push Russia out. Tanks are necessary for Ukrainian forces to break through the current stalemate of trench warfare, and to regain the momentum they had last fall when they retook Kharkiv and Kherson.

Reaching the “tank agreement” took time and intense discussions, including at the European Union Foreign Affairs Council. The breakthrough came when Germany agreed to deliver Leopard 2s, in coordination with the United States, which will provide some 30 M1 Abrams. Although delivery of these assets will take time and require intensive training and maintenance, the result is not confined to the battlefield. We have sent another powerful signal to Russia that Putin was wrong – once again – to doubt our resolve.

Of course, some will argue that more weapons will prolong the war and risk further escalation, and that diplomatic negotiations are the only solution. But while Europeans will always remain open to anyone who is serious about seeking a negotiated and just end to the war, Russia so far has made clear that it intends to persist with its war crimes. Everyone who has tried to negotiate with Putin has come back empty-handed. Until that changes, we must conclude that the only way to end the war is to give Ukraine the means to drive out the invader.

The EU’s task, therefore, is to do everything in its power to support Ukraine. And that is what we are doing. Together with EU member-state governments, we have already mobilized €12 billion ($13.1 billion) worth of weapons and related supplies for Ukraine, €3.6 billion of which is coming from the European Peace Facility. When also accounting for macro-financial and humanitarian aid, our total support comes close to €50 billion.

Moreover, the EU is now the leading provider of military training for Ukrainian personnel. Through the EU Military Assistance Mission in Poland and Germany, we are on track to have trained 15,000 troops by April, and we are prepared to double the effort and train another 15,000 – including in the use of tanks such as the Leopard 2.

The EU is also working on a tenth package of sanctions, having already cut our dependence on Russian energy imports within the space of just a few months. And make no mistake: the sanctions are working. Russian oil is selling at a $40 discount to Brent, and its daily energy revenues are expected to fall from around €800 million to €500 million after our latest measures kick in this month. The war is costing the Kremlin dearly, and these costs will only rise the longer it lasts.

Last January, just before the invasion, I visited the Donbas region and saw the front line. For obvious reasons, that trip has stuck with me. On my way back through Kyiv, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal acknowledged that “the invasion is coming, and we know you will not come to fight on our side.” But, he hastened to ask, “Will you give us the weapons we need to defend ourselves?”

Frankly, I was not sure how to respond, because I did not know how strong European resolve would be. Today, the answer comes easily. As I travel to Kyiv this week for the EU-Ukraine Summit, no one doubts that Europe has risen to the occasion. Now, we must continue to give Ukraine the means to defeat the aggressor, restore its sovereignty, and find its place in the European Union.

Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, is Vice President of the European Commission for a Stronger Europe in the World.

Don’t Kamala And Joe MOUTHS Represent Their Congressional DEM PERFORMERS WELL?



I like to say that I read the New York Times so that you don’t have to (plus I can claim an online subscription as a tax deduction, which helps), but today is one of those days you wish you had a subscription for the amazing “news” feature on the dismal future prospects of Kamala Harris. Here’s the head:

This “news story” was reported by three Times journalists, but what is the actual “news” that would prompt such an article? Did she collapse while being bundled into a van on a campaign swing? Did she seem to suffer a stroke mid-sentence, like her boss? No: this story has all the hallmarks of agenda journalism untethered to any actual news event.

The article quotes almost no one by name, relying on the favorite media source in politics—”Anonymous”—supposedly for fear of offending the Biden White House. Maybe, but more likely this is a premier instance of “ventriloquist journalism,” where you find a source (and “anonymous” courses are best of all, even when they aren’t made up) to ratify a preexisting story line. In other words, the Times editors decided the time had some to put out a more explicit hit piece on Kamala, and assigned their best political reporters to run the usual playbook. A story like this doesn’t just happen without editorial deliberation.

The resulting article is stunning in its negative portrayal of Harris:

But the painful reality for Ms. Harris is that in private conversations over the last few months, dozens of Democrats in the White House, on Capitol Hill and around the nation — including some who helped put her on the party’s 2020 ticket — said she had not risen to the challenge of proving herself as a future leader of the party, much less the country. Even some Democrats whom her own advisers referred reporters to for supportive quotes confided privately that they had lost hope in her.

Through much of the fall, a quiet panic set in among key Democrats about what would happen if President Biden opted not to run for a second term. Most Democrats interviewed, who insisted on anonymity to avoid alienating the White House, said flatly that they did not think Ms. Harris could win the presidency in 2024. Some said the party’s biggest challenge would be finding a way to sideline her without inflaming key Democratic constituencies that would take offense.

Now with Mr. Biden appearing all but certain to run again, the concern over Ms. Harris has shifted to whether she will be a political liability for the ticket.

I imagine Dan Quayle and the ghost of Spiro Agnew are smiling right now.

This passage is especially fun:

No one feels the frustration of being underestimated more acutely than Ms. Harris, but she makes a point of not exhibiting it publicly. In an interview with The New York Times while she was in Japan last fall, she tried to explain her own political identity.

“You got to know what you stand for and, when you know what you stand for, you know what to fight for,” Ms. Harris said.

What that translates to in tangible terms is less clear.

Let that last sentence sink in: “What that translates to in tangible terms is less clear.” This is not news or even “news analysis.” It is the editorial voice of Times tacitly confessing that Harris is an idiot.

Then there is the sheer comedy:

“My bias has always been to speak factually, to speak accurately, to speak precisely about issues and matters that have potentially great consequence,” she said in the interview in Japan. “I find it off-putting to just engage in platitudes. I much prefer to deconstruct an issue and speak of it in a way that hopefully elevates public discourse and educates the public.”

It is hard to imagine that the Times reporters included this outtake from an interview conducted last fall without laughing, and without malice aforethought.

The article ends with an unintended comic note offered by the totally hackish and terminally lightweight historian Douglas Brinkley (who is a perfect fit for Harris actually as he is a bottomless pit of banality):

“President Biden has to give her more leeway to be herself and not make her overly cautious that a mistake, a rhetorical mistake, will cost the party a lot,” Mr. Brinkley said. “It’s better to let Kamala be Kamala.”

It is one thing to say, 40 years ago, “Let Reagan be Reagan,” but “Let Kamala be Kamala” is exactly why she has become a laughing stock.

Let’s get out, as John McLaughlin used to say. Going back to the drive to oust Nixon in 1973-74, it was necessary first to get Spiro Agnew out. Likewise today before you can push out Biden, you have to get rid of Harris. I don’t go in for any of the favorite fan fiction that the Obamas are behind this as a plot to pave the way for Michelle; I see no evidence that she wants to undergo the rigors of a presidential campaign, nor do I think she’d be any good at it.

If anyone is quietly pushing the “dump Biden/Harris” plan behind the scenes, it’s Hillary Clinton, who still pines for the Oval Office with Gollum-like fanaticism. And sure enough, she makes an appearance in the Times story:

Two [unnamed, naturally] Democrats recalled private conversations in which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented that Ms. Harris could not win because she does not have the political instincts to clear a primary field. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she was strongly supportive of Ms. Harris and often spoke with her about shared experiences of being “a woman in power.” He added: “They have built and maintained a strong bond. Any other characterization is patently false.”

Which means it’s completely true. Pass the popcorn.

“By the end of 2022, the pandemic had cut $12.2 trillion from U.S.”



Governments’ responses to the covid epidemic represent the worst public policy disaster of our time. They were an economic, social, health and educational fiasco. It may have been possible to devise worse policies than the shutdowns that upended America, but it wouldn’t have been easy.

Now, researchers at USC have tried to put a price tag on covid shutdowns:

U.S. GDP fell during the pandemic due to COVID-19 lockdowns and resulted in trillions of dollars in losses in these past years, a consequence mainly driven by mandatory business closure policies, according to a study by researchers from the University of Southern California (USC).

By the end of 2022, the pandemic had cut $12.2 trillion from U.S. GDP, the study published in Economic Modelling journal estimates. Researchers expect total losses to hit $14 trillion by the end of 2023. The study blamed involuntary business closures as the “leading cause” for the massive decline in America’s GDP during this period.

“I’m still amazed at how powerful a negative impact COVID is projected to have on the U.S. economy compared to previous man-made and natural disasters,” said study co-author Adam Rose, a research professor at the USC Price School and senior research fellow at the USC Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Threats and Emergencies (CREATE)…

“COVID’s impact on GDP is estimated to be nearly 100 times more than the previous largest disaster of the 21st century—the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center attacks.”

That sounds about right. What we did to ourselves, mostly at the behest of the Democratic Party, was vastly worse than what any terrorists could do. This is key:

The study blamed three factors for America’s economic decline during the pandemic: deaths and illnesses, mandatory business closures, and voluntary avoidance of activities that stimulate the economy but prevent infection.

Of these three, the study found mandatory business closures had the “greatest impact” on the U.S. economy.

There is much more at the link. My organization produced two papers on the impact of covid shutdowns in Minnesota. This one documented an economic cost in the form of lost GDP from government shutdowns that averaged around $7,500 per family of four through the first quarter of 2021, for a total of approximately $12 billion through that date.

This one shows how government-ordered school closures devastated young people’s academic progress. In my opinion, as terrible as the economic costs of irrational government policies have been, the long-term consequences of the social and educational devastation of our children will prove to be even worse. Let’s hope some lessons have been learned.

“Post-mortems of the midterms concluded that the GOP underperformed in 2022”.

GOP Needs To Turn Lessons of ’22 Into Victories of ‘24


By Erik Iverson at RealClearPolitics:

February 06, 2023

Post-mortems of the midterms concluded that the GOP underperformed in 2022. It’s difficult to argue that we didn’t. But at the end of the day, after the ritual finger-pointing and recriminations from the D.C. consultant class, the real question is: Did we learn enough to avoid a sequel in 2024?

2022 taught us some clear lessons: We need to build a ballot harvesting machine; we have to fix the massive cash gap; and we must execute a more effective message strategy.

As returns came in on Election Day, the cable news talking heads spewed tedious takeaways on turnout. Yes, elections are about turnout and the Democrats did better. Yet the response by some in my party has been to complain about early vote procedures and Democrats gaming the system with their ballot harvesting operation. But early voting and mail-in ballots are here to stay – because voters like these options.

Instead of standing around hand-wringing, Republicans need to build a better ballot harvesting machine that beats Democrats at their own game. We can do this. We just need to accept reality, suck it up, and make fixing the problem a priority. In other words, stop playing defense, for example, by appointing “election integrity officers,” and go on offense and build a ruthless infrastructure to harvest early votes.

The same goes for fundraising. Of course, candidate quality matters and there has rightly been a lot of discussion about it. But when your candidates are outspent 2:1 or even 3:1 in hard dollars by their Democrat opponents – like in Georgia, Arizona and Nevada – you’re probably not going to win. On the abortion issue alone, Democrats outspent Republicans $400 million to $10 million, driving a dishonest but effective message of fear to persuadable voters.

This hard money disparity between Republican and Democrat candidates is alarming and it exists among all tiers of candidates. Our party needs to focus on fixing this chasm. If we don’t, nothing else matters.

The GOP also needs to pivot our message strategy, in three key ways.

First, speak to solutions, not just to the base. This is critical, as battleground state elections are often decided by less than 8% of the electorate. Candidates who speak just to the base are simultaneously scaring the daylights out of the persuadable universe – and painted as extremists by the left and the media. Turn out the base by talking about Biden’s failures – there are plenty of them. But earn the trust of the persuadable voter by talking about solutions. Some 2022 Republicans did exactly that.

Many GOP candidates did a good job creating a contrast and tying their opponent to President Biden’s failures. But Senate candidates who lost in 2022 can learn some lessons from winning gubernatorial candidates. Brian Kemp talked about the booming Georgia economy. Ron DeSantis leaned into reopening Florida and his COVID response. Sheriff Lombardo laid out his solutions on education and affordable housing. Sure, they threw red meat to the base – candidates must. But they also talked about solutions and accomplishments – and that’s what made the persuadables, often 8%-10% of the electorate, vote for the Republican candidate.

Second, speak in a tone that voters can hear. In contemporary American politics the issue sets that engage and persuade voters are more myriad than candidates – and political consultants – care to admit. Each voter is unique, and the vast majority are capable of deciding when to turn out and support or oppose a candidate, and when to stay home.

Attack ads work and the polling data backs that up. But like the next Marvel superhero movie, campaigns in this country have become predictable, unmemorable, billion-dollar blockbusters. In a world inundated with social media, streaming, and mobile devices, choices are unlimited and attention spans are short. What’s clear in the research is that voters crave original content and unifying themes that bring people together. Doom scrolling and endless attack ads are a byproduct of a broken system, not a defining feature of American democracy. Politics should be an additive in the lives of voters, and creating an effective tone starts with turning down the noise.

Finally, don’t just talk to white voters. More than one in four 2022 midterm election voters were people of color, including over 11% Latino and Hispanic, many of whom reside in battleground states. In Arizona and Nevada alone, Hispanic and Latino populations increased 84% and 148% over the last twenty years, respectively. Republicans can’t simply airdrop into these districts in September of an election year and hope to garner the vote share they need to win. Only a sustained effort works. Marco Rubio proved this by starting early and vastly outspending Val Demings on Spanish language media platforms, meanwhile earning 56% of the Hispanic vote. This should be the rule, not the exception.

With the elections for speaker and RNC chair behind them, now is the time for Republicans to turn the lessons of 2022 into the victories of 2024.

Erik Iverson is a Republican pollster and president of Moore Information Group.  

America’s Fascist Left AT ITS BEST?!



After the Chinse spy balloon was publicly exposed over Montana last week, we followed the evolving administration leaks to friendly media outlets. The leaks inadvertently portrayed the administration in a bad light and ultimately resulted in the decision to shoot the thing down after it had traversed the continental United States. All the while Joe Biden has appeared as a senescent blowhard, i.e., in a light that appears shockingly close to the truth.

Subsequent leaks and statements have attempted to counter the appearance of somnolent passivity. First we heard that Chinese spy balloons had checked us out previously in the Trump administration, so Biden’s passivity had a venerable precedent. Upon the denials of every relevant Trump administration officials, the story evolved. These previous flights were recent discoveries. As of yesterday, NSC spokesman John Kirby supported this version of the story but professed that his tongue was tied. He couldn’t go into “the forensics.”

The joy of Jimmy Webb’s “Up, Up and Away” is conveyed in the line ‘For we can fly!” The essence of the Biden administration is conveyed in a twist on that line: “For we can lie!” KJP takes a stab at the administration’s current version of the Trump precedent in the clip at the bottom. Here is the entire exchange as set forth in the White House transcript of yesterday’s briefing:

Q How is it possible that this administration discovered at least three previous balloons that flew over the U.S. under the previous administration, but Trump officials didn’t know it was happening?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so, look, I think that — and we have talked about this before, about how the — when it — when the PRC government surveillance balloons trans- — trans- — trans- — transited the continental U.S. briefly at least three times, as you just mentioned, during the President’s — the prior administration and once that we know of the beginning of this administration’s. But never for this duration of time, as we know.

This information was discovered prior to the admin- — administration left, but the intelligence community, as I said, is prepared to give — give briefings to key officials. But this is something —

Q Prior or post?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — this is something — sorry, post. So this is something that we — they did not — they were not aware of, as we’ve just laid out. But again, we are ready to brief key officials to let them know what — you know, what the intelligence community was able to figure out.

Q But is there anything you can share about how you became aware of it? Like, did you —


Q Is there — I just don’t — did you go back and look at some —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to get into the intelligence community — intelligence community information from here. That’s not something that we do from the — certainly from the briefing room.

What I can say is that we learned of this, the three prior, during the past administration. And — and so we’re — we are willing to share that information. But again, I’m just not going to get into intelligence from here.

More to come. For knowledgeable commentary, see “China balloon, a layered scandal” by Robert Charles at RCP and “Biden’s ‘but Trump!’ deceptive balloon defense deflates” at the New York Post. See also “New Info on Chinese Spy Balloon From NORAD Commander Is Jaw-Dropping” by Nick Arama at RedState.

REPORTER: “How is it possible that this administration discovered at least three previous balloons that flew over the US under the previous administration, but Trump officials didn’t know it was happening?” KJP: “Yeah, so, look, I think that uh, and we have talked about this…”

“Britain has more doctors per capita than the U.S., although its overall health care expenditure is considerably lower”.



Britain’s National Health Service is a product of the socialist wave that overtook the U.K. following World War II. It has long been held up as an exemplar by those who seek to impose socialized medicine in other countries, like ours. But today, the state of the NHS is dire. The Wall Street Journal headlines: “The U.K.’s Government-Run Healthcare Service Is in Crisis.”

Now the state-funded service is falling apart. People who suffer heart attacks or strokes wait more than 1½ hours on average for an ambulance. Hospitals are so full they are turning patients away. A record 7.1 million people in England—more than one in 10 people—are stuck on waiting lists for nonemergency hospital treatment like hip replacements.

Horror stories multiply. Many Brits die while waiting for ambulances.

Just before 5 p.m. on Nov. 18, the family of Martin Clark called 999, the U.K. equivalent of 911, after the 68-year-old father of five began having chest pains. After waiting half an hour, the family said, they called again and pleaded for an ambulance, saying Mr. Clark’s condition was getting worse. In another call 15 minutes later, they told the dispatcher they were going to drive him to hospital themselves, according to the family, even though the dispatcher encouraged them to wait for the paramedics.

Twenty minutes after the family had left for the hospital, the dispatcher left a voice mail to say the service still didn’t have an ambulance to send. Mr. Clark died shortly after arriving at the hospital.

Malpractice can happen anywhere, but inept treatment has become routine at the NHS:

About a week later, 5-year-old Yusuf Mahmud Nazir died from what began as a throat infection. His family said they had taken the boy, who was having trouble breathing, to the emergency room at their local hospital in Rotherham, which gave him some antibiotic pills after a six-hour wait and sent him home. The family said it pleaded with the hospital a few days later to let Yusuf be admitted and given further tests, but were told the hospital was full.

By the time the family got Yusuf by ambulance to another hospital, he had severe pneumonia. He died days later from organ failure and cardiac arrest.

Interestingly, Britain has more doctors per capita than the U.S., although its overall health care expenditure is considerably lower. This is remarkable: “The NHS is Europe’s biggest employer, with around 1.2 million staffers.”

With the NHS crumbling, one-eighth of British adults paid for private health care last year. The rest waited in line, sometimes with fatal results. One can only wonder why anyone would want to impose the British system here, notwithstanding the obvious flaws, largely government-caused, in our own health care system.

There is much more at the link, which I have made publicly accessible.