• 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

Stupidity University of Mn Captures, “Sells” Lefty Stupid Gender Follies


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

The University of Minnesota has published in draft form a new “gender identity” policy. The Star Tribune headlines: “He, she or ze? Pronouns could pose trouble under University of Minnesota campus policy.”

Using the wrong pronoun could turn into a firing offense at the University of Minnesota.

The U is considering a new “gender identity” policy that would assure transgender men and women, as well as others, the right to use whatever pronoun they wish on campus — whether it’s he, she, “ze” or something else.

And everyone from professors to classmates would be expected to call them by the right words or risk potential disciplinary action, up to firing or expulsion.

Gender nazis love to get people fired.

The University offers a menu of gender identities and pronouns from which students can choose:

Personal Pronoun

• He/him/his

• None

• Prefer not to specify

• She/her/hers

• They/them/theirs

• Ze/Zir/Zirs

Gender identity

• Agender

• Enter your own

• Gender nonconforming

• Genderqueer

• Man

• Nonbinary

• Prefer not to specify

• Two spirit

• Woman

The purpose is to prevent the dreaded “misgendering.”

The pronoun rule is just one of the proposed changes in a draft U policy that, advocates say, would bar harassment and discrimination against transgender and “gender nonconforming” individuals. It’s designed, in part, to combat an indignity known as misgendering — when someone is called by a name or personal pronoun they no longer use.

Misgendering is when you see a woman and refer to her as “she.”

The new policy isn’t directed only at policing speech:

The pronoun rule isn’t the only potentially contentious issue in the proposed policy. Among other things, it would also give individuals the right to access men’s or women’s locker rooms, recreational activities and housing based on their self-identified gender, rather than their biology. Konstan said he’s heard concerns about how that might affect roommate assignments, for example.

When I was 18 or 19, I would have thought integrated showers were a great idea. No doubt the concept will be embraced by today’s undergraduates, but not for the reasons intended by the committee that is drafting the policy.

The University of Minnesota proposal is in draft form for comment, and may be revised before it is implemented. In any event, it typifies the craziness that is going on at academic institutions these days. This is one of several reasons why higher education has fallen into disrepute.



New York Times Big Shots Suggest Civil War Against Trump Court Choice


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Remember the good old days when the Left pretended to worry about “eliminationist rhetoric”? Now, they don’t even pretend to worry about a Bernie Sanders volunteer trying to murder Republican Congressmen.

Yesterday’s New York Times editorial on the judiciary illustrates how far around the bend the Democratic Party has gone:

With Republicans controlling the Senate and the judicial filibuster dead, the Democrats’ odds of denying President Trump a second Supreme Court appointment are slim. Barring some unforeseen development, the president will lock in a 5-to-4 conservative majority, shifting the court solidly to the right for a generation.

This is all the more reason for Democrats and progressives to take a page from “The Godfather” and go to the mattresses on this issue.

“Going to the mattresses” means starting a gang war. Despite the editorialists’ reference to The Godfather, one assumes they mean the phrase as a metaphor. But a metaphor for what? Given the current frequency of violence and threats of violence against Republicans, it would be reassuring if the Times would make it clear that the paper isn’t actually calling for Republicans to be murdered.

[T]his is the moment for Democrats to drive home to voters the crucial role that the judiciary plays in shaping this nation, and why the courts should be a key voting concern in Every. Single. Election.
As hyperpartisanship, gridlock and a general abdication of responsibility have rendered Congress increasingly dysfunctional, the judiciary is taking an ever-greater hand in policy areas ranging from immigration to guns to ballot access to worker rights.

The Times really doesn’t seem to understand that the federal judiciary is not supposed to play a “crucial role in shaping this nation,” or to “tak[e] an ever-greater hand in policy areas….” That is the Democrats’ vision of the role of the judiciary, but not the Republicans’, or the Constitution’s.

[E]ven if Senate Democrats pull out all the stops, the political reality is that Republicans have been far more effective than Democrats at galvanizing their base around the judiciary.

Well, yeah. That is because conservative justices just decide cases, while liberal justices seek to play a “crucial role in shaping this nation” by “taking an ever-greater hand in policy areas,” always by tilting to the left. No wonder Republican voters are more up in arms about the judiciary than Democrats!

The New York Times has become a fount of intemperate rhetoric. Do you remember any conservative newspaper talking about Barack Obama this way? True, there are hardly any conservative newspapers, but still:

Even conservatives turned off by Mr. Trump’s sexual creepiness could be rallied around the prospect of claiming that [Scalia’s] seat.
Long after Mr. Trump is nothing but a toxic memory, the federal judiciary — from the Supreme Court on down — will bear the smear of his fingerprints.

Perhaps the politest thing we can say about the New York Times editorialists is that they talk like people who have lost the argument.



The Left’s Drive to Destroy Democratic America Increases

As Trump Builds, the Resistance Shouts ‘Destroy!’

by Roger Kimball at PJMedia:

To every thing,” observed the sage of Ecclesiastes, “there is a season…. A time to be born, and a time to die; … A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up,” et cetera. What this estimable observer of human life omitted from his bracing catalogue of oppositions is the fact that one side of these partnerships tends to be much easier to accomplish than the other.

To the eye of experience, this is obvious. How much time, labor, and inherited expertise go into building an automobile, a house, a city, a civilization. How quickly they can be destroyed by disaster or neglect.

Our house on Long Island Sound was built in 1924 as a summer cottage. Over the years, various owners added this and that, until it was a modest suburban home. Over the course of a few hours in October 2012, it was all but destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. It took more than a year, much labor and a lot of money, to put everything back together.

Look at Venezuela. With the world’s largest proven oil reserves, the South American country emerged from military rule in 1959 and became a bastion of prosperity in the Southern hemisphere. Then came the socialist Hugo Chavez in 1999. His policies pushed the country into decline, slowly at first, and then rapidly. Today, under the rule of Chavez’s hand-picked successor Nicolás Maduro, the country is on the verge of collapse. Inflation is running at 40,000 percent, there are widespread shortages of food, medicine, and other basic necessities, looting and corruption are rampant, people and capital are fleeing the country.

It did not take long to destroy Venezuela. It will take many years, much heartache and suffering, and enormous resources to put it back together.

There is a lesson here for the loud and unseemly American Leftists and their unlikely brethren, the soi-disant “conservative” Never Trumpers, who are trampling on civility, rejecting the processes of democratic governance, and encouraging violence. “There’s a deal of ruin in a nation,” Adam Smith observed to a disconsolate Brit during the American Revolution, especially a nation as prosperous and stable as the United States.

But even here there is a ne plus ultra, a threshold of destructiveness beyond which “things fall apart,” as Yeats put in it in The Second Coming, and “the centre cannot hold”:

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Representative Maxine Waters with her incontinent ravings; Never-Trump commentator Jennifer Rubin pronouncing a “lifetime sentence” of harassment upon Donald Trump’s press secretary Sarah Sanders because she supports the president. Such “passionate intensity,” I submit — and you, Dear Reader, can supply a hundred additional examples — are both childish and irresponsible.


Nothing Like the Joy of Socialism….From Stalin to Mao, to Zinn and Chomsky, to Venezuela


by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

The liberal press tells us that socialism is ascendant. College students, apparently, are largely socialists. And some think that Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, etc. are dominant, no matter how stupid they may be.

I can’t explain why so many American liberals don’t care whether socialism works. Maybe liberals are just dumb. Perhaps there is another explanation that I can’t think of. But happily, most people care about what works.

Michael Ramirez comments on the ongoing disaster that is Venezuela. You know when you are living in a socialist country when there are no more pets, because they have been eaten. Also, no more rats: people fight over their dead carcasses, hoping for a main course for dinner. That is the context of Michael’s most recent cartoon. Click to enlarge:

(Note by ghr)  There is always the Soviet Union to review…..but most Americans at today’s University under age 50 whether student or ‘professor’ possess no knowledge of  the meaning of “words”  the Soviet Union, or USSR, or Stalin…much less Pol Pot or Chairman Mao much less their history.


Democrats on a Venezuela Program for Our America? Fascists are Fascists Regardless of Geography!


by John Hinderaker at  PowerLine:

An election is going on in Venezuela. In a country where there are no more pets and children join gangs to fight over dumpster refuse, while their parents battle for dead rats to eat for dinner, you would expect the incumbent party to lose a free election. But Nicolas Maduro will no doubt be re-elected, in part because the polls are being boycotted by most of his opponents. So Venezuela’s socialist catastrophe will most likely continue, for now. The Associated Press reports:

Sunday’s election has drawn broad criticism since some of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s most-popular rivals were barred from running, and several more were forced into exile.

There were a lot of other irregularities, too, but barring your rivals from running is a tried-and-true path to a second term.

Here in the U.S, the Democratic Party tried a subtler approach. It hired Fusion GPS to fabricate smears against Donald Trump, and then leaked those smears to news outlets that it controls (i.e., nearly all of them) and used the smears to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. The Democrats also conveyed the Fusion GPS fantasies to high-ranking office-holders like Harry Reid, who used them to attack candidate Trump. But reporters were squeamish about running with the Fusion GPS story, which few actually believed, and, to the Democrats’ dismay, Trump won the election.

So the Democrats went into overdrive. Shortly before President-Elect Trump’s inauguration, Obama’s CIA and FBI leaders “briefed” Trump on the Fusion GPS dossier, which Trump naturally knew was an absurd pack of lies. No matter: that “intelligence briefing,” leaked to the press, opened the floodgates, and Democratic Party news outlets promptly went public with the contents of the false dossier, in an effort to disable President-Elect Trump’s nascent administration.

At the moment, the Democrats’ relatively subtle approach doesn’t appear to be working very well. Next time, perhaps, they won’t take any chances, and will go full Maduro.




How Millennial Socialists Endanger America

by Jeffrey Folks  at American Thinker:


Millennials, those born between 1982 and 2004, are the largest age cohort in American history, and according to a recent poll, most of them (44%) prefer socialism to capitalism (42%).  An earlier 2015 poll found an even larger number of Millennials (53%) with a “favorable opinion” of socialism.  Inference: America is in trouble.

Maybe Donald Trump can stem the tide for another four or even eight years, but support for socialism will continue to mount as long as Millennials remain ignorant of what socialism really is.  The greatest danger to this country comes from the fact that so many Millennials don’t understand politics and economics.

How else to explain Millennial support for Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist?  With a 75% approval rating overall, and higher among Millennials, Sanders is “the most popular politician in the country,” according to the Observer.  According to his official website, Sanders supports a long list of liberal causes: free health care and college tuition for all, “combating climate change to save the planet,” “fighting for women’s rights,” “fighting for LGBT equality,” “fighting for nurses,” “empowering tribal nations,” “fighting for the rights of native Hawaiians,” “standing with Guam” (huh?) – all of it paid for by “making the wealthy pay their fair share.”  It seems that Bernie is “fighting” for just about everybody except straight white males and that nebulous crowd he calls “the rich.”

Sanders intends to use the tax code to force the rich to pay more.  Oddly enough, Sanders himself is one of these nefarious rich people.  His net income in 2016 was over one million dollars.  Nothing in the tax code prevents any taxpayer from contributing more than their required amount of tax to the federal government.  So far as I know, Bernie has not done so.  So it would seem that he doesn’t mean it when he talks about the rich paying more, or he would have done so.  Maybe Bernie is just a clever capitalist, who, along with Nancy Pelosi with her $140 million and financier husband, masquerades as a socialist.

At its heart, capitalism is a liberating philosophy of life whereby individuals participate freely in markets by trading their goods or services for those of others.  Under capitalism, individuals are incentivized to work by the rewards of the free market.  Socialism substitutes state control and state ownership.  It dictates wages and prices, creating a hugely inefficient and corrupt system that always ends in bankruptcy.  Bernie’s vision of the future is so hackneyed a version of all this that it would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

According to one respected website, Bernie’s health care plan (“Medicare for All”) alone would bankrupt America.  Estimates of Medicare for All costs to taxpayers range from $3.1 to $14 trillion over the first decade.  Bernie proposes to fund his proposal by raising taxes on the rich, but that revenue, even if it could be collected, would not be enough.  With F.Y. 2018 federal spending at $4 trillion, the addition of another $855 billion in annual spending (based on an average of the estimates for Bernie’s plan) involves a 21.4% tax increase (not counting funding for all of Bernie’s other initiatives).  Since they already pay 90% of taxes, and since Bernie rules out middle-class tax increases, this increase would fall exclusively on the top 10% of earners.  So for those affluent taxpayers, Bernie’s plan for health care alone would entail a tax increase of 23.75%.

Meanwhile, Bernie’s “free” college tuition plan would cost an estimated $70 billion annually.  That’s another 1.94% increase in federal tax for “the rich.”  Climate change initiatives, increased regulation, and race- and gender-based giveaways would place more burdens on affluent taxpayers.  Altogether, Sanders-style socialism would drive marginal federal and state rates to at least 70% in high-tax states, not counting sales tax, property tax, and countless other taxes and fees.

Meanwhile, socialism promises what amounts to income for life for those who choose not to work.  This being the case, who in his right mind would strive to become a successful entrepreneur – or surgeon, accountant, or business leader – when he could hang out in Boulder and smoke dope for the next forty years?

There are many words to describe socialism. Having lived under communism myself, I am thoroughly familiar with the idleness, poverty, and demoralization collectivism breeds.  It was commonplace to visit a restaurant in Belgrade, be handed an elaborate menu listing hundreds of choices, and then be told, “Soup, salad, and bread – nothing else today.”  Loss of power and water in communist Yugoslavia and Bulgaria was an everyday occurrence.  And secret police and neighborhood spies were everywhere.  Among the old, there was bitterness, and among the young, only the ambition to get out.  That to me is the essence of socialism: idleness, poverty, and repression.  But how many Millennials know this?  How many care to know?

Not many, and not many of their teachers are making an effort to teach them about socialism.  Within university departments of history, among faculty who should know better, liberals outnumber conservatives by a ratio of more than 33 to 1.

With the sort of education they receive, it’s not surprising that Millennials are attracted by the increasing radicalism of the Democratic Party – and given the radicalism of its base, it’s not surprising that the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming openly socialist.

According to Pew Research, Millennials tilt Democratic by a 51-to-35% margin.  Interestingly, their grandparents (the “Silent Generation,” aged 69-86) have now abandoned the Democratic Party in large numbers.  These voters contributed to Trump’s victory in 2016.  What does the Silent Generation know that Millennials don’t?

To begin with, they know that the world is a dangerous place.  They grew up in the shadow of WWII and lived through the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War.  They lived with the fear of all-out nuclear war, with reports of Soviet spying and the horrors of Chinese and North Korean communism.  They learned of gulags, executions, and starvation – and they knew how fortunate they were to have been born in America.

They also know how difficult it is to maintain a decent standard of living.  In their childhood, they heard tales of the Great Depression.  They grew up at a time when the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour – that’s an hour of real labor, not chatting or surfing the internet.  They built wealth patiently from small beginnings, via a 30-year mortgage, Social Security, and contributions to retirement plans.  They knew how hard it was to put money away.

The Silent Generation’s hard-knocks wisdom is a long way from the smug assurance of those who have never lived without wi-fi.  I don’t wish ill on anyone, but I know that a time of testing is at hand for Millennials.  With more than $21 trillion in debt America is moving toward a debased currency and a permanently lower standard of living.  And despite the assurances of Millennial historians such as Yuval Noah Harari, war is not really a thing of the past.  Another great war is coming – one America may well lose.  I doubt if our adversaries will be as magnanimous as America was following WWII.

Millennials seem willfully blind to these possibilities.

Millennials as a group have lost sight of a fundamental law underlying all civilization.  Call it self-preservation, self-interest, or simply survival.  It was the great truth that Churchill cited when he rallied Britain to defense in 1940.  It was what George S. Patton meant when he said, “The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.”

Most Millennials, I suspect, are not great Patton fans.  They can’t understand the wisdom underlying his salty language or his heroic life.  They can’t appreciate Patton because they don’t accept that life involves struggle.  And since that truth is at the heart of capitalist economic theory, they don’t understand or accept capitalism.

Socialism obscures that truth, and it does so in the service of the selfish ends of both the ruling elite and the dissolute masses.  It is founded on the lie that the human species can live everywhere in peace, accepting the rule of distant bureaucracies and subsisting on an “equal” dole of crumbs.

Inevitably, Millennials will learn from their mistakes, but the learning curve will be difficult and the consequences painful.

If Millennials succeed in installing an Elizabeth Warren-like figure in the White House, it will be a long and uncertain road back to human freedom.  After decades of socialism, aging Millennials may learn their lesson, but at the cost of a lifetime wasted, and the future ruined for the rest of us.

Wouldn’t it be better if they would just wake up?



Mike Pompeo Better Become U.S. Secretary of State..OR MITCH McCONNELL’S HEAD SHOULD ROLL

Deadline: Corker Sets Monday Committee Vote On Pompeo Confirmation; Update: Heitkamp Endorses Pompeo

by Ed Morrissey  at HotAir:

Let the games … continue. There’s already been a considerable amount of game-playing surrounding the confirmation of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Democrats have their first real opportunity to block a Donald Trump Cabinet appointee in a floor vote, and the first step is to tarnish Pompeo with a negative recommendation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Chair Bob Corker started the countdown today to a Monday committee vote:

SEE ALSO: Lindsey Graham: I endorse Trump for the 2020 GOP nomination

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has set a vote for Monday on Mike Pompeo’s nomination as President Trump’s secretary of state.

Pompeo, who has made headlines in recent days for his secret trip to North Korea over Easter weekend, won the backing of the committee last year as CIA director but faces longer odds this time.

To secure the committee’s blessing, Pompeo will need at least one vote from the 10 Democrats on the 21-member panel. That’s because the day after Pompeo’s nomination was announced, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), formally stated his opposition to Pompeo’s bid.

It’s not just Paul now, either. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who plans to retire at the end of the year, stated that he’s not sure whether he’ll support Pompeo in committee or on the floor, either. That would force Corker to find two Democrats on the SFRC in order to get a positive recommendation for the full confirmation floor vote that Mitch McConnell will likely expedite, regardless of how the committee vote goes.

Needless to say, the likelihood of even getting one Democrat on the committee is rather low. Ranking member Bob Menendez has publicly stated his opposition to Pompeo, as have most of the other Democrats on the SFRC. That makes the necessity of shoring up the GOP position even more urgent, and Reason’s Robby Soave reports this morning that Trump himself has lobbied Paul to reconsider:

President Donald Trump is confident he will ultimately convince Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) to vote to confirm CIA Director Mike Pompeo, the president’s pick to be the next secretary of state. Trump told reporters that Paul “is a very special guy” who has “never let me down.” …

CNN reported that Trump called Paul yesterday and asked him to give Pompeo another chance:

Paul told reporters on Capitol Hill that Trump called him a “few minutes ago” and asked for him to meet with Pompeo and he will.

“I’m open to meeting right now and we’ll see what happens in the meeting,” he said with a smile, adding that no date had been set for the meeting.

The administration is hoping that Pompeo’s starring role in setting up peace talks with North Korea and dialing down the need for military action will appeal to Paul. If Paul flips back, one would presume that Flake would come along for the ride, leaving Corker with the majority he needs to avoid embarrassing the White House.

Either way, though, McConnell intends to have a floor vote on Pompeo. In a floor speech earlier today, McConnell insisted that a vote against Pompeo would be a vote against the diplomacy that naysayers claim they’re defending:

In recent days, the world learned Director Pompeo had undertaken initial conversations with representatives of North Korea, in an effort to bring Kim Jong Un to the table and discuss denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. Pursued with clear-eyed realism and clear objectives, this is a worthy effort, and in the best interests of the United States, our allies, and the world.

Although every Commander-in-Chief has insisted it would be unacceptable for North Korea to obtain a nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, it is this administration that finds itself having to actually accomplish that objective. So as a matter of policy, I was encouraged by this news. Based on Director Pompeo’s impressive record at the CIA, the North Koreans undoubtedly view him as credible, determined, and insightful. The quiet nature of these discussions reflect their seriousness. …

I’ve recently heard some critics claim the Trump administration places too little emphasis on diplomacy. In truth, the public statements of Secretary Mattis, former Secretary Tillerson, and former national security advisor McMaster have signaled a clear preference for aggressive, realistic diplomacy over potentially risking American lives. But regardless, in confirming Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, the Senate can ensure the nation has a chief diplomat who enjoys the complete confidence of the president.

Those who claim to want a larger role for diplomacy should match those words with action and vote to approve him.

That will be just five minutes of a 30-hour debate sometime next week or the week after, regardless of what the SFRC does. But if Paul and Flake aren’t coming along, can Pompeo prevail? John McCain may or may not be around for the vote due to his health, and McCain might have reservations about Pompeo too [see update]. That leaves 48 Republicans and a two-vote gap for McConnell and Trump. Can they get two from Democrats?

The Hill’s Jordan Cainey reports that it’s possible:

Of the 15 minority members who backed Pompeo for CIA director, roughly half have now said they will oppose him for the State Department. Being the country’s top diplomat, they say, is vastly different from running a spy agency. …

Of the Senate Democrats who supported Pompeo’s CIA nomination, seven have yet to say how they’ll vote now: Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Minority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Mark Warner (Va.). King has also not said how he will vote.

Pompeo met with Warner and McCaskill on Wednesday and had previously met with Manchin and Heitkamp.

“Still working on it. … We had a good conversation. We’re having more of them,” Manchin said on Wednesday.

Four of these face tough re-election bids in states Trump won in 2016: McCaskill, Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp. They’d be more likely to flip if the SFRC reports Pompeo out with an endorsement, though, in order to protect their left flank when it comes time to rally Democrats in these states to the polls. But there’s another Democrat who wasn’t around for Pompeo’s CIA confirmation vote that might have even more reason to be, er, reasonable:

Some moderate Democrats, as well as independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, declined to weigh in, saying they want to discuss it with the nominee first. “I’m going to reserve my comments, and let me talk to Director Pompeo about all that,” said Sen. Doug Jones, a Democrat from Alabama.

Other moderate Democrats who are undecided on Pompeo’s nomination say his North Korea trip is not a major concern. “It might be a positive thing, actually,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. “I look at it as a potential positive.”

Jones owes his seat to the incompetence of Republicans in a special election, not a shift to the left in Alabama. He has to run for re-election, and helping to torpedo one of Trump’s nominees will be portrayed as a sign that Jones is nothing more than a rubber stamp for Democratic party leaders. Tester is an even more interesting case, though, since he seems to be in pretty good position to win re-election whatever he chooses here.

All of this becomes unnecessary if Trump and Pompeo can convince Rand Paul to come back into the fold. Which means that …. all of this will likely be necessary.