Impeachment is not a coup. Republicans have seized on the stupidest talking point to come out of the stupidest age in American politics. Impeachment is a constitutional process the Democrats have every right to start. But the Senate Republicans have every right to reject this as partisan gamesmanship, too. Impeachment is not a coup. It is political. Republicans are right to treat it as such.
You will have to excuse me if I am not in favor of throwing the President out of office over a phone call that amounted to nothing. A year ago, I would have taken this more seriously. But the nation is less than a year from the election. Democrats are not making an effort to persuade. They are making a political show, coordinated with a whistleblower and egged on by an American media that has been demanding impeachment since the President&#8217;s inauguration.
I have a hard time trusting the media to give fair analysis on this subject. As a nation, we have collectively watched respected journalists lose their minds over the past three years because President Donald Trump broke them. Firing James Comey would end him. Robert Mueller would end him. The Cabinet would exercise the 25th amendment. The GOP would stand up to him. Joe Walsh would beat him. Every wet spaghetti noodle of an accusation has been hurled at the White House wall to see what might stick to take out Orange Man Bad.
Democrat holdovers from the Obama administration have ruthlessly leaked to try to undermine the President&#8217;s agenda. The Supreme Court has continually had to stop federal judges appointed by Barack Obama from overstepping their authority to undermine the President&#8217;s agenda. Democrats have convinced themselves Russia stole the election and the President is illegitimate; therefore, anything to stop him is fair game.
Why should anyone take an impeachment process seriously when it is led by these people and pontificated on by the press, both of whom have had a multiyear agenda of ending this presidency?
Concurrently, why should anyone have faith in the President to not do what he is doing? Any president asking any foreign government to investigate a political rival is a devastating thing for the integrity of our republican processes. The President only cared about Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings Ltd. after Joe Biden became a candidate. What would a second term of this President look like when he no longer has voter accountability to contend with? However, it is worth noting that no investigation happened, and Ukraine did get its money. According to Trump, there was a good bit of time Ukraine did not even know the money was being withheld.
Of all the behavior about which Democrats could have probed the President — including the issue of steering business to his properties — the Democrats chose to build their entire impeachment inquiry around a single phone call that got the President nothing. The media nods along. Everyone who is smart, sophisticated and concerned about the Constitution is supposed to nod along knowingly with furrowed eyebrows. But we are going to take out a President through impeachment over a phone call that got him nothing? Even Bill Clinton was impeached for more than that — lying under oath to harm the interests of an American citizen with a claim against him in a court of law.
The President&#8217;s behavior was wrong. We should also keep in mind he has behaved in this way because Democrats have been trying to sabotage him since he got elected. The whistleblower himself is purported to be a partisan progressive activist. We know for certain he coordinated with Rep. Adam Schiff&#8217;s office. We know &#8220;Anonymous&#8221; was, or still is, in the Trump White House, working to undermine the President. We know from the Democrats&#8217; impeachment witnesses that they were not just concerned about a quid pro quo; they vehemently disagreed with the duly elected President&#8217;s changes in foreign policy.
Naturally and understandably, the President felt he had to rely on outside people to help him accomplish his agenda. No one is going to change their mind on this. Instead of this political process, we should settle this at the ballot box.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

American Flag.

ERICKSON: Let The Voters Decide

Donald Trump

Impeachment

Ukraine

We should be able to objectively acknowledge the Democrats are rushing impeachment. They are. The impeachment of Richard Nixon took months just to investigate. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was based on a multiyear independent counsel investigation. This is a few weeks of Rep. Adam Schiff coordinating with a whistleblower behind closed doors, and now the spotlight is on a year-end rush to get the articles of impeachment drafted.
A trial will come at the beginning of next year. The election is less than a year away. Democrats in the Senate will be forced to miss campaign time for Iowa and New Hampshire.
Friends who really feel strongly will tell me the rule of law matters, but this is a political process. It is not a court of law process. If it were really about the rule of law, Democrats would not be in a rush to justice. They would be methodical.
In fact, we are in a funny game where Republicans say we need to hear from the original accuser: the whistleblower. The President has the right to face his accuser in a due process system. Democrats tell us that this is not a judicial process or a criminal process; it is a political process. They have plenty of other firsthand witnesses.
But then the Democrats turn around and say, with gusto, &#8220;If this isn&#8217;t impeachable, nothing is.&#8221; That&#8217;s the impeachment argument equivalent of, &#8220;A vote for a third party is a vote for the guy I want to lose.&#8221;
Only Andrew Johnson was impeached in an election year, and it is pretty clear from the history of that impeachment that it is not really apt to the present situation. Nixon and Clinton were impeached outside election years. Given the political nature of impeachment, I find it quite reasonable that something could be impeachable in 2018 or 2019 but not impeachable less than 365 days from the general election. In politics and political processes, timing matters. Let the voters decide.
Impeachment seems foolhardy and will become a more divisive issue in an already bitterly divided nation. Republicans, even the 19 who are departing the House of Representatives, are solidly with the President. Democrats are making no effort to persuade them or change other people&#8217;s minds. The Democrats seem intent on forcing impeachment through, and all the people screaming are the people who never wanted the president elected. No minds have been changed.
Democrats have, since Trump won in 2016, treated him as an illegitimate usurper. The very people who hated him then still hate him today, and they have done nothing to earn the trust of those who might be inclined to side with them on this issue. Since Election Day in 2016, it has been abundantly obvious we would get to this point if the Democrats took back the House of Representatives. The whistleblower&#8217;s lawyer, on January 30, 2017, just 10 days after the President&#8217;s inauguration, tweeted, &#8220;#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers&#8221;. How convenient he now represents a bureaucrat intent on bringing down the president.
This is a political issue. It is not a court of law issue. The Democrats in the House, who functionally serve as a grand jury, have been clamoring for this for years. They waited until they regained power and immediately began to act. The Senate Democrat jurors have been calling for impeachment for years. Some of these people have fundraised off the issue.
The president cannot get a fair trial because several of the Democrats have long been on record demanding his impeachment. But, you might say, this isn&#8217;t a court, and the jurors are politicians in a political process.
Exactly, I say.
Elections are a political process, too. And clearly, this issue should be decided in that political process — not one that half of America will view as the Democrats finally doing what they&#8217;ve been wanting to do for three years.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Capitol.

ERICKSON: Use The Other Political Process

2020 Election

Last week, Katherine Miller at BuzzFeed published an essay on how the 2010s &#8220;broke our sense of time.&#8221; On the same day, Georgetown University released a survey showing the average voter thinks we are &#8220;two-thirds of the way to the edge of a civil war.&#8221;
I have no idea what the &#8220;edge&#8221; of a civil war is, but I do think we are at a moment of serious discontent in the country, and I think it is directly related to the point of Miller&#8217;s essay about algorithms reordering our lives. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the rest of the internet now show us content in a timeline designed to increase our interaction and our clicks. Their algorithms have taken us out of chronology.
With the algorithm, what is old can be new again. Things that happened a week ago appear repeatedly in our timelines as if they are fresh and new. People now visit places that they see repeatedly on Instagram because others are going there. People get mad at news because news is designed to get them mad. Hate clicks generate revenue for news sites. Outrage holds your attention.
The algorithm feeds the fire. Teen suicide rates have climbed since the introduction of the iPhone — the moment our national addiction to screens began. People used the blame the 24-hour news cycle. Now we have the algorithmic news cycle, where news from two years ago can show up like it is new to drive anxiety and outrage. Kids on Instagram and Snapchat can now, over and over again, relive the images of their friends at the parties they didn&#8217;t even know were happening, driving their depression. Their parents can see the selectively edited footage of a news event designed to drive their outrage and then continue seeing it over and over as others share it. None of it slips by unseen.
Social media companies share some of the blame for taking us out of chronology and putting us into algorithms designed not to show us new, interesting stuff but to keep us using sites and services — to keep us clicking.
Add to all of this the decreasing tolerance for Grace, and the situation is spiraling chaotically toward violence. Each of us is now defined by the worst thing we have done, which is helpfully recirculated by others on social media. There is no need to improve or grow up because we will never be credited with doing so when one person with a social media audience can tie us back to the worst thing we have done. College athletes are now routinely destroyed for things they did as teenagers. Guys raising money for charity are blackballed by decade-old tweets from when they were going through puberty. The algorithm amplifies the damage.
There is, of course, a cure for this, but it is one no one has incentive to provide when everyone and everything is now anchored in the digital. Get offline and into your community. Scripture says to seek the welfare of the city in which you are in exile, and there you will find your welfare. But too few are doing that because the city has no algorithm. It has something worse — physical human beings. We would all rather stay online in digital communities we have created, filled with usernames and faces that look and think like us and share our interests and feelings.
Unplugging, however, may be our only hope. Our Facebook friend is not going to bring us dinner when we are sick or water our flowers when we are gone. The actual human being next door just might. That requires we get to know them, appreciate them despite their differences and dare to live a chronological existence with them, where yesterday stays yesterday and tomorrow is something we can look forward to together. Tomorrow has an actual sunrise that we can appreciate with a physical smile on a physical face in a physical place unique to us — not shared by thousands in an Instagram algorithm and hashtag.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Social media.

ERICKSON: The Coming Algorithm Civil War

Facebook

social media

Twitter

This past week, the House of Representatives descended into parody, which is hard for it to do. Most members of Congress long ago decided to become parodies of politicians. Now the entire institution is a parody of itself.
The first extraordinary moment was the least noticed. On Oct. 23, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before the House Financial Services Committee. This is where I should make a customary disclosure that this past year, Facebook served as a sponsor for my annual Resurgent Gathering.
There to talk about Libra, a cryptocurrency Facebook intends to create with private sector partners, Zuckerberg instead received a spanking from Democrats upset with his lack of knowledge about how many gay people work for him. One member of Congress demanded to know why Zuckerberg did not know how many women, people of color and gay people worked at outside law firms that work for Facebook. Another wanted to know how many black people use Facebook and was outraged when Zuckerberg said Facebook did not track people by race. It is bad to track people by the color of their skin but also bad not to.
Things took a further bizarre turn when members of Congress asked Zuckerberg why they were allowed to lie on Facebook. Zuckerberg said they should not but he was not going to be the hall monitor stopping them. It is really extraordinary that members of Congress want Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire CEO of a private company, to block these members of Congress from communicating with their constituents.
Zuckerberg&#8217;s position is that a great many things are subjective; what one person views as a lie, another views as truth. He does not want his company to be the arbiter of the issue. If one person believes boys can become girls — which many view as true these days — and someone else says this is not biologically possible, why should Zuckerberg step in? Likewise, if a Democrat says a Republican voted for something he or she did not vote for, why should Zuckerberg ban the ad instead of simply letting the world see the Democrat is a liar?
It is a truly remarkable turn of events that members of Congress want a private corporation to protect the American public from their own politicians. Perhaps the politicians should censor themselves and be loud and vocal about what they believe are their opponents&#8217; lies instead of having Mark Zuckerberg play teacher on the schoolhouse&#8217;s playground.
The other extraordinary scene played out the same day as a group of Republican congressmen stormed the secure room where Democrats and Republicans were meeting behind closed doors to hear testimony about the impeachment. The Republicans want the matter brought out into the public. While I agree with them, there is precedent for this to happen behind closed doors — including their own Benghazi depositions and the initial impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon, which met behind closed doors for four months before opening up to the public in a formal process.
What was so extraordinary is that about half the Republicans who stormed the room claiming they wanted to know what was happening were Republicans already entitled to be in the room. It raises a question: If these Republicans are so willing to storm the room to disrupt the proceedings, why are they not willing to leak the supposedly exculpatory testimonies from the witnesses?
We should not presume these people are fully respectful of the process. After all, many of them leaked like sieves during the closed-door Benghazi matter. Why were they so willing to leak to damage Hillary Clinton back then but so unwilling to leak exculpatory information to protect President Donald Trump now?
Republicans are right that the process is partisan and flawed. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is a partisan hack who should not be allowed in charge of such a serious investigation. But process arguments will not help. Either the President did demand Ukrainians investigate Joe Biden in order to get money or he did not. Making this about process suggests the Republicans have no real defense to the President&#8217;s behavior.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Mark Zuckerberg.

ERICKSON: Two Extraordinary Moments In Congress

Congress

Mark Zuckerberg

A rumor circulating around Washington is that Democrats intend to impeach President Donald Trump by Thanksgiving, with a trial in the Senate before Christmas. Based on conversations I have had with Democrats and Republicans, I suspect the timeline is slightly off.
To understand the timeline, we should understand the process. When Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, Republicans had a special counsel report with which they could base their impeachment. According to a senior Democrat staffer I talked to, the better model for Democrats against Trump is Richard Nixon.
In February 1974, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 803, &#8220;A Resolution providing appropriate power to the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct an investigation of whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.&#8221; That resolution began the formal process of impeaching the president with open hearings as the House Judiciary Committee began drafting articles of impeachment. They never got that far because Nixon resigned.
Prior to passing H.R. 803, the House of Representatives had been meeting, mostly behind closed doors, interviewing witnesses and securing documents. The process was done mostly in secret. Democrats controlled everything. Republicans mostly complained.
The Democrat I talked to said the same thing is happening now. Unlike with Clinton and very much like with Nixon, there was no special prosecutor investigation and report. The Democrats had to do the work themselves with Nixon. Today&#8217;s Democrats see themselves doing the same thing. Republicans see it as both a fishing expedition and a messaging exercise designed to hurt the President&#8217;s reelection, not actually remove him from office.
Republicans say the Democrats do not have the votes for a formal process. Democrats say they have the votes, but they want to build their factual basis to pick up even more Democrats. Democrats privately say they are sure they have a majority vote but want all the Democrats on board. Republicans privately say they are worried about some of the 19 Republicans who are retiring. They think if the Democrats do drag this out, they might be able to pick up some of those Republicans when it comes to passing the articles of impeachment.
Based on all my conversations, my best guess is that the Democrats are going to drag out their fact-finding mission until Thanksgiving and then spend the period of time between Thanksgiving and Christmas building articles of impeachment. They would then refer the matter to the Senate at the end of the year, and the Senate would take it up after the first of the year.
Senate Republicans are increasingly likely to require a trial. They lack the votes to dismiss the matter outright because Democrats will filibuster. Likewise, there are some Republicans who would help the Democrats. Based on several conversations I have had with Republican senators, I believe the Democrats would head into an impeachment trial with a half-dozen Republicans willing to honestly consider impeachment. They need more than that, but an impeachment trial presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts instead of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could get them more votes. Even if the Democrats did not get the requisite two-thirds vote, a bipartisan vote for impeachment would still hurt the President.
Conventional wisdom is that impeachment helped Bill Clinton. But Clinton had time to prepare counterarguments to the Starr Report before the House of Representatives even took up the matter. He also got a 50-50 split in the Senate, not a majority against him. He was also not up for reelection. It affected him enough that Al Gore would not campaign with him in 2000, and it certainly cost Al Gore votes.
To get any Republican support, however, the Democrats have to be grown-up. Having House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff as the face of their effort hurts them. Dragging out the process right now does make it look like a fishing expedition. Republicans in the Senate are worried about the process. Most of them would very much like [to] support Trump. Some of them, though, are starting to tire of him and just need an excuse. That should worry the White House.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

White House Christmas.

ERICKSON: Christmastime Impeachment

Adam Schiff

The general manager of the NBA&#8217;s Houston Rockets, Daryl Morey, tweeted support for Hong Kong&#8217;s protestors. The protestors are marching against increasing governmental incursions by mainland China into Hong Kong&#8217;s affairs. When Great Britain handed Hong Kong over to China, China agreed to maintain autonomy for Hong Kong but now appears uninterested in keeping its promise.
Morey used the social media platform Twitter to voice his support for Hong Kong&#8217;s protestors. Twitter is blocked in China. There is not a man, woman or child in China — except for the communist agents censoring the internet there — who could have seen Morey&#8217;s tweet. But China demanded the NBA apologize.
The NBA is an organization unafraid to delve into &#8220;woke&#8221; American politics. The organization walked away from North Carolina merely because the state considered a ban on letting transgender people use bathrooms for the opposite sex. The organization decided to stop using the word &#8220;owner&#8221; for its teams because of woke politics. Multiple NBA team owners denounced pro-life and religious liberty legislation in the United States. Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr is famous for his pronouncements supporting every left-wing social justice cause imaginable.
Kerr had no comment about China. Neither did Stephen Curry, who claimed he was too ignorant of Chinese history to have an opinion on China&#8217;s wholesale slaughter of its people. Making matters worse, the NBA released a statement supporting Daryl Morey&#8217;s right to free speech, but its Chinese translation read differently. The Chinese language statement read that the NBA was &#8220;extremely disappointed&#8221; by Morey&#8217;s &#8220;inappropriate comment.&#8221; The NBA also apologized that Morey &#8220;severely hurt the feelings of Chinese fans.&#8221; Again, that was not in the English language version.
On Wednesday, Americans showed up at a Washington Wizards game holding signs in support of Hong Kong. As the American national anthem played, NBA security officials forced these Americans to leave the area — an area that sits only a mile from where the American Bill of Rights is on display, guaranteeing our freedom of speech. To the extent the NBA has taken a stance, it has stood for China. Frankly, none of us should be surprised an organization that routinely opposes religious liberty in the United States would stand with a totalitarian communist regime that routinely exterminates religious minorities.
Disney-owned ESPN covered what happened but danced around what Morey had actually said. Someone leaked an internal memo from ESPN management insisting its staff, long willing to talk about American politics, refrain from talking about Hong Kong and Chinese politics. Disney, which now owns most of Hollywood, is reliant on Chinese viewers for its billion-dollar box offices. ESPN&#8217;s actions come months after Paramount changed Tom Cruise&#8217;s famous jacket from &#8220;Top Gun&#8221; for the sequel: The patches for Taiwan and Japan disappeared. Tencent, the Chinese film company that also has ties to the NBA, helped produce the new movie.
United and American Airlines wiped Taiwan off their Chinese website maps because China demanded it. Marriott fired an Omaha, Nebraska-based employee for liking a pro-Tibet tweet after China excoriated the company. Apple Inc. has likewise bent over backwards for China. Try to find the Taiwan flag in the emoji keyboard while in Hong Kong, and you will come up empty. Apple also adhered to Chinese demands that iCloud data of people in China be stored on Chinese servers and an app used by Hong Kong protestors be removed from its app store.
Facebook has run counter to most American corporations. Though the company could undoubtedly make massive amounts of money off one billion tech-savvy Chinese citizens, the company apparently refuses to do business in China. It has allowed platform access in Hong Kong but, just the other day, blocked Hong Kong&#8217;s police force from using WhatsApp. The police were purportedly using the service to track protestors. It is rare to see an American company put freedom ahead of Chinese money. Facebook is a notable and commendable exception.
Americans need to take a strong stand against Chinese censorship and totalitarianism. The American people will have to take the lead. American companies are signaling they like communist money more than American freedom.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Hammer and Sickle.

ERICKSON: Corporate Commies

China

Disney

ESPN

Hong Kong

There are days I wish someone else were president. It is not easy to support the President. Many of my friends detest him. Many of his supporters are more uncivil toward a person like me than his opponents are. I support the President, but I have a hard time cheering. There is much not to like. But there is even more not to like on the left. To support the President and not cheer on everything he does is to be a hostage tied on top of the bull in the china shop.
Still, I do not see an impeachable offense. If I saw one, I would not support the President. What I see are a bunch of people who have long despised the President, have never come to terms with him and are still angry. I am unaware of any person on the national stage right now tweeting &#8220;I cannot believe you could support him&#8221; who was not thinking the same thing in 2016. What I see is a group of people who have interpreted every single thing the President has done in the worst possible light and are continuing to do so. What I see are the people who were wrong about Hillary Clinton winning, wrong about Russia working with Trump to steal the election and wrong about so many other things now doubling down in self-righteousness with very little humility and absolutely no charity. A lot of people outraged at evangelicals sticking with Trump are modeling a graceless hypocrisy and a sinful impatience.
What I also see is a Democratic Party and a media operation that started saying we were at a turning point in February 2017 suddenly start talking about impeachment, which they have actually been doing consistently since 2017. They have wanted this moment all along. We have reached so many turning points, breaking points, tipping points, bombshells and surprises that Washington should resemble Beirut circa 1988.
Why should anyone trust a media fixated on the President&#8217;s lies when the media has consistently lied, exaggerated and pushed Democrats&#8217; talking points? Should we forget CNN pushed out on social media the man who alleged Trump had killed more people than Hitler? Should we forget that the mainstream press that focused on Trump&#8217;s words as precursors to violence gave no similar treatment to Democrats&#8217; words after the Hodgkinson shooting? There&#8217;s neither balance nor fairness. There is a nonstop quest to deliver vengeance to Trump for daring to hurt the press corps&#8217; feelings.
The offerings from this presidency are largely normal, even if the President&#8217;s behavior is not. The media has been relentlessly amplifying chaos, division and more. We&#8217;re in a satanic feedback loop of biblical donkeys in Washington fueled by a bunch of thin-skinned people, and the President is not the cause of it. If Mike Pence were president instead of Trump, we would have the media attacking him for his wife&#8217;s career choice and pushing fake racist attacks on him. Oh, wait! They already are.
Had the American media been honest and fair over the past decade, we would not be here now. We would not have this president. We would not have this news cycle. We would not have this impeachment battle. People view Trump as chaotic and bad, but he is merely a reflection of something in society that is also reflected in the talking heads in the media and the screaming crowds on Twitter. He is nothing more and nothing less. The only difference is that this president is more honest than a press corps that cannot even admit its biases.
I take seriously that there is real truth. I think we have an obligation to find it. I will move slowly. I will pay attention to the voices of the credible. If I think the President has committed an impeachable offense, I will wrest myself off the bull in the china shop into the shards of glass and broken china. But I am not there. Even if I get there, I suspect most conservatives never will because the media has done an amazing job destroying its own trustworthiness with Americans.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

American flag.

ERICKSON: The Perpetual Crisis Machine

Democratic Party

Media

Media Bias

For most of 2018, Republicans claimed Democrats would impeach the President if the Democrats took back the House. Democrats denied it. But it was always true. Democrats have relentlessly tried to discredit President Donald Trump. They have never viewed him as a legitimate president.
Democrats claimed James Comey stole the election for Trump. They believed by faith that Comey&#8217;s announcement of an FBI investigation hurt Hillary Clinton. They then believed by faith that his letter to Congress shortly before the election cost Clinton the election.
When it turned out Comey hated Trump and the President fired him, Democrats forgave Comey and turned to Russia. They believed by faith that Russia had stolen the election. They believed by faith that Trump and his campaign had collaborated with the Russians. They believed this by faith right up until the moment Robert Mueller told them it was not true.
Now the Democrats believe by faith the President is trying to steal 2020. They believe by faith that he wants Ukraine to harass Joe Biden and his son in an effort to steal the election. If Democrats really believe this, they can easily just not nominate Biden. But in searching for something to replace Christianity, Democrats have embraced politics as a religion, and they believe some things by faith. Pay no attention to Clinton&#8217;s failures as a candidate, including her failure to campaign in Wisconsin.
Not content to just beat Trump next year at the ballot box, Democrats have decided to finally do what they&#8217;ve always wanted to do, despite their denials: They are going to impeach the president. The media and Democrats want you to know that even moderate Democrats want this; but actually, many moderate Democrats are quite opposed. It has become too late for them to hit the brakes on this endeavor, and they may lose next year.
Just as Democrats have tried desperately to muddy the water about Hillary Clinton&#8217;s loss in 2016, Trump&#8217;s team is now trying to muddy the water over impeachment. They keep pointing their fingers at Biden in Ukraine. This is probably going to cost Biden the Democratic nomination, as he cannot afford muddy waters here.
The reality is Biden did nothing wrong. Biden had no authority to withhold money from Ukraine on the condition that the government fire a prosecutor. He could only do it because President Obama directed him. At the time, the Ukrainian government did not have an ongoing investigation into a company tied to Hunter Biden. Republicans claim there was one, but there was not. Had Biden not gone to Ukraine to demand the prosecutor be fired, another Obama administration appointee would have done so. There was no way Western powers were going to hand a billion dollars to Ukraine as long as that prosecutor held office.
Western allies believed that prosecutor was corrupt. They believed he would turn a blind eye to corrupt oligarchs misappropriating Western aid. The entire Western coalition wanted that prosecutor fired. Obama volunteered to do it and sent Biden as the hatchet man. There is no story here. But the Republicans will muddy the water.
Of course, there is no real story to Trump&#8217;s actions either. Trump speaks in word salads, as we saw with Ukraine&#8217;s President. In Trump&#8217;s mind, he certainly has points he wants to make. But as they come out of his mouth and are transcribed, the angels of heaven are forced to divine his intent.
As to the whistleblower&#8217;s report, it is deeply problematic for the President. The whistleblower had no direct knowledge of the President&#8217;s call with Ukraine&#8217;s president, nor did he read the transcript. But the whistleblower knew the major substantive points of the call. He says multiple officials shared the information with him. He says the President&#8217;s team moved the transcript of the call from one computer to another to hide it.
While this may not be impeachable, it provides the Democrats a path to impeachment. With the whistleblower, they have a list of potential witnesses, a list of potential documents and a central focus with an easily understandable narrative against the President. The next few months will be crazy.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Donald Trump.

ERICKSON: Let The Games Begin

Joe Biden

Russia

A young person concerned about climate change joined 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg at a congressional hearing this past week. Jamie Margolin is 17 and part of a lawsuit filed by children against the federal government over climate change. Not content to work their way through democratic processes, they hope federal courts will force resolution on their behalf.
Margolin spoke out about her fears. She told Congress that she was not sure she would have a future. She said in her testimony: &#8220;I want the entirety of Congress — in fact, the whole U.S. government — to remember the fear and despair that my generation lives with every day, and I want you to hold on to it. How do I even begin to convey to you what it feels like to know that within my lifetime the destruction that we have already seen from the climate crisis will only get worse. What adds insult to injury is the fact that we keep getting promised what isn&#8217;t there. On college applications, I keep getting asked what I want to be when I grow up &#8230; Everyone who will walk up to me after this testimony saying I have such a bright future ahead of me will be lying to my face.&#8221; She went on to say the planet is collapsing. She believes there are only 18 months left to get it right — a far shorter period than most activists claim.
Some will applaud her for the painful truths she is telling the grown-ups around her. In fact, progressive activists increasingly rely on children to speak for them, believing it provides a shield to criticism. But it also provides some great dangers.
Just listen to these children and the adults around them. They believe, with the passion and faith of zealots, time is running out. They believe the democratic processes are failing them. They believe the planet is collapsing and we will all die. They believe this as a matter of faith, not science. The science does not suggest we will all die. The science does not suggest the planet is collapsing. But they believe it and will not be dissuaded from it.
In Great Britain, police arrested a group of environmental activists who planned to fly drones over Heathrow Airport to shut down air traffic. In Europe, &#8220;travel shaming&#8221; has become a trend in which people shame those who decide to get on airplanes. It has actually impacted Europe&#8217;s aviation industry.
The problem is that these zealots get massive, positive media coverage. As in other situations, media coverage tends to provoke more of the same behavior. Though the left might cheer that on, they should be cautious because of where this will likely lead.
Already, the United States has had to deal with ecoterrorists in the Northwest. It is only a matter of time before those who believe the world is going to end without radical action decide to take radical action. They will, as all zealots do, decide they are doing it for the good of everyone — even those who do not realize it. Zealots convinced of their own righteousness are dangerous people. When they conclude the courts have failed them, the democratic processes have failed them and the government itself has failed them, violence will be their only recourse. They will have plenty of supporters in the media willing to justify it. After all, they are all convinced the world will end in a decade if they sit idly by.
Listen to the environmental zealots, and hear for yourselves how salvation is obtained. It is not pretty. The United States has done more than most countries to cut its emissions, but the zealots always demand more. They do so because, as long as sinners still sin, those who should be saved cannot be. In Christianity, the unrepentant sinner will not find salvation. For the saved, however, access to heaven is not dependent on the unrepentant. In environmentalism, the penitent environmentalist will not find salvation as long as the polluters pollute. If the government won&#8217;t stop the sin, the zealots will have to.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Climate activists

ERICKSON: The Passion Of Zealots

Climate Change

Environmentalism

Religion

Writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute declared that free-marketeers have taken social conservatives for granted. &#8220;The free-market coalition is in urgent need of repair. If enough conservatives join progressives in seeing free trade as a threat to their values, America could end up with protectionist policies for the foreseeable future,&#8221; he noted.
I share his embrace of the free market. But I am sympathetic to right-leaning concerns about corporate America. While I think free market supporters should not cheer on &#8220;creative destruction&#8221; when local businesses collapse due to free trade, I think they do have a case to sell social conservatives on the benefits of free market creative destruction.
The chief problem, from my vantage point as someone active in evangelical circles and the social conservative movement, centers less on worries about job loss and more on progressives using corporations to censor and punish conservatives. Banks, technology companies and other major corporations seem complicit in censoring conservatives, Christians, gun manufacturers and other groups progressives hate. Conservatives routinely see, for example, Twitter use its power to punish conservatives in ways it never uses its power against progressives.
Conservatives see banks refusing to do business with gun manufacturers and intuitively understand banks should be free to do business with whichever companies they choose, and they also understand banks are doing this because of progressive concerns and would never bend so easily for conservatives. Should banks that refuse to do business with lawful enterprises be given protections by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.?
Conservatives see Fortune 500 companies threaten states such as Georgia and Texas for advancing religious liberty legislation and protections for faith-based adoption agencies. Corporations have free speech rights, too, but when they reliably advance left-wing causes, even in conservative states, it is not hard to understand why conservatives might no longer be faithfully attached to a free market that benefits those companies. If corporations are going to reliably side with the left, they can hardly expect conservatives to defend the system that enriches these corporations into powerhouses that can use their influence to steer social policy leftward.
There is the other issue for which I have no answer but think conservatives must give consideration. American antitrust law is premised on the idea that giving consumers cheaper prices is a good thing. The government loathes breaking up companies that drive down prices. But is it really a good thing that Amazon can drive down prices to such an extent that it prohibits innovation and competition? Cheapest is not always best, but Amazon&#8217;s marketplace — and its willful habit of turning a blind eye to cheap counterfeits on its website — prevents creative destruction in the free market. To the extent the average consumer benefits from cheap products delivered in 24 hours, he loses out on access to superior quality and innovation.
In the supply and demand curve of the digital age, tech companies who profit from clicks can use their leverage to create ceilings on prices because of their size. They do so by limiting innovative competitors through patent laws and keeping prices exceedingly low, as well as through venture capital and size. Consumers benefit in the digital stores in which they shop but potentially lose as employees or entrepreneurs of businesses that directly — or even tangentially — come into conflict with a digital behemoth.
Lastly, the free-marketeers need to point out creative destruction can never happen if tech giants and other corporations are allowed to draft the laws and rules. Congress, in trying to regulate Facebook, will draft laws and rules focused on Facebook. But the very laws designed to regulate Facebook necessarily consider Facebook the default. That will make it harder for competitors to even have a chance to become a default social media platform. Free-marketeers and social conservatives can find common ground opposing companies carving out exceptions for themselves in the tax code, laws and other regulations.
All that said, however, if corporations continue to embrace wokeness, then nothing else will matter. Leveraging their capital, lobbyists and access against conservative values and interests will just cause more conservatives to abandon their support of free markets in favor of legislative and regulatory revenge.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Cash.jpeg

ERICKSON: Free Market Wokeness

Conservatism

Economy

Free Trade

Last week, Jack Dorsey had his Twitter account hacked. Dorsey is the CEO of Twitter, and Donald Trump is Twitter&#8217;s most famous patron. If Dorsey can get his account hacked, presumably the President can, too. A friend rightly noted this is cause for concern. What if someone hacking the President&#8217;s account declared war?
I suggested it would be hilarious if someone hacked the President&#8217;s account and tweeted, &#8220;I prefer Satan to Jesus.&#8221; Undoubtedly, some of the President&#8217;s most faithful apologists would immediately rush to agree. Remember, in 2016, after the President defended Planned Parenthood, some of his evangelical supporters began defending the organization, too.
Earlier this summer, I had the opportunity to preach on Jonah 1. Called by God to urge Nineveh to repent, Jonah fled. Instead of going to Nineveh, Jonah went in the exact opposite direction. He boarded a ship, intending to set sail for as far away from Nineveh as he could get.
God had other plans. A great storm came up. The crew on the ship cast lots to &#8220;know on whose account this evil (had) come upon&#8221; them. Jonah 1:7. The captain of the ship ordered Jonah to call to his god as they, all pagans, called to their gods. But Jonah declared, &#8220;I am a Hebrew, and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land.&#8221; Jonah 1:9. Jonah used Yahweh, the personal name of God. He demanded the pagans throw him overboard.
The pagan sailors cried out to Yahweh, using his personal name. &#8220;O Lord, let us not perish for this man&#8217;s life, and lay not on us innocent blood, for you, O Lord, have done as it pleased you.&#8221; They picked Jonah up, &#8220;hurled him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging. Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord and made vows.&#8221; Jonah 1:14-16. Again, they called to God as Yahweh. There&#8217;s a striking difference between these men on the boat in Jonah 1 and Nineveh in Jonah 3. In Nineveh, the people cried out to God, but not as Yahweh.
We know the story of Jonah, the fish, his flight, Nineveh&#8217;s repentance and Jonah&#8217;s anger. What we should focus on is how Jonah, in fleeing God, caused pagan sailors to embrace the God of all creation. In Jonah&#8217;s flight from God, others were saved.
There is data suggesting young evangelical Christians, appalled at their parents&#8217; political support for President Trump, are recommitting to an orthodox Christianity devoid of politics. Perhaps the silver lining in all these stories of Christians behaving badly in politics and defending indefensible behavior is that the next generation will maintain orthodoxy but refocus from transactional moral majority politics to helping the widows, the poor, the orphans and the refugees.
I genuinely cannot understand Christians who think they need to defend, excuse and serve as apologists for so much. It is possible to vote for someone and also say you think they&#8217;re wrong. Christians did this with George W. Bush. But now they get defensive. Christians still need to speak up even against their own team at times.
Spare me the &#8220;we&#8217;re at war with the left&#8221; excuse. Christians look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. &#8220;For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.&#8221; 2 Corinthians 4:18 &#8220;For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.&#8221; Ephesians 6:12.
A Christian&#8217;s fight is not with the left but with the things of the world and unseen spiritual forces. Never forget that. Be encouraged that so many Christians&#8217; turning from spiritual salvation to wage a war for political salvation is actually regenerating a zeal for orthodox Christianity among young people. These young Christians may no longer identify as evangelical, but they still follow Christ and biblical orthodoxy on social and theological issues.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

ERICKSON: Christians, Politics And Trump

Christianity

Republican Party

We are more than a year from the 2020 presidential election. It is too soon to see much of anything. But there are some trends we should pay attention to at this point.
Last Monday, the national press corps had a moment of intense excitement because they thought they had finally succeeded in getting Elizabeth Warren the Democratic nomination. For months, the media has run reports about Joe Biden. He was either a racist or collaborated with racists. He was old and out of touch. He tried to keep Kamala Harris off a school bus as a child. The sensationalism of the stories intensified. Biden&#8217;s debate performance became a big issue. And?
Biden&#8217;s polling changed very little. Before Biden officially entered the 2020 presidential contest, his RealClearPolitics polling average had him around 28%. After all the attacks, his polling average had him around, well, 28%. But last Monday, the Monmouth University poll came out. It had Biden at 19%, with Warren and Bernie Sanders at 20%.
A basic rule of American politics these days is that you should pay no attention to individual polls. Instead, pay attention to the average of polls. The Monmouth poll got breathless attention from the press. Biden was finally vulnerable. Warren would finally dominate. But this was not true.
After the Monmouth poll, the Politico/Morning Consult poll, the USA Today/Suffolk University Poll, the Hill/HarrisX poll, the Quinnipiac University Poll, the Emerson Poll and the Economist/YouGov poll all came out. Every one of them has Biden ahead. Four of the six have Biden in double digits.
The media chose to focus on the Monmouth poll of 298 Democrats instead of the USA Today/Suffolk poll of 424 Democrats because the Monmouth poll had the media&#8217;s preferred narrative, i.e., Warren is surging, and Biden is in decline. Undoubtedly, momentum is with Warren, but Biden is holding steady at 28% in the polling average, exactly where he started in February.
What happened with the media excitement for Warren is part of a larger trend Republicans need to focus on. The economy is, at this point, undoubtedly slowing down. Between the President&#8217;s tariffs and the economic slowdown happening globally, the United States economy is starting to unravel. Presidents get credit for economic success and blame for economic decline. The trend lines look bad for the President.
And American voters are exhausted. They are tired of the drama. They are tired of the tweets. They are tired of the fighting. They are tired of the media sensationalizing everything. They want some semblance of normalcy. Americans, at this point, would love a president they do not have to think about, see or hear for weeks on end. President Donald Trump is stressing people out with his erratic nature, his constant squabbling and the press&#8217;s amplifications of his daily behavior. At this point, polls suggest Americans would be OK with a cannibal for president so long as he promised to keep his mouth full, not talk and stay off Twitter. &#8220;Eat, don&#8217;t tweet&#8221; could be his motto, and he would win.
Therein lies another trend line Biden and Republicans need to pay attention to. Trump consistently gets beaten by double-digit margins against Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris. That will change as we get closer. But consider that only about 15% of people have not made up their minds yet. Historically, those voters break against the incumbent party. This is a real warning sign for Trump. It is also a warning for Biden. If any Democrat could beat Trump, Democrats do not need the safe option. They could have the bold option with Warren. As Trump looks more vulnerable, Biden becomes more vulnerable.
The polling was not wrong in 2016. National polling, however, failed to capture Electoral College nuances in a very close race. A 10-point lead in polling would keep the Electoral College with the popular winner. Right now, that isn&#8217;t President Trump. His team needs a plan. They have some time, which is about their only good news.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Polling Place

ERICKSON: Polls, Fake News And Trends

Elizabeth Warren

The New York Times has commissioned their 1619 Project, which apparently &#8220;aims to reframe the country&#8217;s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.&#8221;
The key word is &#8220;reframe.&#8221; The Times does not seek to tell the story of the United States. Nor does it seek to add to the story. Instead, the Times has a conclusion and is working backward to contort facts to fit the conclusion. This is activism. The Times is not reporting but rather building narratives in which they must ignore or fabricate facts.
In the very first essay, writer Nikole Hannah-Jones boldly claims that &#8220;one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution.&#8221; This is not true on multiple fronts.
In 1776, the British were not nearly as conflicted as Hannah-Jones claims. While the sentiment was certainly growing, it did not come to a head until 1787, when William Wilberforce took up the cause in Parliament, and even then, it took 20 more years for Parliament to pass the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which prohibited the trading of slaves. Britain did not formally abolish the slavery in its empire until 1833.
Contrast that with Massachusetts, which began serious consideration of abolishing slavery in 1767 and voted to do so in both 1771 and 1774, only to see the British governor-general veto the effort. Rhode Island forbade the importation of slaves in 1774 and in 1784 granted freedom to slaves born in Rhode Island.
Thomas Jefferson noted the Second Continental Congress intended to put a passage into the Declaration of Independence that would have condemned slavery and the slave trade, but the effort was abandoned due to Georgia&#8217;s and South Carolina&#8217;s objections. To say, however, that a primary purpose of the revolution was to preserve the slave trade directly contradicts the sentiments of most of the founders and the fact that multiple American colonies were well ahead of Britain in ending slavery.
By 1770, many of the prominent voices involved in the revolution, including Jefferson, Benjamin Rush and Patrick Henry, were all publicly and privately stating the colonies would need to end slavery. They did not at the time because they needed unity with the South and continued to kick the can down the road. But that is far different from revolting to preserve an institution they were trying to figure out how to end.
Then there is the project&#8217;s name: 1619 is the year that African slaves first landed on the North American continent in the Virginia Colony. This distorts reality. British colonists were already there setting up democratic institutions, defining the parameters of continental governance. In another essay, the Times let an author claim American capitalism developed in the fields of the South. This, too, is historically untrue. We derive the capitalist spirit and &#8220;Protestant work ethic&#8221; from the New England pilgrims who settled in Plymouth in 1620, isolated from the Virginia colony and without slavery for a decade more.
William Bradford, who came to Plymouth on the Mayflower, noted that the colony rejected collective land ownership and instead embraced private property and free enterprise after the former nearly caused mass starvation. The pilgrims deemed it better for individuals to work their own land, care for their own families and sell their excess.
Another essay falsely claimed Republicans took back the Senate in 2010 and then began systematically blocking Obama-era judges. Yes, this, too, was supposedly tied to slavery. The author got the basic facts wrong and ignored Democrats&#8217; ending the filibuster on judges.
Americans could use more knowledge about slavery, but this effort is not it. Instead, the Times has chosen to reframe American history to divide us along racial lines and exploit that division for progressive politics. The Times is behaving as its editors claim the President behaves.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

American Flag

ERICKSON: Reframing American History

American History

New York Times

Slavery

President Donald Trump has backed off tariffs on toys made in China. His commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, said the administration did not want to hurt Christmas. This is an admission against interest that the trade war with China is hurting the American people.
Last week, the yield curve inverted. Normally, the yields, or interest rate, on long-term bonds are better than the short-term bond yields. The government is now having to pay higher rates on two-year bonds than on ten-year bonds because investors are losing confidence in the short-term economy. This &#8220;inverted yield curve&#8221; has happened before every recession in the past 50 years.
Janet Yellen, the former chair of the Federal Reserve, said she thinks the economy is strong, but she is troubled by this development. The president blames the current head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, for having raised interest rates only to lower them. The problem for the president is that no one elected Powell. President Trump appointed him. Trump claimed he only hires the best people, but now blames his own appointee. If Trump does not do something positive for the economy, already-agitated voters may revolt.
Unfortunately, there may be little the president can do. China is happy to wreck its economy to hurt Trump. They intend to embarrass the president in the trade war. The Europeans are also mad at Trump for his trade war and have no interest in working with him. The British are mad at the Europeans as they&#8217;re going through Brexit. The British and the Europeans are also mad at China for what is happening in Hong Kong.
Normally, when the inverted yield shows up, world leaders work together to prevent a recession. Thanks in large part to the president&#8217;s foolish trade war, which every sane economist — including most who work for the president — warned could cause a recession, world leaders have no intention of cooperating to stave off a recession. It has become in every country&#8217;s best interest for every other country to lose, especially us, as President Trump first imposed tariffs.
Many Americans have wondered why, with such a great economy, the president&#8217;s poll numbers have never been strong. The reality is the good economy has most likely kept the president&#8217;s poll numbers from going even lower.
In practical terms, the president&#8217;s team thinks the United States has more wiggle room in the global economy than most. They also think that as the Democrats trend left, the president has an opportunity to claim their policies would make the domestic economy even weaker. Lastly, they intend to engage in a culture war campaign, just as Democrats and much of the media seem intent on launching a campaign of white guilt and shame across the nation. Democrats and their friends in the press are suggesting everyone is a white supremacist unless they vote Democrat. The president&#8217;s team presumes that will go badly in suburban America.
But suburban Americans are not primarily culture warriors. In their communities, the screeds and screams of the Left do not reverberate. Suburban Americans tend to consider themselves socially conservative, but these issues do not make them passionate in one way or another. They may not have supported gay marriage, but they also did not really care when the Supreme Court imposed it. They may not support abortion rights, but they do not go vote to advance the pro-life cause. They may own guns and like to shoot, but they are not too worked up by politicians&#8217; seeking to make it harder for others to buy guns.
The one issue that fires up suburbia is the value of 401(k)s. Any politician who screws up people&#8217;s investments will see suburban hordes descend on ballot boxes across America to destroy the politician and his party. In the best-case scenario, they may just sit home. Either scenario should worry the GOP if the economy begins to struggle. President Trump won with 70,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. He and his party could see a revolt in those very areas if voters blame his trade war for the decline in their retirement funds.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Will Deschamps

ERICKSON: Warning Signs For Republicans

Recession

The nation seems to be in the midst of a hostage crisis. We, the people, are having to decide which political party will be the hostage takers. Do we stay with the Republicans and the erratic leader who has, at least, given us a good economy? Do we go with the Democrats, who offer us a few dozen potential leaders who are more stable but also more focused on upending the American economic and socio-political system?
For all the talk about Donald Trump upending American norms, his presidency has not been very abnormal. His personal behavior surely is and grates on voters. His policies are pretty mainstream. Among the President&#8217;s core supporters are evangelical voters because he has used his office and judicial appointments to protect them.
Progressive activists have harassed Christian educational institutions, Christian bakers and florists, Christian adoption and pregnancy agencies and even churches themselves. Progressive Democrats have pledged to drive them from business. I have a hard time blaming Christians for sticking with Trump in the face of this secular onslaught that much of the media ignores or downplays as it is happening.
For the Left, it is not just that they won the popular vote but that Trump is the one who beat them. They created a myth that Russia actually stole the election. They reacted viscerally as Republicans tried to roll back the gains they made under Barack Obama. They also have hit on a core complaint against President Trump: His presidency may not be outside the norms of American discourse, but his personality is. He is always in everyone&#8217;s face. He is always fighting. He is always in a rush to insult his opponents. The left and the rest of us are used to George W. Bush, who regularly had invective heaped upon him and always turned his cheek.
We had two mass shootings over the weekend. The Democrats rushed out to make it all about the President. When it turned out the shooter in Dayton, Ohio, was a radical progressive who loved Elizabeth Warren, the media demanded everyone be quiet because it did not appear his politics inspired his shooting rampage. That, by the way, is not something the media ever does when someone with right-of-center ideology opens fire. In those cases, it is always about his politics. In cases where a shooter has no ideology, the media mostly presumes he must be a right-winger. But when a Warren fan opens fire? You&#8217;d better shut up or the media will shame you.
In El Paso, the shooter was anti-immigrant. He believed they were invading. The media helpfully pointed out the President has run ads calling the situation at the border an invasion. The press tied the shooter directly to the President. Pundits called the President and his supporters racists. A man on Meet the Press, with no pushback except from the lone Republican panelist, said using the phrase &#8220;illegal immigrant&#8221; is white nationalism. Lost in all of this is that the shooter had progressive worries about overpopulation and the environment.
Our unusual President felt compelled to push back as progressives blamed him for the shooting. Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Democrat whose brother is running for president, circulated a list of Trump donors and highlighted their small businesses. Members of the press defended Castro: &#8220;It is public information,&#8221; journalists said. So are their home addresses (on their local tax assessor&#8217;s website), but I bet they would be outraged if that information got circulated. These were Trump donors, though, so much of the press and the left are OK with harm against them.
National discourse has gone insane. Partisans now view the other side as bad, the enemy or evil, not just opponents. What about those of us with friends across the divide? These days, there seems to be no home in politics for people who have principles and values but are willing to say that their own side might be wrong and neither side should give into hate. There is this sense there may be no going back to normalcy. We should all be troubled by that.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Donkey and Elephant Illustration

ERICKSON: We Can’t Go Back, Can We?

Joaquin Castro

Over two nights, the Democratic presidential candidates battled it out on stage. Consider how many candidates there were and that some candidates did not even make it to the stage.
The first night of the CNN debate was all white. The second night was all fight. The fighting involved every candidate hitting Joe Biden. Biden is the front-runner and the candidate polls show is most capable of beating Donald Trump. Democratic voters say they are more interested in beating Trump than getting someone who agrees with them on every issue.
To take out Biden, one must first hurt the polling that shows he could best beat Trump. To hurt that polling, one must throw Biden off his game. At the NBC debate in Miami, Sen. Kamala Harris went a long way toward doing that. She put Biden on defense over school busing, and Biden seemed ill-prepared. That made some Democrats question if Biden would be able to withstand attacks from President Trump.
Biden, however, has recovered in the polling. He remains the front-runner. He remains the man polls show would most easily beat Trump. On the debate stage in Detroit, the candidates had to get their shots in. But to get to that debate, we first had to get through the first debate. Instead of pitting Biden against a diverse field of candidates, it pitted a bunch of white moderates against two hyper-progressive white socialists, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Warren and Sanders on stage were like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at peace against the apostasy of those who think policies should be either popular or affordable. Warren and Sanders ignored each other to defend bankrupting the nation and killing free enterprise. Frankly, though I think Warren&#8217;s policies are terrible, she came across as the sharpest debater on the stage. Afterward, instead of sitting for a solo interview with Anderson Cooper, Warren entertained a host of questions from a field of CNN analysts for over 20 minutes. It was an impressive performance.
Then, Biden took the stage the next night. &#8220;Go easy on me, kid,&#8221; he said to Harris. She did not. But he did not let up on her either. He read the opposition research books. Everyone on the second stage took shots at Biden. Bill de Blasio, the thoroughly unlikable mayor of New York, tried his best to hurt Biden. But he did not. Biden held his own and had a remarkable moment against Kirsten Gillibrand. She tried to claim that Biden said that women working was a bad thing.
Biden destroyed her. He pointed out he raised his boys as a single parent because his wife died. He pointed out that both his first wife and his second wife worked outside the home. He pointed out his record fighting for working mothers, which is actually a more thorough record than Gillibrand&#8217;s.
Biden won the debate because he withstood the blows without blowing himself up. He had flubs and came across as old, but he held on. Surrounded by people ready to move on from Barack Obama, Biden honorably defended Obama&#8217;s legacy to the point that other candidates got solid hits on Biden because he insisted on defending Obama&#8217;s legacy. It was remarkable watching so many Democrats savage Obama&#8217;s legacy on health care, foreign policy and immigration. They painted Obama as an archconservative and Biden as his Rasputin.
Therein lies the problem for the former vice president. His party is ready to move on from Obama, and he is too decent and loyal to repudiate Obama&#8217;s legacy. He stood his ground on stage, but he did not have a shining performance. He just managed to stand the whole time.
When Democrats convene again in September, he will be on stage with Warren, Sanders and Harris. Biden won the CNN debate, but he won in a way that suggests he lacks the ability to win against Warren. So between now and September, Biden is going to have to prepare for the progressive energy those candidates will unleash against him. They all have a vested interest in getting him out soon.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

ERICKSON: Biden Wins The Round

Bernie Sanders

Democrats headed into 2020 are where Republicans were headed into 2012 — firing as many silver bullets as they can but aiming badly. Just as Barack Obama got reelected in 2012, it looks increasingly likely Donald Trump could get reelected in 2020. And like Obama in 2012, he can thank the incompetence of his opponents.
Democrats, along with many of their friends in the media, have decided to target three silver bullets at the werewolf that is President Trump. Their first bullet was the Mueller investigation. The second was the investigation of the Southern District of New York. The third was the race card.
The Mueller investigation did not go as planned. On Wednesday, the well-respected and highly regarded Bob Mueller testified before Congress. No one seemed to have noticed that Mueller is old. He came across as out of his element and unsure of his own report.
Democrats were able to get Mueller to confirm both that he did not exonerate the President and that a sitting President could be indicted after leaving office. That was all. What they hoped would lead them down the road to impeachment instead led cars across America off the road as drivers listening to Mueller fell asleep at the wheel.
The reality is it does not matter. American voters can rarely remember what they had for dinner last night. In 16 months, they will not remember Mueller&#8217;s testimony, which most people did not even watch. The Democrats needed a galvanizing moment. They did not get it. Instead, they will now fight among themselves over whether to proceed with impeachment. Mueller did not give them a clear path forward. The day before the Mueller hearing, CNN promoted it as a &#8220;blockbuster&#8221; hearing. The news media and the Democrats should have remembered Blockbuster went out of business.
The Southern District of New York investigation did not go as planned either. Following the Mueller report&#8217;s release, Democrats pivoted to this investigation. The United States attorney had been investigating the President&#8217;s payment to a woman and various Michael Cohen and Trump Organization deals. Democrats and the press yet again assured us this was a very big and, in the words of some, &#8220;game changing&#8221; investigation. They assured us indictments were imminent. The investigation is now over. No indictments are forthcoming.
Finally, the press and Democrats working together have hit on a final effort to undermine the President: the race card. They have long maintained that the President and anyone who votes for the President are racist bigots. You would be hard-pressed to find a reporter in Washington who is not convinced the President sows racial discord.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, it almost seems like the President is smart enough to know how the left will overplay its hand on this and drive more people into his camp. Earlier this year, the press defamed students from a Catholic school in Covington, Kentucky. The Washington Post and other outlets seized on false claims that the students, wearing &#8220;Make America Great Again&#8221; caps, had hurled racial slurs at an American Indian. Selectively edited videos were circulated. News reports were broadcast. It turned out to be &#8220;fake news.&#8221; The students are now suing various media outlets, and deservedly so.
Just last week, an African American Democrat state representative in Georgia claimed a man told her to go back to where she came from after he caught her with dozens of items in the 10-items-or-fewer express line at a grocery store. The media blew up that story, too.
But eyewitnesses from the grocery store now claim it was the state representative telling the Hispanic man to go back to where he came from after he confronted her and called her a &#8220;lazy SOB&#8221; for using the express line. The state representative is wobbling on her story now.
Every time the left and the media sensationalize stories, the stories blow up in their faces. It builds distrust in them and reveals their contempt for ordinary Americans. They keep firing at the President and shooting themselves. They have become the President&#8217;s best friends in his reelection quest.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

ERICKSON: Ready. Fire. Aim.

The other day on MSNBC, Nicolle Wallace asked her guest, Rep. Karen Bass, about President Donald Trump: &#8220;Other than endangering the lives of those four congresswomen that he targeted in those racist tweets &#8230; Do you believe he&#8217;d have blood on his hands if there were a racially inspired attack in this country?&#8221;
&#8220;I absolutely believe that. Yes,&#8221; Bass replied.
Wallace pushed to get Bass on record because Bass had already said something extraordinary. In a dissertation on the death threats received by the four Democratic congresswomen blasted by President Trump, Bass said: &#8220;When the guy went in and shot up the synagogue, remember who he cited. He said that the president said that they were getting funding to encourage Central Americans to come over to the United States. I believe that his racist, hateful rhetoric absolutely has consequences. All he needs to do is trigger somebody who is mentally unstable, or who is a bigger racist than he is, and somebody else is going to get hurt. I believe people have already been hurt because of his racist rhetoric.&#8221;
Wallace not only allowed the congresswoman to make her case and insist the president has blood on his hands but did so with no protest. A topic not raised by the two was that of Willem Van Spronsen. The 69-year-old Van Spronsen died only a few days before while attempting to firebomb an immigration center in Tacoma, Washington.
Van Spronsen embraced Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s claims that these centers are concentration camps. The self-described anarchist and anti-fascist decided to do something about it. The &#8220;concentration camp&#8221; claims have been all over MSNBC, and several of the network&#8217;s hosts have defended the claims.
Also not raised by Wallace or Bass was the seemingly forgotten mass assassination attempt on Republican members of Congress by James Hodgkinson. I am continually astonished by how quickly and easily Democrats dismiss the story. Hodgkinson, we know, was inspired by progressive claims that Republicans were going to kill people due to their health care reforms. As a result, the unstable man made his way to Virginia to a congressional Republican baseball practice and opened fire.
The Hodgkinson story fell out of the regular news cycle after three days. Within five days, the story had mostly disappeared except for health updates on Congressman Steve Scalise. As of the writing of this column, we are in the fifth day of reporters hounding Republicans about the president&#8217;s tweet last Sunday morning. The double standard by the press is staggering.
For five years, conservatives have spoken loudly about the growing threat from Antifa. Emboldened during the Obama years and quickly turning to violence during the Trump years, Antifa continues to get sympathetic coverage from journalists. CNN&#8217;s Chris Cuomo actually excused Antifa&#8217;s violent actions as morally different from white supremacists&#8217;. Many journalists who complain loudly about President Trump inspiring violence against reporters were bending over backward to make excuses for Antifa&#8217;s beating up journalist Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon, two weeks ago.
There is a great deal of talk on the left and in the media about a violent, out-of-control &#8220;alt-right&#8221; in this country. But James Hodgkinson came from the left. He came from the same movement that inspired Floyd Lee Corkins in 2012 to attempt the mass murder of Christian activists at the Family Research Council. Actually paying attention to both and what Antifa has been doing could cause any rational person to predict Van Spronsen&#8217;s actions.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said there were concentration camps, and a man is now dead. Democrats said Republicans would kill people with health care reform, and six people nearly died in a mass assassination attempt as a result of those claims. But Donald Trump tweeted something mean, so he must be held accountable.
Our moral betters behind the anchor desks and keyboards of American newsrooms have rarely met a violent progressive they did not want to excuse. They will go to their graves covering for the growing violence on the left while condemning mean tweets from the right.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

ERICKSON: A Blood Accounting

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Antifa

Illegal Immigration

Turns out the winner of the Democrats&#8217; first series of debates was President Trump. According to the Washington Post/ABC News poll, after the Democrats debated, Trump&#8217;s approval rating went up to 44% among all Americans. But that is not really the number to focus on.
A poll of all Americans about any politician&#8217;s approval is largely irrelevant because those nonvoting Americans will not shape public policy. The more relevant number is among registered voters. According to ABC News, Trump polls at 47% with registered voters. Registered voters, however, do not all vote. The most accurate pool to survey is likely voters, but it is too far from the election to determine who they&#8217;ll be.
We do know historic trends. Historically, the pool of likely voters moves a few percentage points closer to the Republicans. As 47% of registered voters approve of the President, among likely voters, it is realistically between 49% and 50%, which are very good numbers. For comparison, President Barack Obama was polling at the same numbers in July of 2011, before his reelection.
The Emerson Poll also shows Trump making gains after the Democrats&#8217; debate debacle. It does not help the Democrats that they went so far outside the mainstream. On stage, several advocated a gun confiscation program. All of them supported giving health care to illegal aliens. Many of them supported ending private insurance in favor of government insurance. Kamala Harris single-handedly took multiple positions on busing. Then they decided to champion slavery reparations.
The ABC News poll shows that the President would beat a socialist-oriented Democrat by six points. The Democrats continue to pile on Joe Biden, whom polling shows does best against Trump.
Beto O&#8217;Rourke, a man who made the fatal mistake of believing his own press, told an immigrant couple that the United States was founded on white supremacy, that white supremacy and the legacy of slavery were woven into the fabric of the United States. With multiple nonwhite candidates running for president, one must wonder if white supremacy is what keeps O&#8217;Rourke in the race. If he really believes white supremacy is woven into our democracy, should he not step aside and support one of the nonwhite candidates? O&#8217;Rourke ran against a Hispanic candidate for congress and won. He tried to beat a Hispanic candidate for the Senate in Texas. Now, he battles two nonwhite candidates for the presidency. By O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s own logic, we should expect to see him soon marching with the Proud Boys and a Tiki torch.
The Democrats seem intent on running to see which of them hates America the most. The situation is no better with the congressional Democrats. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused Nancy Pelosi of racism, only to walk it back. Ocasio-Cortez is an increasingly prominent voice for Democrats who voice their disdain for the United States. So, too, is her freshman colleague Ilhan Omar. In a Washington Post profile of the refugee turned congresswoman, Omar largely concedes she told high school students a story that played up the cruelty of the American legal system by leaving out key facts. She is now attacking Fox News&#8217; Tucker Carlson for having the audacity to accurately call her ungrateful. But it does seem ungrateful for a refugee who started a new life in the United States and got elected to Congress to then use her bully pulpit to repeatedly bad-mouth the nation that gave her a new start.
Beyond the elected Democrats, the mob in the streets continues to get more violent. In Portland, Oregon, a progressive mob beat up a reporter, sending him to the hospital. Many of the same progressive voices in the media who openly claim Trump wants an authoritarian regime were defending the mob attacking the reporter. Other mobs chase political opponents out of restaurants and harass immigration agents. The revolutionaries among the Democrats are handing Trump reelection, but they are so in their bubble that they don&#8217;t even realize it. It&#8217;s good news for President Trump.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

ERICKSON: Good News For President Trump

Barack Obama

Beto O'Rourke

Nancy Pelosi

Portland

On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a non-justiciable issue, meaning courts have no role to play in politics. Democrats assailed the Republicans on the Supreme Court as activists for not taking power for the Court. It is somewhat hilarious to realize the Democrats are complaining that a Republican-nominated Supreme Court majority refused to acquire the power by which they could draw congressional districts.
Democrats have used gerrymandering as a weapon against Republicans for decades. The only reason Democrats are screaming now is because they lost so badly in 2010, giving Republicans the ability to draw congressional lines for the past decade. Prior to 2010, Democrats controlled most state legislatures and controlled Congress until the mid-&#8217;90s. As the South and Midwest slipped away, so to did their abilities to draw lines. Then, suddenly, gerrymandering became a problem.
Many of the most famous redistricting cases have come from Democrat-drawn lines. Much of the North Carolina gerrymandering in the past decade involved Republicans fighting against lines drawn by Democrats. In Georgia, until 2004, Democrats drew legislative lines. One congressional district curved around on itself such that a voter could jump from one side of that district to another while soaring over a separate district. Some state legislative districts stretched across the entire state.
Democrats were fine with all those things, just as they were fine with the Electoral College when it benefited them. A general rule of thumb in modern American politics is that anything that Democrats perceive as a disadvantage is unfair and a judge must fix it to benefit them. The Supreme Court&#8217;s refusal to get involved in the business of drawing legislative lines is just another outrage for Democrats.
Consider, however, the Democrat debates this past week. Only 18% of Americans favor abortion on demand until birth. But every single one of the Democrats supported it. Most Americans oppose gun confiscations, but many of the Democrats on stage advocated exactly that. Illegal immigration as a crime? Most Americans think it is, but most of the Democratic presidential candidates think it should not be. In fact, according to Gallup, more Americans now see immigration as a problem than climate change or health care. Of those, the overwhelming majority oppose open borders and increased illegal immigration. Democrats are yet again on the wrong side of the American people.
This, then, is the core problem for Democrats. They are out of touch with most Americans. They have taken refuge in large coastal metropolitan areas and increasingly treat those who disagree with them with disdain. In fact, more and more research shows that well-educated progressives are the least likely to know anyone who sees the world differently from themselves. Conservatives tend to be more spread out across the country and encounter people who see the world differently from themselves. Progressives stay in their large cities surrounded by groupthink and convinced of their own righteousness. It makes it easier for them to presume the worst about those who dissent from progressivism and makes it easy for them to rail on the unfairness of a system that requires connecting to voters in flyover country.
President Donald Trump is a deeply unpopular President. His favorability rating, on average, hovers around 43%, which is not good headed into a reelection. But Trump also connects better with many people than Democrats can. He understands blue-collar America better than many of the Democrats with more blue-collar backgrounds. He translates well into areas of the country Democrats must win — areas filled with people Democrats seem to hold in contempt.
For the last few years, Democrats have embraced the idea that all Trump voters are racist and bad. To win in 2020, however, they need some of those people to vote for them. Instead of complaining about the rules we have had for 200 years — rules under which Democrats were winning just eight years ago — perhaps they should try winning instead by making arguments and taking positions that connect with people outside the progressive coastal bubble.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Menu

Erick Erickson

Articles by Erick Erickson