If there is one thing we know for certain about the American press corps&#8217; interaction with President Donald Trump, it is that they presuppose him an unserious and very vain dolt. If anyone grabs too much of the spotlight or utters anything disloyal, the President throws them out the door.
That is what so much of the press believes. In fact, I suspect some of you readers believe it, too. Certainly, some in the White House believe it. They have tried to exploit it by circulating rumors about various people riding too high in the saddle. The press has tried to drum up divisions between the President and Vice President in this way.
How many stories have we read about the Vice President overshadowing the President, operating as a shadow President, etc.? These were not true, but they were circulated like a soap opera to try to spark division in Washington.
The press fundamentally believes the President will fire people who are more likable than him, overshadow him or make him look bad by outperforming him. So, I have to wonder if a portion of the press corps is trying to get a lot of Americans killed right now.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has loyally served Presidents of the United States going back to Ronald Reagan. In 2008, due to his loyal service to the nation, President George W. Bush awarded Fauci the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Fauci is the most prominent voice in the administration now and its foremost presence on national television. But in the past several days, various media outlets have started pushing stories about Fauci undermining the President. Various reporters on Twitter have grabbed screenshots of Fauci at White House press briefings where he appears to be rolling his eyes or shaking his head when the President speaks. The full film shows he was not doing either.
There have been stories where the media plays up what appears to be Fauci disagreeing with the President or being critical of the President, but these have been taken out of context, too.
Given the media&#8217;s presuppositions about the President, it is reasonable to conclude some journalists are trying to get Fauci fired. Why would they do that? Is this not a crisis where they want the best men and women in charge?
The reason is that the media is addicted to drama. They feed off the storm of clashing personalities for ratings. In the past two weeks there has been no drama, and the President&#8217;s approval ratings for handling the crisis have gone up. Both Gallup and ABC News have polling showing as much. The drama of the virus should be enough, but the media now is addicted to the soap opera narrative.
When not trying to break up the marriage of George and Kellyanne Conway, the Washington press corps seems to be picking other targets and trying to get the president firing in that direction. Right now, it is Fauci the press is after, and they are after him selfishly. As long as Trump is relying on Fauci, the President looks presidential. That is too much for the media. Fauci must go, but so, too, must the presidential press briefings on the virus.
These briefings have been going on for two weeks. The President has not changed. He uses copious adjectives and adverbs to sell his plan and what others are doing. He battles the media. He answers questions. Others answer questions as well, including the relevant medical experts advising the President.
In two weeks, the only thing that has changed is the President&#8217;s approval rating. ABC, CBS and Gallup all have his approval rating for handling the virus at over 50%. The American public has tuned in to the press conferences. Naturally and predictably, the press corps has decided this is too much. Fauci is too good, and the press conferences are too helpful. They have given calm and reduced drama. That must end.
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.

Newspapers

ERICKSON: The Press Corps’ Sturm Und Drang

Anthony Fauci

Coronavirus

COVID-19

Donald Trump

Media

Media Bias

On Monday, March 16, 2020, President Donald Trump took to the podium in the White House pressroom and began to make the case to the American people that the underlying operations of the country must change to stop the growth of the Wuhan coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, in the United States.
The President wants Americans to end discretionary travel; shelter in place for 15 days; limit gatherings to no more than 10 people; avoid eating at restaurants and bars; and avoid gyms and other recreational spots if the virus is spreading in that community.
For several weeks, Democrats and the media blasted the President. At the end of January, the President imposed a travel ban on China. The very media now blasting the President for not taking the matter seriously began to attack the President. According to experts at the time, the President&#8217;s ban on travel with China would make fighting the virus more difficult. In hindsight, the experts now agree it was the right decision.
The media continues to attack the President and his administration for daring to use the phrases &#8220;Chinese virus&#8221; and &#8220;Wuhan virus&#8221; to describe COVID-19, because they are supposedly racist. The Zika and West Nile viruses come from regions in Africa. No one claimed those were racist. But the communist Chinese are screaming and in full denial that the virus originated in Wuhan. The American media and progressive activists are helpfully defending the communist Chinese, just as they did when the National Basketball Association refused to take a stand for human rights in Hong Kong.
To really get the proper context for what is going on, however, we need to step back. On Jan. 19, 2020, a 35-year-old man with a four-day-old cough went to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington. He had traveled back from Wuhan, China and was the first diagnosed COVID-19 patient in the United States.
Chinese health authorities who now insist the Wuhan virus did not come from China were actually quite helpful on Dec. 31, 2019, when they reported a pneumonia outbreak at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan. On Jan. 7, 2020, the Chinese confirmed there was person-to-person spread of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan.
Meanwhile, in the United States, the Democrats were impeaching the President. Though the President had just allowed the American military to take out Qassem Soleimani, the major general overseeing Iran&#8217;s terrorist operations, and then witnessed media screams that he had triggered World War III, Democrats and their press allies plowed ahead foolishly with impeachment.
It became an existential threat to and distraction for the President. All the President&#8217;s attention turned to impeachment. The press turned to silliness with aggressively hostile and partisan coverage of the President. The republic had arrived at partisan warfare with the press taking the Democrats&#8217; side. In fairness, however, the press had been on the Democrats&#8217; side since the election.
Into this, the press and Democrats began screaming about a man in Washington state who had come back from China. But, when the President took direct action in the middle of his impeachment trial to stop travel with China, the press and Democrats attacked him for that, too.
There are reasons to be critical of some of the President&#8217;s statements and tweets regarding the virus. In seeking to avoid a panic and in seeking to calm people, he did, arguably, go too far to dismiss concerns. But a fair-minded person does need to read the President&#8217;s actions through the process of a distracting impeachment with a partisan press and Democrats coming up with every imaginable excuse to savage him.
The American press, humorously, spent that entire period referring to COVID-19 as the &#8220;Wuhan virus&#8221; or &#8220;Wuhan coronavirus.&#8221; While calling it that, they attacked the President for doing too much to stop the virus. Now they call the President a racist for using their own words and attack him for doing too little.
One can hardly blame the President for treating the worry over the spread of the Wuhan virus as a partisan tool of the Democrats. The press and Democrats treated it that way, too.
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.

Coronavirus suits

ERICKSON: The Proper Context For Blame

China

People are beginning to hoard toilet paper. I went on a normal shopping trip to buy toilet paper last week and could not find any because of all the panic-buying. Social media is full of people storming grocery stores and fighting over two-ply. Hand sanitizer is extremely difficult to find. The Clorox plant up the road from me is running 24 hours to keep up with demands.
But the toilet paper?
The run on toilet paper should be the biggest signal that an economic stimulus plan is not going to work right now. People are being driven by fear, and they are being told to stay out of crowds. People are stocking up on toilet paper because they are convinced they are going to get quarantined or otherwise stuck in their homes.
Giving businesses money, making loans cheap and encouraging people to get out and shop is not going to help. What might actually help is giving people exactly what they expect — ordering everyone to stay home.
But this presents a way more complicated solution than some want to acknowledge. Shut down schools? And what about the nurses and doctors who have small children. What do we do with those kids?
What about the workers in the restaurant industry who work hourly and won&#8217;t get paid if there are no customers? If the restaurant can&#8217;t get revenue, it can&#8217;t meet payroll. Should the restaurant apply for a loan from the government to pay the workers and possibly risk the financial future of the restaurant? Perhaps. If the restaurant is going to go out of business otherwise, why not try to keep it afloat for some time? But for how long?
Do we make people apply for unemployment in person when we want them not to congregate? Do we start paying people, and, if so, what do we do about the debt and inflation and the value of the currency?
If the government isn&#8217;t ordering people to essentially shelter in place nationwide, how is this going to contain the virus? If the government does order people to shelter in place, what about the workers who cannot get paid? What about vacation deposits?
These are not easy answers. But they are demanding answers at this point.
What we know about the coronavirus is that it is orders of magnitude more deadly than the flu and highly contagious. What we know is that people are already convinced they are going to be quarantined in their houses and are stockpiling. What we know is that restricting travel will restrict the spread of the virus.
The public is panicked and needs to see serious, grown-up leadership in Washington right now, as well as some bipartisan unity. The public is expecting Draconian efforts and has already baked their expectations into their toilet paper buying habits. The Washington solution seems to be that both sides of the aisle have different, competing economic stimulus plans. They will undoubtedly do both, further driving up spending, the deficit and the debt. I just do not think it will matter right now.
The President can fly Air Force One over major cities and dump freshly printed hundred dollar bills out of the belly of the plane, but if people think they&#8217;re going to get the coronavirus, they still are not going to take that cash and go shop, eat out or mingle in large crowds. They won&#8217;t even go to the bank to deposit it. They will, like with the toilet paper, simply stockpile it till the crisis is over.
Before any stimulus can work, the public must trust the health care response. To trust the health care response, President Donald Trump cannot be competing with his own administration&#8217;s message. The economic fallout is going to grow far worse than the virus unless the Trump administration gets publicly aggressive and gets buy-in from Congress.
Unfortunately for all of us, there is a bipartisan problem in Washington. Both sides have &#8220;electionitis,&#8221; and the only cure is denying the other side any sort of public successes in order to beat them in November. It is not yet known how many Americans will die in the process.
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.

Toilet paper

ERICKSON: Toilet Paper Trumps Stimulus

Economy

Sen. Bernie Sanders really would be an easier candidate for President Donald Trump to campaign against in November. Sanders is so far left, with a history of burning bridges, that Trump and the Republican Party could easily and deservedly vilify him.
The American public got a taste of Sanders, the true believer in communist revolution, when he sat for an interview with Anderson Cooper on &#8220;60 Minutes.&#8221; Sanders praised Cuban dictator Fidel Castro for a literacy program after the Cuban revolution. Never mind that Castro also rounded up dissidents, engaged in mass murder and pulled his people into unending poverty. At least they could read how poor they were.
On Tuesday night, across the country, it appeared Democrats mostly rejected Sanders. In states Sanders won, former Vice President Joe Biden came close. In states like Virginia, where Sanders had been ahead in recent polling, Biden decisively crushed him. Sanders got a few good wins, including California. However, even California was closer than it should have been, and in Sanders&#8217; home state of Vermont, Biden drew closer than anyone expected he could.
Believe no pundit who said they saw the Super Tuesday results coming. On the morning of Super Tuesday, some polls showed Sanders winning 10 of the 14 states. While some votes are even now outstanding, it looks like Biden won 10 of the 14. In fact, Biden won Oklahoma, Minnesota and Massachusetts with very little campaigning in those states.
Massachusetts was really the most remarkable race. Polling and Democratic strategists predicted Sanders would beat Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Polling had consistently shown this; contrary to media advocacy for Warren, she is not very popular in her home state. Biden, however, was not a factor. Well, he was not a factor until he won the state.
Given Biden&#8217;s amazing rebound in South Carolina, a lot of knowledgeable pundits calculated he could get ahead of Sanders in delegates in the next two weeks. After Florida, Biden could dominate the race. No one saw Biden jumping ahead this past Tuesday. He now looks set to be the Democrats&#8217; nominee, barring an unforeseen event.
That is a good thing for the country. Super Tuesday was formalized by Southern Democrats in 1980 to stop the advance of Sen. Ted Kennedy against incumbent President Jimmy Carter, and Democrats have used it ever since to blunt the momentum of the far left in their party. They did it again this year.
While the Democratic Party continues to drift toward an eventual split between secular, rich, white voters and voters who are black or Hispanic, enough of their voters overall rejected a radical candidate. That is a good thing for the country. It is a recognition that the far-left socialist policies of Sanders and Warren are being rejected by minority voters within the Democratic Party. It is a recognition of the fact that a full government takeover of health care and other parts of the private sector are nonstarters. It is a recognition that &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; will go nowhere. It is a recognition that the &#8220;Bernie Bros&#8221; are marginalized. It is the death of the Green New Deal.
The nation needs two mostly-sane political parties. While the Democrats will never acknowledge the GOP is sane under Trump, those of us who know better know it is and should be thankful the Democrats appear to be rejecting their insane fringe. That makes November a more difficult fight for the President. But at least it ensures, even if by accident, the country is spared a radical communist as a major party leader.
As a bonus, this will undoubtedly exacerbate the divisions within the Democratic Party between the radical left and the establishment. Lastly, if you cannot bring yourselves to applaud Democrats for rejecting a radical communist as their presidential nominee, at least applaud them for exposing their own lie. Democrats have told us Russians spent a few million dollars and stole the 2016 election for Donald Trump. If Mike Bloomberg could not buy the election with $500 million, it is even less plausible today to presume the Russians could steal it with far less.
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.

Sen. Bernie Sanders

ERICKSON: Applaud The Democrats

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Party

Joe Biden

Socialism

Can we acknowledge no real conservative would vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders over President Donald Trump? If you want, you can sit out because the process grosses you out and you hate them all. But actively voting for a socialist to stop the populist disqualifies you from ever talking about conservatism.
You can rationalize it and say that four years of Sanders would be ineffective because of Congressional gridlock, but that can be said of Trump, too. Trump, at least at the regulatory level, has rolled back government, not expanded it. Sanders would undermine the private sector, the free market, churches and individual liberty, without ever involving Congress.
Stop posing as a conservative if you are going with Sanders. It&#8217;d be far better to sit it out. To go for Sanders is really an admission that your pride is suffering, not the country.
As for the rest of us, ironically, millions are going to turn out to vote for a guy they hate to stop a guy they loathe. I know a lot of people who refused to vote for Trump in 2016 who will crawl over broken glass to support him in 2020 against Sanders. I know Democrats who despise Sanders but consider Trump a bigger threat because of judges, deregulation, etc.
The upside is, perhaps, that our politics are getting so broken that people will realize they have to do something different at the local level. Our politics are only going to get better if people actually turn away from Washington and start focusing on their local communities. People burning out on national politics and convinced the country is held hostage by the fringes of either side is actually good. It will get them to stop worrying about Washington and start worrying about their local communities instead.
Mike Bloomberg is going to try to present an alternative. He intends to spend millions on advertisements to emphasize the negative outcomes of a Sanders presidency. It might actually help Trump more than Bloomberg. But Bloomberg is going to do his best to stop Sanders.
I am writing this before the South Carolina primary, which Joe Biden is expected to win. Sanders will pick up more delegates, because he will come in with above 15% of the vote. Three days later is Super Tuesday. That will see races in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.
Sanders is going to win most of California&#8217;s 495 delegates. Texas has 262 delegates. Recent polling has Sanders surging in Texas with Bloomberg actually holding Biden back from winning. With Bloomberg on the ballot, Sanders may win outright or keep it very close. Sanders will, therefore, continue to pick up delegates while also winning most Super Tuesday states, if the polls are right.
The next major haul will be Florida with 248 delegates, and Sanders may be shut out there. But he is going up in the polls there, too. It is presumed his pro-Castro comments will stall him out in Florida. Even if they do, Sanders will still keep leading in delegates for the time being.
Biden will keep picking up delegates, too. That keeps Biden in the race fighting Bloomberg. Sen. Elizabeth Warren also has no reason to get out, because she is doing well in several polls and will gain delegates on Super Tuesday. She is also a useful instrument to attack the establishment in a way that protects Sanders.
Bloomberg has pushed a media storyline that only he can stop Sanders. The reality is Bloomberg has, as of now, exactly zero delegates. Sanders leads in delegates, with Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar all having delegates, too. Bloomberg would like to throw the race into disarray and force a brokered Democratic convention. But the reality is the communists will either win it or riot — and they might riot even if they win it.
If Sanders wins the most states, the most delegates and the most votes, Democrats will be hard-pressed to deny him the nomination. This will be fun to watch.
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.

ERICKSON: Voting For Who You Hate To Stop Who You Loathe

2020 Election

The polls are not wrong. I know many people think polls are wrong, because the polls say things people do not believe. Sure, there are bad pollsters, but polling averages do a pretty good job. Take 2016, the example that comes to mind for a lot of people who say polls are wrong.
Hillary Clinton did, in fact, win the popular vote. The final polling average had her winning by 3%. She won by 2%. The polls were right. The problem is that we elect the President with an Electoral College, not a popular vote. The individual polls of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were far more instructive. But individual state polling is hard to do, and it&#8217;s more expensive.
As a general rule, if a poll has the candidates with a gap of 5% or more, those numbers tend to trickle down proportionally at the state level. When polls show candidates with margins of less than 5%, go to individual state polling to get a more accurate reading of a presidential race.
The methodology matters, too. Let me give you the methodology of the Emerson College poll. According to their latest national poll, which has Sen. Bernie Sanders with a 7-point lead, &#8220;Data was collected using both an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only &#8230; and online panels provided by (Amazon) Turk.&#8221; In other words, the poll only called landlines, not cellphones. It used a robocall, not a live operator. It also used an online voting system that involved Amazon Mechanical Turk. Amazon describes its Turk system as &#8220;a crowdsourcing marketplace that makes it easier for individuals and businesses to outsource their processes and jobs to a distributed workforce who can perform these tasks virtually.&#8221;
That is not a good method of polling. There were no live operators and no cellphones. Compare Emerson to the ABC News-Washington Post poll, which describes its methodology as, &#8220;conducted by landline and cellular telephone Feb. 14-17, 2020, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,066 adults.&#8221; That poll has Sanders with a 15-point national lead.
The ABC News-Washington Post poll uses a good methodology. They used landlines and cellphones. They polled randomly. They also did it in Spanish. That&#8217;s pretty comprehensive.
Pew Research has out a report on bogus respondents in online polling. They found &#8220;that online polls conducted with widely-used opt-in sources contain small but measurable shares of bogus respondents (about 4% to 7%, depending on the source). Critically, these bogus respondents are not just answering at random, but rather they tend to select positive answer choices — introducing a small, systematic bias into estimates like presidential approval.&#8221;
In other words, beware of pollsters using online groups to participate in polls.
Polling really is a combination of art and science. There are great pollsters out there. The media overly relies on polling to help shape news coverage, but it can be helpful. We can, for example, see the rise of Michael Bloomberg in the polling. He has not yet been on the ballot, but we can tell his spending on ads is helping him. This, in turn, tells us that major ad-buying actually does help by boosting name identification.
But Sanders is now leading in the polls. Joe Biden has what can best be described as electile dysfunction. Biden led the polling nationally for more than 52 weeks. Before Biden even formally declared, he held about 28% in the polling averages. But his numbers are starting to plummet as Sanders surges and Bloomberg takes off.
It is an open question if Bloomberg can compensate for the fact that he has not been on the ballot yet and now has had a terrible debate performance. Super Tuesday is on March 3, and Bloomberg will finally be on a ballot. In the meantime, don&#8217;t dismiss the polls. Just check the methodology. Also, for all the horror stories about President Donald Trump losing to everyone in the national polls, go check out the swing states. In Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, North Carolina and beyond, Trump actually does far better than national polls suggest. That could make for an interesting election.
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.

Dem Donkey &#038; Rep Elephant

ERICKSON: Polling The Polls

Hillary Clinton

Michael Bloomberg

Poll

Nobody really wants to be honest these days. If they were honest, they would have to admit a few inconvenient truths. First and foremost, they would have to acknowledge that had a Democrat done what President Donald Trump did on that Ukraine phone call, Republicans would be outraged, and Democrats would be excusing it.
Second, Democrats would have to acknowledge that their side is capable of wrongdoing. That may be the most difficult thing for the left to acknowledge, as they are invested in the idea that Trump is uniquely bad. Don&#8217;t look now, but Barack Obama&#8217;s IRS targeted conservative groups, and his Department of Justice sold guns to Mexico that got an American border patrol agent killed. But ask your average reporter or progressive activist, and they&#8217;ll claim with a straight face that the Obama Administration was scandal-free.
The left will tell you that Trump and his supporters are uniquely violent in their tone and rhetoric. They will ignore that Obama told Hispanic voters that the GOP was their enemy, Joe Biden said Mitt Romney would put black people back in chains, and Obama urged his supporters to rat out their neighbors for spreading misinformation during the 2012 election. At a campaign event in 2008, he urged them to take guns to knife fights.
The reality is that neither side is pure, but much of the journalism and punditry of the present age is designed to cover one side in a way that absolves the other of their sins.
Recently, McKay Coppins in The Atlantic wrote a piece titled &#8220;The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President.&#8221; It&#8217;s a great read and covers the extent to which Trump&#8217;s reelection will feature &#8220;coordinated bot attacks, Potemkin local-news sites, micro-targeted fearmongering, and anonymous mass texting.&#8221;
The story was circulated widely by progressives who smugly denounced the president and his campaign. But the truth is that the Democrats do this, too. In fact, every politician in every presidential campaign has done this. No politician is fully honest. They lie, distort and obfuscate.
Obama upended the American health care system by lying that if you like your doctor, you could keep your doctor. He used the presidency and all the tools available at the time to sell that lie. While lying about it, he created a White House office that encouraged people to rat out &#8220;lies&#8221; about the Affordable Care Act. Many of those lies were actually true.
Obama&#8217;s 2012 data-targeting campaign made careers for people covering the rise of digital politics. But in 2016, Trump won using the very techniques online pioneered by the Obama team. The fact that a Republican could outdo Team Obama on Facebook made Facebook bad, after being heralded as a force for good when Obama won. Remember Obama&#8217;s war on Fox News? Go further back; remember Bill Clinton and the mainstream media blaming Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City Bombing or The New York Times writers blaming Sarah Palin for the Arizona shooting?
A week ago, a man in a van ran through a Republican voter registration tent in Florida. Had it been an &#8220;alt-right&#8221; person doing it to a Democratic voter registration tent, it&#8217;d be national news for days. Consider how quickly the James Hodgkinson shooting spree disappeared from the news coverage.
Democrats are convinced Trump is different. The reality is most of his policy positions are pretty mainstream. Even Trump&#8217;s behavior is not unique. It is the logical extension of the liberal media turning a blind eye to a supposedly scandal-free administration that used the power of the state to harass nuns, conservative groups and other opponents. But the left will never acknowledge it because to do so, they would have to admit Trump is not the unique boogeyman they have claimed him to be, and they have to take some ownership of the situation.
The reality is that both sides are behaving badly in politics, but they only care to cast aspersions on the other. Our tribalism has become morally relative, and the sins of one side have become virtues to the other.
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.

U.S. Capitol

ERICKSON: The Moral Relativism Of My Tribe

Democrats

Republicans

It would have been hard to orchestrate a worse week for Democrats. From Iowa to impeachment, the political winds shifted against them.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, only a few months ago, had been praised by the American political press as a strategic genius. Her role in orchestrating the impeachment of President Donald Trump had her declared a political winner by a host of news network reporters, not just pundits. The Democrats started by coordinating with a whistleblower whose name everyone in Washington seems to know but only Sen. Rand Paul will dare utter.
After that coordination, Democrats opened an investigation the media found absolutely devastating. The number of reporters who declared everything terrible for the President increased. But the number of Americans who wanted the President tossed from office barely budged from around 47%, tied with those who wanted him to remain.
Then, having helped orchestrate the impeachment, Pelosi held on to the articles of impeachment. The media proclaimed it to be another strategic victory designed to build pressure on the Senate for fair rules. Ultimately, Pelosi sent the articles, and the Senate created rules that had no relation to the delay. Pelosi and the Democrats then demanded witnesses they had never called in the House. Media allies proclaimed the Senate had heard from no witnesses, despite having 17 witnesses entered into the record. As an aside, it is amazing how much the mainstream American press, from news networks to newspapers, was willing to parrot the Democrats&#8217; talking point on witnesses.
The Republican objection had always been that the Senate should hear from no witnesses the House had not first heard from. It was a fair point. Since the first impeachment in the late 1800s, the Senate has rarely heard from witnesses who have not first testified before the House. It has happened only a handful of times, in the trials of Walter Nixon, Bill Clinton and Thomas Porteous. In the President&#8217;s case, the House failed to get the White House chief of staff or former national security advisor to testify. They blamed the court system but failed to push for an expedited court review. They just passed their job to the Senate.
The Senate rejected calling witnesses. Then, despite media hysteria, they acquitted Trump. It remains underappreciated that the House Democrats got only one Republican, Sen. Mitt Romney, to vote for impeachment, given how many House Republicans privately loathe the President. And one House Democrat actually became a Republican over impeachment.
On the week the Senate acquitted the President, Democrats had an embarrassing spectacle in Iowa. The former vice president of the United States, who served for two terms under Barack Obama, utterly failed to gain traction. The technology-focused Democrats, who spent four years lecturing Americans about voter security, managed to roll out an app to count the vote in Iowa, and it crashed. We now know the Department of Homeland Security offered to help vet the app&#8217;s security, and the Democrats refused. The spectacle of the Democrats&#8217; failure helped to overshadow both Joe Biden&#8217;s collapse and Bernie Sanders&#8217; momentum.
The next day, Trump delivered a remarkable State of the Union address tailor-made for a nation that no longer remembers lines of speeches but will remember Instagramable moments. One of those moments was honoring the last surviving Tuskegee Airman, and another honored an African American mother whose daughter is about to get a great education. For both, the Democrats sat. The end of the speech saw Pelosi rip up the printed copy of the President&#8217;s speech. Even a lot of Democrats were appalled.
For months, Democrats and the press have been in a feedback loop of self-congratulatory back-patting. Guided by elite opinion on social media, Democrats marched themselves off a cliff to applause from the left. They now face a President with higher approval ratings than Obama had when he began his campaign for a second term.
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.

Nancy Pelosi.

ERICKSON: Democrats Just Overplayed Their Hand

Impeachment

Nancy Pelosi

State of the Union

If you are a Republican, the first week of impeachment meant the Democrats were unserious clowns, out to launch a coup against the duly elected President of the United States. The President&#8217;s team was diligent, thoughtful and proficient.
If you are a Democrat, the first week of impeachment meant the President&#8217;s team was a cast straight from the island of misfit toys, unable to make a coherent argument — and the Democrats were veritable geniuses. Impeachment, and your view on impeachment, is all in the eye of the beholder. Republicans think it is a scam, and Democrats think it is necessary.
In 1998, the roles were reversed, including in the press. Major media figures during the Clinton impeachment thought it would be a waste of time to hear from witnesses. Now, many of the same figures think it is vitally necessary. In 1998, Republicans thought the future of the republic depended on it, and Democrats thought it was a partisan coup. Guess where they stand now?
The most significant difference is that in 1998, Republicans got more Democrats on board than Democrats have gotten now against Trump. That is very notable, if for only one reason. There are 22 House Republicans leaving Congress. Half of them, at least, hate the President of the United States. They blame him for their districts turning against them. They blame him for their loss of power. They blame him for their departures. But the Democrats got precisely zero of them to vote their way, while the GOP picked up a seat in Congress with a Democrat turning Republican.
If House Democrats cannot get the Republicans who hate President Donald Trump and no longer have to fear his voters to go for impeachment, getting two-thirds of the Senate to go along for their ride is going to be an impossible task. To be clear, the President should not have done what he did. It was wrong, and any Republican who says otherwise lacks the intellectual honesty to acknowledge they would be demanding Barack Obama&#8217;s head if he had done the same.
But is it impeachable? I think, with the nation less than a year from an election, it is not. If the President were in a second term and incapable of being held accountable by the voters, or early in a first term, the conclusion could be different. But the conclusion here is that the President did something wrong, and his staff knew it — but it is in the open and he will face voters in less than 11 months. Likewise, Democrats failed to call key witnesses they could have called to build a better case, such as former National Security Advisor John Bolton.
Instead, they tried to hide behind the courts and endless delays, but they never even wanted to pick the fight. The reality is that the courts would have accommodated the Democrats and rapidly expedited the fight. The Democrats chose never to go that far and now want the Senate to do the House&#8217;s job.
Impeachment is a partisan fundraising tool for both sides at this point. Democrats have managed to help the President unite the Republican base while uniting their own base. There can be only one winner, and it will be Trump. Democrats will take their loss and turn it into a public relations and fundraising victory with their base. Relying on an overly biased and sympathetic media, the Democrats will cast doubt on the 2020 election, savage the GOP and make a case for taking back the Senate.
In less than a month, the nation will move on and have other things to focus on. Time will advance, the President will be on the ballot in November and voters will care about something else. This is historic. This is the third presidential impeachment in American history and only the second in living memory. Its ending is a foregone conclusion. It distracts from more important things. It will do nothing but make Americans more cynical as the ties that bind us fray just a bit more.
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.

Capitol Hill.

ERICKSON: The Sound, Fury And Predictability

Republican Party

My children go to a small Christian private school. One of the most popular teachers has been called up to go to Afghanistan for another tour. He will leave behind his wife, children and school. My kids are distraught. My oldest asked me a question for which I have no answer: Why are we sending soldiers to Afghanistan?
Nineteen years ago, before my children were born, terrorists who trained in Afghanistan and coordinated with the Taliban government plotted and carried out the 9/11 attacks that killed over 2,000 Americans. President George W. Bush rallied the nation and launched an invasion of Afghanistan to root out the terrorist masterminds and end the Taliban&#8217;s rule. The situation proved more difficult that our military leaders assured us. Undoubtedly, part of the problem was American pride wanting to show the Russians that we could tame a country that Russians still call their Vietnam.
Even a decade ago, I could have rationally explained to my kids why we went into Afghanistan and why, nearly a decade later, we were still there. The government struggled. We had not exterminated the Taliban. We needed to help the government get on its feet. We needed to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a terrorist safe haven.
But now, nearly 20 years removed, the situation has not changed. In fact, in a breathtaking report from The Washington Post with a treasure trove of documents from the Pentagon, it turns out our military leaders do not know why we are in Afghanistan either. The government continues to be corrupt. In fact, corruption is systemic and endemic to the various tribes and political classes inside Afghanistan.
The American government failed at the core task of taking out the Taliban. The American government further failed to establish a sound government capable of taking out the Taliban after we left. We are now failing by propping up a kleptocracy that has no desire to change.
Both Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama have wanted to leave Afghanistan, but we are still there. We have an understandable reason for remaining in Iraq, but I cannot fathom an explanation for why our soldiers are still getting killed in Afghanistan. The only plausible explanation at this point seems to be the pride of our military leaders. But our young men and women should not die for the pride of others who cannot admit failure. It is a failure.
Trump should begin winding down our operations in Afghanistan now. If he doesn&#8217;t, he should provide some reasonable expectations and goals. It is clear from the military documents uncovered by The Washington Post that our military leaders do not really know why we are in Afghanistan anymore, and those under them have no idea what they are doing. This is not good stewardship of our military or resources, and it is terrible for morale.
More importantly, we are raising a new generation of Americans to be cynical about the use of American power. When our children see their teachers, parents, older siblings and family friends head off to a country on the far side of the world, unable to explain why they are going, we risk undermining our kids&#8217; faith in institutions and willingness to serve a cause greater than themselves.
Afghanistan was once a cause greater than any one person. Afghanistan did give a safe haven to terrorists and help them plan attacks against the United States. Afghanistan was run by a rogue government of Islamic fundamentalists. But now, Afghanistan is run by a corrupt regime that makes some of its people wistful for the days of the Taliban.
Someone needs to tell us why we are still going there. Someone needs to tell us when or under what conditions we will leave. Someone needs to tell us what our soldiers are actually doing there. Someone needs to provide goals and purposes. That should be the commander in chief. If he cannot do it, we should leave tomorrow.
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.

Soldiers in Afghanistan.

ERICKSON: Why Are We Still There? When Do We Leave?

9/11

Afghanistan

Iraq War

In the modern era, it is difficult to come up with an administration that has spent as much energy trying to sabotage its successor in office. Obama administration officials have worked tirelessly to embed themselves into media outlets as supposedly objective voices.
After President Donald Trump oversaw the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and as missiles fell from the night sky into Iraq from Iran, those voices took to the airwaves to push the Obama line against Trump. In the American media, with help from former Obama staffers, Trump was the bad guy and Iran was the good guy. Iran deescalated tensions. Trump made things worse.
On CNN, Jim Sciutto of the Obama administration sat as an objective news anchor. CNN also now has Valerie Jarrett&#8217;s daughter, Laura, in an anchor chair, too. They tossed a co-anchor for their early morning news show to make room for the daughter of one of Barack Obama&#8217;s most ardent defenders. But we are supposed to pretend there is no bias.
They have been joined by a bevy of other Obama surrogates who now pretend to be objective analysts. Watching James Clapper, also of the Obama administration, pretend to be an unbiased national security analyst for CNN makes me long for the days of &#8220;Baghdad Bob,&#8221; Saddam Hussein&#8217;s spokesman who claimed the Americans had been defeated as American tanks rolled into Baghdad.
Newsweek reported last week that, &#8220;James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, has urged Americans to be skeptical of President Donald Trump&#8217;s justification for the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.&#8221; Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that CIA Director Gina Haspel, whose nomination Clapper supported, &#8220;had advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran&#8217;s response if he was killed, according to current and former American officials. Indeed, Haspel had predicted the most likely response would be a missile strike from Iran to bases where American troops were deployed, the very situation that appeared to be playing out on Tuesday afternoon.&#8221;
Who do we believe? The CIA director or the people ideologically dedicated to protecting Obama&#8217;s precious Iran deal? When watching the Obama team — whether they are anchoring CNN coverage or mouthing off on MSNBC — it is striking just how invested they are in denying reality.
After Iran launched its functionally impotent attack against American positions in Iraq, Trump rightly pointed out the Obama administration helped Iran launch those missiles. The pushback from media fact checkers and Obama surrogates was fast and furious — and also more dedicated to protecting Obama than the truth.
The truth is that the United States did not give Iran money from American taxpayers. We gave them billions of dollars worth of their own money. After the Iranian revolutionaries overthrew the Shah, global powers froze Iran&#8217;s bank accounts. But Obama decided, I suspect, that Israel and Saudi Arabia were getting too big for their britches. Instead of aiming for peace in the Middle East, he decided he would prop up Iran.
In 2015, in defense of the deal, Obama&#8217;s Secretary of State John Kerry told CNBC some of Iran&#8217;s money would go to terrorist groups. &#8220;I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists &#8230; You know, to some degree, I&#8217;m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented,&#8221; Kerry said. Soleimani and the Iranians used the money Obama sent them to fund terrorists, militias, missiles and improvised explosive devices used to kill American soldiers.
Obama officials now guard what news you can and cannot hear. They anchor news desks and serve as purportedly objective analysts. When the Obama loyalist as news anchor asks the Obama loyalist as news analyst what happened, we can be sure they will blame Trump and protect Obama&#8217;s legacy. A media that continues to lecture Trump voters about truth increasingly does not know what truth is.
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.

Barack Obama.

ERICKSON: The Obama Administration’s Guerrilla War

Barack Obama

Iran

Qasem Soleimani

Many people reading this will have already taken down their Christmas lights. Just a few decades ago, it was pretty normal for Christians in America to leave up their lights for all 12 days of Christmas. Now, many think Christmas Day is the 12th day instead of the first. My lights will burn bright until Jan. 5, where, by tradition, the lights must be off before sunset. On Jan. 6, which is Epiphany, Mardi Gras season starts in earnest for those of us from Louisiana.
As I get older, I love the Christmas season more and more. Easter comes as a weekend. Christmas comes as a month of Advent on the heels of Thanksgiving. It gives time for more reflection, often centered around some pretty deep theology in carols. The basic gist of the caroling is all the same. God became flesh and humbled himself by being born in a manger and giving up the trappings of royalty and then dying a criminal&#8217;s death having committed no crime.
In the United States, whether we like to admit it or not, we are already deep into political campaign season. Impeachment season is upon us as well. Everything is now political. Just two weeks ago, the author J.K. Rowling walked into a firestorm for having the audacity to be pro-science. She declared sex is immutable. Men cannot become women, and vice versa. Though she endorsed this scientific fact, woke protestors decided to burn her books. Even opinion writers in The New York Times denounced her for expressing an opinion others in The New York Times have expressed in the past.
Everything has become political. Every political cause has taken on religious fervor. It can wear a person out. In wokeness, every principled position firmly held will eventually give way to something more extreme, radical and wholly disconnected from reason. Truthfully, though, none of it matters. Too many people have separated themselves from the eternal to focus on the here and now. They have decided to seek a future utopia of some kind, aware their mortal life is limited and unaware there is an eternity. Behaviors change when one recognizes eternity.
Too many partisans have forgotten eternity. On both sides of the political spectrum, people are looking for political saviors to save them from people on the other side of that spectrum. It is sad to see secular progressives running in hamster wheels of outrage, perpetually spun up about some perceived injustice. It is hilarious to see Christian evangelicals insistent on loyalty to a politician to save them from the other side. Apparently, having the God of the universe on their side is not enough.
Americans need a recalibration on priorities. So much of what we argue about does not really matter. No Republican was ever profoundly impacted by Barack Obama except, arguably, in the area of health care. No Democrat has ever been profoundly impacted by Donald Trump except, arguably, in their take-home pay. Both sides treat Washington as more important than it is.
What is actually important is this: You have a soul, you will live forever, and there is a God who wants a relationship with you. One day you will stand before him, and he will judge you. Everything else should flow from that. For those who do not believe, one day they will, and hopefully that belief will come on this side of the grave. For everyone else, behaving in politics as if eternity does not matter might ultimately suggest one is not as truly committed to the idea of eternity as one might claim.
Protestant Christians believe we are saved by faith alone, and good works derive from our faith. Regardless of how one sees salvation, I would suggest a lot of us could stand to dwell more on it than on Washington. We find our welfare in our local communities, not in far off cities that affect us far less than we claim. As we move beyond Christmas and into a new year, I would urge you (and me) to dwell less on the here and now and more on eternity.
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.

Church candle.

ERICKSON: The Eternal And The Here And Now

Christianity

Christmas

There are several billion people on this planet who live in stable, highly ordered societies, where they do not have to deal with the braying of biblical donkeys in our Congress yelling at each other. Contrary to claims heard this past week in the House of Representatives, impeaching the President is not more unfair than Jesus before Pontius Pilate. It is not worse than Pearl Harbor. It is not equivalent to fighting against Jim Crow. Failing to impeach the President is not an endorsement of tyranny or a dictatorship.
The impeachment is a messy, gross affair with politicians of both sides preening before cameras. If Congress took cameras out of the House and Senate chambers, our political discourse would improve overnight because the members of Congress would be unable to posture and preen in their chambers and committees; well, it&#8217;s either that, or we just would not see it anymore.
With all of that on the record, return your attention to those billions who live in stable, highly ordered societies. Those societies are highly ordered and superficially stable because they are oppressive and repressive authoritarian regimes. The trains in China can run on time because the conductors will disappear if they delay. Politics runs smoothly because the people have no choices except the mandated choices. Elections are Potemkin villages designed to placate Western media outlets that write glowingly about the efficiencies of the regimes.
The National Basketball Association gets vocal about social progress in the United States because we have freedom, which allows the players to speak up. They get strangely silent in China, when money is on the line and censorious authoritarians are watching. In this country, progressive protestors took to the streets last week to demand President Donald Trump&#8217;s impeachment. They went home after the protests, had access to hundreds of channels of uncensored entertainment and then slept comfortably in their beds, knowing the President they hate had been impeached.
Congressional Democrats, too, could go to the floor of the House of Representatives, insult the President, decry would-be dictatorship, vote to impeach and then go home at night to sleep safely, thinking they had stood up for democracy and the Constitution. You may not like that the protestors protested or the Democrats voted to impeach. But you should love that they could do both — and you could do both, if you wanted.
There are several billion people on planet Earth who cannot vote to remove their leader. They cannot take to the streets without risk to their own lives and those of their families. In Hong Kong, protestors wear masks to protest and live in fear of their police state. They crave the chaos inherent in the freedom of our system.
I disagree with the Democrats&#8217; impeachment of President Trump. I would have voted against it. I maintain that this issue is best left to the voters in less than a year. But I love that they could do it. The process we have witnessed play out is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is the design of our system. It is messy. It is chaotic. It is often embarrassing and sometimes hard to explain. It is also the best system of government on this blue orb we all share, and millions have lost their lives trying to get to it. We should be thankful for all of it.
As I get older, one reason I think so many Americans are yelling at each other more and more is because we know each other less and less. We now have more daily interactions digitally than in person. Two thousand years ago, the God of all creation, who brings bread from heaven and water from rocks and raised all of us from the dust of the Earth, came back to live with us. He downgraded from wandering the desert in a tent with the Israelites to a food trough in Bethlehem, surrounded by real braying biblical donkeys. If he wanted a relationship with us that much, perhaps we should work on our relationship with him. Part of that involves working on our relationship with each other. There is no better time to start than at Christmas. Merry Christmas.
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.

Impeachment sign.

ERICKSON: Impeachment And A Food Trough

The United States is currently embroiled in another political controversy. Next week, there will be another one. Each one will distract us. We should work hard to not be distracted from Christmas. We should not be distracted from a key miracle that started the Christian faith.
Both Matthew and Luke tell us that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary was, at the time, a virgin. It is a matter of theological orthodoxy to believe this, and given the parameters of Christianity, it is not a far leap to suggest if one cannot believe in a virgin birth, one will probably also lack the faith to believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus.
Early church fathers widely agreed that Jesus was both born of a virgin and physically rose from the dead. Church orthodoxy has been settled on these points for roughly 2,000 years, and no amount of holiday screeds about Mary being raped or the Bible being mistranslated can refute this. In fact, the collection of manuscripts of Scripture that we have today makes it very clear there is no mistranslation in the accounts of the birth of Jesus.
F. F. Bruce, one of the most respected scholars on the subject of biblical accuracy, notes that there are only around nine or 10 manuscripts of Julius Caesar&#8217;s &#8220;Gallic Wars,&#8221; which was composed between 58 and 50 BC. The oldest manuscript we have originates from 900 years later. Bruce writes that, &#8220;The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight (manuscripts), the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest (manuscripts) of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.&#8221;
Of Scripture, we have so much more. In fact, we can reproduce almost all of the New Testament from the writings of the early church fathers. Within 100 years of Christ&#8217;s death, we have almost all of the gospels and a good bit of Paul quoted. As Dr. Michael Brown has noted, there are over 20,000 handwritten manuscripts — written in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic and other ancient languages — currently known, and archeologists keep finding new copies. In fact, the Bible is perhaps the best-preserved ancient book, having more manuscripts originating from within 200 years of the primary sources than any other work in the Greco-Roman world. There are 5,700 New Testament Greek manuscripts known to exist, some written no more than 100 years after Christ&#8217;s resurrection.
We do not, to our knowledge, have the original autographs, i.e., the actual letters Paul wrote. But there is plenty of mainstream scholarship and wide acceptance that the originals were authored within 50 years of Christ&#8217;s death. Many of the eyewitnesses would have still been alive. Paul even notes that there were eyewitnesses still living who could confirm the accounts of Christ&#8217;s life.
While we do not have the original autographs, we have the copies early Christians wrote, duplicating those letters. The most amazing part of having so many copies that span hundreds of years is that they are remarkably free of errors. We know the accuracy of the Old Testament, going back more thousands of years, is beyond question. From the New Testament, there are errors in some of the manuscripts, but we have so many manuscripts we can find the consensus of what is correct, and, more importantly, none of the errors affect anything substantive.
As Bart Ehrman, a nonbelieving Biblical scholar has noted, &#8220;Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.&#8221; And one of those essential beliefs is this: &#8220;Unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.&#8221;
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Nativity.

ERICKSON: The Miraculous Beginnings Of Christmas

Bible

Jesus Christ

God organized society around a seven-day cycle that ends in a day of rest. The world has taken that seven-day cycle and added it to a solar cycle of roughly 365 days fixed on a point in space to which we arrive each year, marking a complete orbit around the sun.
In the liturgical calendar, we have arrived at a fixed point in time to celebrate the arrival of a son. As secular society drifts away from religious celebrations of Christmas and into shopping extravaganzas, even Protestant Christians might want to think about prioritizing the cycles of Christ&#8217;s birth and resurrection rather than the orbit around the sun.
But we are here, and during Advent, we all focus on the birth of Christ. It could do us some good, while focusing on his birth, to also focus on his death. As one Christmas song tells us, He was born to die. On that cross some 2,000 years ago, the divine son of God was fully God but also fully man. Christians focus on his divinity, but we could use some focus on his humanity. Gethsemane makes no sense without understanding that Jesus, an actual historical figure whose death was documented by the Roman historians, was also fully man.
That day in Jerusalem, the innocent man was tortured, beaten to within an inch of his life, forced to carry a cross after having a crown of thorns shoved into his scalp and nailed to that cross he had carried. Soldiers hoisted up the cross, and gravity then pulled down his body around the nails that fixed him there. His reaction was remarkable. Luke, the physician who interviewed the eyewitnesses to the event, tells us Jesus cried out to God, &#8220;Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.&#8221;
If you, an innocent person, were subjected to that, I doubt your dying words would involve forgiving the people killing you. Luke also chronicled the execution of the first Christian martyr, Stephen. Men stoned him to death, and with his dying breath, he asked God to forgive his murderers.
When we encounter people who insult or injure us, our natural reaction is to demand an apology, judge the sincerity of the apology and possibly give preconditions that must be fulfilled before we forgive. Between us and God, we must repent. But the human on the cross and the human martyr demanded no such thing. They forgave. There was no apology. There were no preconditions to forgiveness. There was just forgiveness.
At Christmas, nostalgia sweeps in and overwhelms us. We tend to reassess the last year, last Christmases or favorite Christmases. Often, past pain surfaces in our consciences. We have been insulted or aggrieved, and we cling to those grievances. We let the things others did to us control us. Forgiveness allows us to stop letting others control us. By forgiving without condition, we exercise the power of resetting a relationship in a way that prevents the other person from controlling us. In so doing, we also acknowledge that though we may be blameless in the transgression that happened, we have undoubtedly transgressed against others. We should therefore forgive, if only in the hope that others forgive us.
In my experience, the hardest person to forgive is oneself. We hang on to the dumb things we have done in the past and let the shame pollute our conscience. We must be willing to forgive others without condition, but we must also be willing to forgive ourselves. As the earth moves back to the starting point of a new year and we reflect on each mile of the preceding year&#8217;s orbit, we need to unshackle ourselves from our own guilt and anger at ourselves.
The only man who ever lived sin-free was tortured, beaten and executed, and in his final breaths, he chose to forgive. If we refuse to forgive ourselves or others, we suggest our consciences have been pricked more severely than his — and we know that is not so. At Christmas, give the gift of forgiveness, let go, and move on.
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.

Baby Jesus.

ERICKSON: The Best Christmas Gift

Two weeks ago, two prominent evangelical supporters of President Donald Trump, Eric Metaxas and Franklin Graham, had a discussion about the election, the current political situation and opposition to the President.
&#8220;It&#8217;s a very bizarre situation to be living in a country where some people seem to exist to undermine the president of the United States. It&#8217;s just a bizarre time for most Americans,&#8221; said author and radio show host Eric Metaxas.
&#8220;Well, I believe it&#8217;s almost a demonic power that is trying,&#8221; Graham began before being interrupted by Metaxas who replied, &#8220;I would disagree. It&#8217;s not almost demonic. You know and I know, at the heart, it&#8217;s a spiritual battle.&#8221; They then pivoted immediately into the economy as evidence of how good people have it.
The mainstream media rushed to characterize Graham as suggesting all opposition to the President is demonic. It is naturally understandable, given the conversation, that they would go there. But then that raises the question of all the opposition to Barack Obama when he was President. Romans 13:1-2 reads, &#8220;Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.&#8221;
Both Obama and Trump were put into the presidency as part of God&#8217;s master plan. If you are a Christian, you cannot deny this. Certainly, scripture is clear that man&#8217;s law does not trump God&#8217;s law. Refusing to pay for abortions despite a government mandate is scriptural. Praying for the President and paying taxes, even if you oppose where the money is going, is also scriptural.
The problem with the conversation, as with so many conversations these days, is that too many want to characterize their political opponents as enemies, not just opponents. I would agree that something wicked is stirring right now. Scripture is clear there are things unseen, both good and bad. We should be perturbed at the rise of mass shootings, the renewed aggressiveness of abortion rights advocates, the censorious demands of LGBT activists and more. We should also be perturbed at the number of Christians who think they need a strong man in the White House to protect them when they claim to worship the God of the universe.
Americans across the political spectrum need an abundance of grace more than ever right now. We — and I use &#8220;we&#8221; intentionally — are all so quick to presume bad motives these days. We are all so quick to presume someone is bad because they have a different worldview or ideology. Our society cannot continue on if we are not willing to live and let live. Our founders embraced the idea of federalism because they knew a new nation as diverse as ours should be allowed communities of common interest.
Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court and activists across the country have long worked to exterminate communities of interest. The values of urban, progressive areas are increasingly legally required to be the values of socially conservative areas. A decade ago, progressive activists asked, &#8220;How will my gay marriage affect you?&#8221; The answer, a decade later, is that my business may be shut down if I do not provide you goods and services. My children will be ostracized if they do not run from their parents&#8217; faith.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant and then it seeks to silence good. The only cure for the rise of intolerances and censoriousness is grace. We must be willing to understand that those who fundamentally disagree with us simply have a different understanding of the world. We must work to find common ground where we can and show grace where we cannot. We must be willing to let others live their lives in ways fundamentally different from our own and not feel compelled to have them conform. If we, as a nation, are to survive as one people, we must be willing to be friends in disagreement.
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.

Hand holding.

ERICKSON: An Abundance Of Grace

Franklin Graham

Religion

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

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

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.

Menu

Erick Erickson

Articles by Erick Erickson