Exclusive Video Commentary: Trump vs Bannon

Well, this is very interesting…

Via Bloomberg, Trump says, Bannon is “Teh Crazy..”:

President Donald Trump denounced his former top strategist, Steve Bannon, on Wednesday in a dramatic break from the man considered an architect of Trump’s populist campaign.

 

“When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind,” Trump said in a statement issued after the publication of excerpts of a new book in which Bannon criticizes the president and his family. “Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look.”

 

Steve Bannon

Photographer: Nicole Craine/Bloomberg

Bannon has lost the access to the president that he’s enjoyed since leaving the White House in August, one person familiar with the matter said.

Earlier on Wednesday, The Guardian published excerpts of a forthcoming book by author Michael Wolff in which Bannon predicts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will “crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV” over the president’s son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016. Bannon also called Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with the lawyer, in which he expected to receive damaging information on Trump’s election opponent Hillary Clinton, “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” according to the Guardian.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters at a briefing that Trump was “furious, disgusted” by Bannon’s remarks about his son, calling the claims “outrageous” and “completely false.”

Bannon, reached by Bloomberg News, declined to comment on the remarks published by the Guardian. Two people close to him said he wasn’t bothered by the president’s statement. They asked not to be identified discussing Bannon’s reaction.

New York Magazine also published an article by Wolff on Wednesday, based on the book, that recounts a conversation between Bannon and former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes in which the two men debated whether Trump understood the importance of his election.

“‘Does he get it?’ asked Ailes suddenly, looking intently at Bannon. Did Trump get where history had put him?” Wolff wrote. “Bannon took a sip of water. ‘He gets it,’ he said, after hesitating for perhaps a beat too long. ‘Or he gets what he gets.”’

My temptation to giggle at the faux outrage aside. This will have some far reaching consequences and I explain this in my video commentary below:

https://youtu.be/kNtC_2BDKVk

Related: (Via Memorandum)

Michael Wolff / New York Magazine:Donald Trump Didn’t Want to Be President

David Smith / The Guardian:Trump Tower meeting with Russians ‘treasonous’, Bannon says in explosive book

Asawin Suebsaeng / The Daily Beast:Enraged Trump Personally Dictated Scathing Denouncement of Strategist Steve Bannon

Others: Washington Post, RedState, The Hill, National Review, CNN, Politico, The Daily Beast, Shareblue Media, CNBC, The White House, Washington Monthly, Talking Points Memo, New York Times, TVNewser, Little Green Footballs, Business Insider, The Daily Caller, Axios, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Refinery29, Gizmodo, Raw Story, Washington Press, Mother Jones, Mashable, Front Page Magazine, The Guardian, TheBlaze, Breitbart, The Daily Gazette, Mediaite, IJR, Shakesville and The Mahablog, more at Mediagazer », Politico, Breitbart, Weekly Standard, TheBlaze, Infowars, Daily Wire, New York Post, CNN, National Review, NBC News, New Republic, ThinkProgress, The Atlantic, Vox, Talking Points Memo, bizpacreview.com, Washington Press, HuffPost, Washington Post, Axios, ABC News, Right Wing Watch, IJR, Mother Jones, The Daily Caller, The Moderate Voice, Business Insider, Raw Story, Lawyers, Guns & Money, Booman Tribune, CNBC, Hullabaloo, The Gateway Pundit, Common Dreams, The Stream, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, RedState, Fox News Insider, Washington Free Beacon, Washington Monthly, Roll Call and Townhall.com, The Hill, Raw Story, Business Insider and Washington Press

 

A good example why I stopped voting for Democrats

This comes via Memeorandum, a good example as to why I stopped voting for the Democratic Party.

Quotable Quote:

Imagine how far gone in hate a liberal must be to attack Mrs. Trump for her efforts to decorate the White House. There is simply no bottom to left-wing depravity, as manifested in the Democratic Party press.

Now to fair, I did see some nasty stuff printed about the Obama Family, by some Conservative outlets; notably by Michelle Malkin, who was especially vicious towards Michelle Obama.  However, anything that the left prints is much, much worse. I’m no Trump fanboy, not by a long shot. But, attacking his family, is beyond the pale, in my opinion.

Video: Senator Jeff Flake says he will not seek reelection in 2018

I kinda saw this coming and I totally understand where he is coming from.

Full Text of the floor speech via CNN:

Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter that has been much on my mind, at a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than it is by our values and our principles. Let me begin by noting a somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours to hold indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office. And there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles.

Now is such a time.

It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret, because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics, regret because of the indecency of our discourse, regret because of the coarseness of our leadership, regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our — all of our — complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.

In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order — that phrase being “the new normal.” But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue — with the tone set at the top.

We must never regard as “normal” the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country – the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve.

None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that this is just the way things are now. If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that this is just politics as usual, then heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences, and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal.
Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as “telling it like it is,” when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified.

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else: It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength — because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit, and weakness.
It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, Why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up? — what are we going to say?

Mr. President, I rise today to say: Enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it. We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that.
Here, today, I stand to say that we would better serve the country and better fulfill our obligations under the constitution by adhering to our Article 1 “old normal” — Mr. Madison’s doctrine of the separation of powers. This genius innovation which affirms Madison’s status as a true visionary and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51 — held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract each other when necessary. “Ambition counteracts ambition,” he wrote.

But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability? If decency fails to call out indecency? Were the shoe on the other foot, would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course not, and we would be wrong if we did.

When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that that silence and inaction is the wrong thing to do — because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseum — when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of the institutions of our liberty, then we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.

Now, I am aware that more politically savvy people than I caution against such talk. I am aware that a segment of my party believes that anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a president who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect.

If I have been critical, it not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the president of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe that it is my obligation to do so, as a matter of duty and conscience. The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters – the notion that one should say and do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.

A Republican president named Roosevelt had this to say about the president and a citizen’s relationship to the office:

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.” President Roosevelt continued. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party. We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in that regard. I am holier-than-none. But too often, we rush not to salvage principle but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing—until the accommodation itself becomes our principle.

In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice almost any principle. I’m afraid that is where we now find ourselves.
When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country and instead of addressing it goes looking for somebody to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to first look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops. Humility helps. Character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly and debased appetites in us.

Leadership lives by the American creed: E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. American leadership looks to the world, and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero-sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have also been at our most principled. And when we do well, the rest of the world also does well.

These articles of civic faith have been central to the American identity for as long as we have all been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation. We must guard them jealously, and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them, or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership. And to behave as if they don’t matter is simply not who we are.
Now, the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II we contributed about half of the world’s economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance, keeping the countries that had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn’t do that. It would have been easy to focus inward. We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years.

Now, it seems that we, the architects of this visionary rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it.

The implications of this abandonment are profound. And the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum. And our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal. And what do we as United States Senators have to say about it?

The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics. Because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity.
I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit.

I have decided that I will be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself from the political considerations that consume far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles.

To that end, I am announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019.

It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, and who is pro-immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican party — the party that for so long has defined itself by belief in those things. It is also clear to me for the moment we have given in or given up on those core principles in favor of the more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess we have created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.

There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal — but mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party.

We were not made great as a country by indulging or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorying in the things which divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake. And we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are.

This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better. Because to have a heathy government we must have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently, and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man, and always look for the good. Until that days comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it. Because it does.
I plan to spend the remaining fourteen months of my senate term doing just that.

Mr. President, the graveyard is full of indispensable men and women — none of us here is indispensable. Nor were even the great figures from history who toiled at these very desks in this very chamber to shape this country that we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values that they consecrated in Philadelphia and in this place, values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free. What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career doesn’t mean much if we are complicit in undermining those values.
I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today, and will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healing enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time, and are no less so in ours:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Related:

Others: Weekly Standard, Washington Post, Vox, The Atlantic, Talking Points Memo, NBC News, The Hill, CNN, ABC News, JustOneMinute, Axios, Mother Jones, RedState, CNBC, Raw Story, Shareblue Media, The Daily Caller, The Gateway Pundit, Bearing Drift, The Federalist, Outside the Beltway, TheBlaze, Washington Free Beacon, Business Insider, Hit & Run, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Daily Kos, Shakesville, Mediaite, Political Wire, twitchy.com, New York Magazine, Joe.My.God. and AOL, ThinkProgress, Breitbart, Weekly Standard, Vox, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, Shareblue Media and Mashable, Vox, Washington Post, Talking Points Memo, CNBC, Hit & Run, NBC News, Raw Story, The Gateway Pundit, Washington Free Beacon and Hullabaloo

 

Another good reason why I am not happy with President Donald Trump

Is this nutty idea that The President should be able to cancel the broadcast licenses of those in the press that he disagrees with. This is crazy talk and smacks of Hitler.

Here’s a snippet of the story and commentary from HotAir.com:

Yet, there are also plenty of conservatives and libertarian who have criticized Trump for his attack on the MSM. AP and Ed both wrote Trump was wrong in his challenge to the First Amendment. Katherine Timpf at National Review went even further, (correctly) using the “f-word,” as in fascism, in her condemnation.

Let me be clear: Calling for government control of the media is not a conservative view; it’s a fascist one. You’re fine to think that the government should control the media; you’re fine to espouse it — thanks, of course, to the First Amendment that you’re apparently totally fine with jeopardizing — but please understand that this idea is not compatible with conservative, or even traditionally American, values.

There’s no doubt the MSM has raised the dander of conservatives and libertarians, and for good reason. The newscaster plenty of people cite as an example of fair news, Walter Cronkite, wasn’t fair at all. Douglas Brinkley’s book Cronkite, written with participation from the ex-CBS News anchor’s family, showed Cronkite wasn’t biased, especially to Barry Goldwater. There’s also the stupidity of Dan Rather, who pushed the idea ex-President George W. Bush figured out a way to skip out on his service in the National Guard.

These are examples of biased press, and should cause people pause. It’s totally okay if someone decides to find another source for a story because it was written by an outlet which may or may not give someone a fair shot. That’s up to individuals, not the government. Yet, biased press is very much protected by the First Amendment. In fact, biased press is free press, whether it makes conservatives, libertarians, liberals, or socialists happy or furious. Federalists and Anti-Federalists used the press to put out their opinions on whether the Constitution should be approved. Jeffersonians used the press to get their viewpoints out to the masses.

It’s also important to remember it’s not just “conservatives” who have had issues with the press. California Senator Dianne Feinstein suggested only “real reporters” deserved to be protected in a 2013 media shield law (which should just be the First Amendment, but I digress). Her amendment thankfully failed.

But it shows both parties have issues with outlets which don’t give them favorable press, and there are politicians in both parties who want to see the press restricted. All political ideologies, especially those who believe in freedom and liberty, should reject this wholeheartedly.

If President Donald Trump thinks that he can control the media; he is very highly mistaken. I voted for this man; to tackle trade, secure the boarder and straighten out our fiscal mess. I did NOT vote for a fascist. This whole idea smacks of the German Nazi nonsense of the 1940’s and it needs to be stood up to and stopped.

This is America and here, we do not control the press, ever. End of Discussion.

 

Trump gets a new chief of staff

Maybe now Donald Trump can get something done without all the distractions.

Via NYT:

WASHINGTON — Reince Priebus , the White House chief of staff who failed to impose order on a chaos-wracked West Wing, was pushed out on Friday after a stormy six-month tenure, and President Trump replaced him with John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security and retired four-star Marine general.

Mr. Trump announced Mr. Kelly’s appointment on Twitter shortly before 5 p.m. and only afterward sent out another message thanking Mr. Priebus for his service. “We accomplished a lot together and I am proud of him!”

One of 2 things is going to happen, Priebus going to write a tell all book and it will permenently damage trump or he will disappear into the night.

Either way, some people see this as trump getting rid of non loyalists. I see it; basically, as trump’s tightening of the ship so to speak.

I just finally hope that Donald Trump can overcome these distractions and start setting forth his agenda as to what he wants to do while hes in office. Because so far I have been horribly disappointed in his performance as president of the United States and yes I did vote for him.

Nixon 2.0?

I realize that I have not been posting here much at all. My Dad has been in the hospital. Dad went in on the 18’th of this month with chest pains and difficulty breathing. He spent 14 days on a ventilator and had a tracheotomy. Dad is still in the hospital and is supposed to be moved today to another hospital with a rehab center in it, to ween him off of the breathing machine and the trach tube. It’s going to be a rough road for the man; please pray for him. Oh and by the way, smoking sucks! As does diabetes.

So, I have been busy with that and with my gaming channel on YouTube, which has been really taking off as of late. So, I have been busy elsewhere. Plus too, Politics here as of late, has gotten silly, really silly and my interest has waned a bit. But, this news here made me perk up a bit.

I am referring to the Nixonian firing of FBI director James Comey. Now, Nixon’s people say it is not the same. Sorry, but this smacks of Nixon. An investigation that is getting too close to the President and he fires the person in charge of it. Same deal, different department.

Now, as someone who voted for the President, I will simply say this. If this was a firing to coverup wrongdoing by the President; it will come out in the wash. (So to speak…) I have never been loyal to a political party or person. I simply voted issues and if there has been wrongdoing by this President, by all means, let there be an investigation and not one hampered by partisan politics either.

Now, there are some on the left, maybe all of them? Also some on the right too; who are screaming, “Cover up!” Well, to that I simply say, let the investigators do their jobs and get to the facts.

On the failure of the Republicans replacement for Obamacare

I hate to be the one to say this, but, I absolutely knew that this was going to happen.

This is not to say that this sort of thing doesn’t happen all the time in Washington DC. But, the New York Times acts like it’s something rather new:

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders, facing a revolt among conservatives and moderates in their ranks, pulled legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act from consideration on the House floor Friday in a major defeat for President Trump on the first legislative showdown of his presidency.

“We’re going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future,” the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, conceded.

The failure of the Republicans’ three-month blitz to repeal President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement exposed deep divisions in the Republican Party that the election of a Republican president could not mask. It cast a long shadow over the ambitious agenda that Mr. Trump and Republican leaders had promised to enact once their party assumed power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

And it was the biggest defeat of Mr. Trump’s young presidency, which has suffered many. His travel ban has been blocked by the courts. Allegations of questionable ties to the Russian government forced out his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Tensions with key allies such as Germany, Britain and Australia are high, and Mr. Trump’s approval ratings are at historic lows.

President Trump basically spells it out right here:

That my friends is how the normal government process works. It was nothing big, it was nothing devastating to the president of the United States or his presidency. It’s simply how government works.

Think maybe somebody could tell that to the liberal media?

(Via Memeorandom)

Conservative Media figures are grumbling about the GOP Congress

Already? Yeah, I figured this would be coming. 🙄

Here’s Sean Hannity, and he is not happy:

It is not just him. AllahPundit over at HotAir.com observes the following:

It’s not just Hannity among the conservative A-list who’s grumbling about the tortoise pace of legislative action. Some House conservatives, like Jim Jordan, have complained about it recently and Matt Drudge, a Trump superfan, chimed in on Twitter a few days ago demanding to know what the hold-up is on O-Care and tax reform. All of which is excellent populist fodder: You can’t go wrong reassuring a restive grassroots audience that Congress is a bunch of gutless layabouts, especially if you’re a fan of the president and looking to condition the public to give him more power.

AP explains things a bit:

But this is more complicated than it looks. For one thing, the Senate GOP is jammed up right now by Democratic tactics to slow-walk Trump’s cabinet nominees. That’s resolving itself hour by hour as the time for debate on each nominee expires, but getting Trump’s secretaries in place is a top priority at the moment. For another thing, it’s not just Republicans in Congress who are urging patience among the base in moving their agenda, especially when it comes to ObamaCare. Hannity being Hannity, this monologue is a full-throated defense of Trump as a man of action and condemnation of the dithering Ryan-led Republicans in Congress as cowards who are blowing an opportunity — but it was Trump, not Ryan, who warned Americans last Sunday that the repeal-and-replace process might take until 2018. It’s Trump, not Ryan, who has pointedly held off on undoing Obama’s executive amnesties, much to the dismay of border hawks like Steve King. It’s Trump, not Ryan, who prioritized the travel ban as his first big policy fight rather than tax reform. Of course it’s true that Trump has acted more boldly thus far than Ryan and McConnell have in securing gains for the party, but that’s due to the nature of the two branches. All the president needs to do to make something happen in the executive branch is to grab a pen. Making something happen in the legislative branch takes time. As it was supposed to.

It also requires 60 votes in the Senate (at least for now), and therein lies a major problem. The Senate GOP can avoid a filibuster by using reconciliation to repeal chunks of ObamaCare, like the mandate — but it can’t repeal all of it. Importantly, it probably can’t repeal the regulations that require insurers to provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions, a main driver of costs under the program. It’ll probably take 60 votes for that, which creates a dilemma for Republicans: Do they really want to risk eliminating the mandate, the key revenue mechanism under the law, via reconciliation knowing that they can’t eliminate the main expenditure provision at the same time? That’s a recipe for a death spiral, which would mean lots and lots and lots of dropped coverage and lots and lots and lots of angry voters. Trump seems to understand that, that there aren’t 60 votes for a plan to avert that death spiral — at the moment — which is why he’s looking to 2018. Why is it the fault of congressional Republicans that they don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?

….and on Taxes:

The Bush tax cuts were enacted via reconciliation, you’ll recall, and were also subject to a 10-year sunset provision. Because of that, the top income tax bracket reverted to its pre-Bush levels in 2012. If you want this year’s tax reforms to be permanent rather than limited by another 10-year sunset and another big congressional standoff circa 2027, you need Democratic cooperation. That means 60 votes, and most Senate Dems are in no mood to provide those votes right now — but they might be eventually, especially since there’s bipartisan consensus on certain key issues (like lowering corporate taxes). As the midterms bear down on red-state Dems like Joe Manchin, they might be willing to compromise with the Great Negotiator in the White House and produce a package that can be passed cleanly in Congress, enshrining Trump’s tax program as permanent law. But that’ll take time, and Hannity and other populists are unwilling to wait.

Here’s an idea. If Trump wants to speed things along in the legislature so that he isn’t stuck fighting court battles over executive orders, he could try being a bit less antagonistic to legislators on the other side, like mocking Chuck Schumer for tearing up over refugees, and searching for areas on which the parties might compromise, to build trust. (And in fact, he might be doing just that.) It may not work despite his best efforts — the left craves a “resist at all costs!” approach to Trump, which is too bad and about which there isn’t much the White House can do. But he can do what he can do on his end. It can only help Ryan and McConnell to pick up the pace if he’s more conciliatory with critics.

Needless to say, the GOP congress is going to have their hands full for the next 4 years. When they are not defending themselves from attacks from Democrats, they will be having to fend off attacks from the Conservative media. It is going to be a long, hard four years.