Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the National Security category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘National Security’ Category

This WSJ editorial offers a stinging substantive criticism of the Democrats’ unseriousness.

Early in their editorial, they write about Sen. Tim Kaine’s criticism of Mike Pompeo, saying “‘I don’t want a Secretary of State who is going to exacerbate the [sic] President Trump’s tendencies to oppose diplomacy,’ Democratic Senator Tim Kaine (D, VA) told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. He cited Mr. Pompeo’s opposition to Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Tehran and his support for ‘regime change,’ although moderator Margaret Brennan didn’t let him finish that thought. Mr. Kaine may recall that Donald Trump campaigned and won while opposing the Iran nuclear deal, and if Mr. Kaine is still sore about the outcome he should have told his running mate to campaign in Wisconsin.”

Later, they write “Democrats say they don’t trust Mr. Trump, but in denying him senior advisers they make it more likely he will govern by himself. Mark it down as one more example that hatred for Mr. Trump has caused many of his opponents to abandon rational judgment.”

The underlying truth is that Democrats don’t put the nation first. Their highest priority is to Resist! Senate Democrats are acting incredibly petty. This collage provides a wonderful comparison between Republicans and Democrats:

JFK, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey wouldn’t recognize today’s Democratic Party. They wouldn’t be Republicans but they’d privately admit that they have more in common with Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio and Cory Gardner than they have with Chris Murphy, Cory Booker and Ed Markey.

Today’s Democratic Party doesn’t have much in common with the American people. The American people want serious, substantive people providing oversight over national security. Right now, Democrats (and Rand Paul and Jeff Flake) aren’t providing that.

Thursday afternoon, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp announced that she will vote to confirm Mike Pompeo as the next US Secretary of State.

According to the Washington Post’s reporting, “North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp on Thursday became the first Senate Democrat to announce she would support CIA director Mike Pompeo’s bid to become secretary of state, potentially clinching his bid, as long as no more Republicans refuse to vote for confirmation. Heitkamp’s announcement, in which she said that “Pompeo demonstrated … that he is committed to empowering the diplomats at the State Department,” will not make it any easier for Pompeo to secure the support of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before his bid heads to the floor. The panel is to vote on his nomination Monday, but with several committee Democrats and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) pledging to vote against Pompeo, his chances of securing the 21-member panel’s favorable recommendation are slim.”

One of the things from the article that’s troubling is where it reports “Pompeo … became CIA director last year with the support of 14 Senate Democrats; at least six of them, including the two who sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, have refused to back Pompeo as the nation’s top diplomat.”

While it’s likely that a couple more Democrats will vote in the affirmative to confirm Director Pompeo, it’s a sad day in the history of the Senate, especially for Democrats. First, playing games with our national security is disgraceful. Speaking of disgraceful, apparently, Sen. Heitkamp is apparently trying to have it both ways:

That wouldn’t be the first time she’s tried that tactic. Last September, Heitkamp hinted that she was interested in President Trump’s tax cuts. That’s why she got to fly with President Trump to a rally in North Dakota. Eventually, she voted against the tax cuts.

The Democrats who voted to confirm Pompeo as CIA Director but who won’t vote to confirm him as Secretary of State are playing political games. During Easter weekend, Pompeo took a trip to North Korea to meet with Kim Jung Un to start the process for President Trump’s meeting with the dictator. What excuse do Democrats have for not confirming Pompeo as America’s top diplomat? That he’s too accomplished at sensitive diplomacy? Would Democrats say that Pompeo finished too high in his class at West Point? That he finished too high in his class at Harvard Law School? (Pompeo finished first in his class in both instances.)

The truth is that Democrats are totally political creatures. Their special interests insist that Democrats resist, resist, resist at all costs. I wrote this post outlining the Democrats’ biggest problem:

I’d love questioning Sen. Manchin or Sen. Heitkamp why they voted against the tax cuts that’ve pushed the US economy into overdrive. That’s the opposite of patriotism. That’s the definition of partisanship.

If Democrats looked seriously at Mike Pompeo’s qualifications and accomplishments, they’d vote unanimously to confirm him. Instead, it’s likely that just 2-3 Democrats will vote to confirm him.

If Democrats cared more about their country than they care about playing politics, this nation wouldn’t be divided as it is. Finally, if Democrats put the people first, they wouldn’t have lost America’s heartland. The Democrats aren’t the profiles in courage that liberal icon JFK once famously wrote about. Instead, they’re a bunch of sniveling spoiled brats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This morning, Russia retaliated to the US-Coalition airstrikes in Syria. The good news for the Coalition forces is that Russia ‘retaliated’ with propaganda, not hard weapons. First, “Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a statement saying the Western coalition’s ‘act of aggression’ would only exacerbate the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. Putin called the strike a ‘destructive influence on the entire system of international relations’ and said Moscow would call for an emergency of the U.N. Security Council.”

I hope that meeting is televised. I enjoy watching Nikki Haley devastate Russian and Iranian butt.

Later, “the Russian military claimed Saturday” that “Syrian air defense units shot down 71 out of 103 cruise missiles launched by the U.S., Britain and France.” That isn’t credible. If someone said that Israeli air defense units had taken out three-fourths of the cruise missiles targeting Israel, I’d be highly skeptical. Believing that poorly-trained Syrian fighters were that proficient is foolish.

Why should we think that Syria shot that many cruise missiles down after “Russia’s Defense Ministry had earlier asserted that none of the missiles launched by the U.S. and its allies entered areas protected by Russia’s missile defense”?

Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoi of the Russian military’s General Staff said Saturday that the Syrian military used a Soviet-made missile defense system to shoot down all the missiles targeting four key Syrian air bases. He added that there were no casualties from the strike and its targets suffered only minor damage.

Rudskoi said Russian air defense assets in Syria monitored the strike, but didn’t engage. He also noted that while Russia had refrained from supplying Syria with its state-of-the-art S-300 air defense missile systems, that could be reconsidered now.

The thought that Russian technology is superior to US technology is laughable. I remember a briefing by Gen. Schwarzkopf during the 100-hour ground war during Operation Desert Storm. During that briefing, Schwarzkopf said that lots of oil wells were set on fire in Kuwait. He said that there were likely lots of Iraqi tank drivers that wished they’d had the night vision that the M1A1 Abrams tanks had. He hinted that it made for an unfair fight.

Russia’s technology is a joke compared with the US military technology. Let’s remember that Syrians were hit by 58 US cruise missiles about this time last year. Does anyone seriously think Russian technology improved that much in a year? I certainly don’t.

Theresa May held a media availability last night:

Based on May’s statements, there isn’t much doubt that Syria was responsible. At minimum, Russia abetted its Syrian allies. The good news for the United States is that Russia doesn’t dare fight us military. Instead, the Russians’ weapon of choice in US-Russian confrontations is propaganda.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Last night, the US joined with the British and French to bomb parts of Syria’s WMD infrastructure. According to the BBC, the “US, UK and France have bombed multiple government targets in Syria in an early morning operation targeting alleged chemical weapons sites. The strikes were in response to a suspected chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma last week. Explosions hit the capital, Damascus, as well as two locations near the city of Homs, the Pentagon said.”

In response, the Russian embassy in the United States published this tweet, stating “A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences. All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.”

I suspect that tweet is meant mostly for domestic consumption. I’m certain this doesn’t worry anyone in the Trump, May or Macron national security teams. Around 9:00 pm CT, President Trump delivered a speech announcing the newest round of bombings of Syria’s WMD infrastructure:

The speech also contained this warning to both Russia and Iran:

I also have a message tonight for the two governments most responsible for supporting, equipping and financing the criminal Assad regime. To Iran and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children? The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators.

In 2013, President Putin and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. Assad’s recent attack, and today’s response, are the direct result of Russia’s failure to keep that promise.

Whether these airstrikes have crippled Syria’s WMD infrastructure is still to be determined. What isn’t in question is whether President Trump will tolerate Russia’s meddling like President Obama tolerated Putin’s expansionist policies.

Let’s not forget these wise words on the difference between President Trump and President Obama:

Way at the end of the video, Charles Krauthammer stated that the initial strike against Syria didn’t say that “there’s a new sheriff in town” but that “there’s a sheriff in town.” Friday night’s airstrike is a refreshing reminder that President Trump isn’t the Hand-Ringer-In-Chief that President Obama was. This sends the unmistakable message that he’ll enforce the red line that Obama drew, then ran away from.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

With Arizona and Texas sending National Guard troops to the border, it’s clear who’s serious about securing the nation and who isn’t.

If Democrats gain a majority in the House, they’ll revert to their open borders policies:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ripped President Trump on Twitter Thursday for “pointlessly” sending troops to the border instead of working with Democrats on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The California Democrat wrote: “@realDonaldTrump is using every cynical political trick in the book to ignite anti-immigrant fervor. Needlessly militarizing our southern border won’t make Americans more safe – it’s just another political calculation.

“Instead of wasting resources on pointlessly sending troops to our border, @realDonaldTrump should work with Democrats to pass the DREAM Act & #ProtectDREAMers,” she added.

Tell Mary Ann Mendoza that stopping illegal aliens at the border isn’t important. Mrs. Pelosi, I want you to look Sabine Durden in the eyes, then tell her that stopping illegal aliens at the border. Mrs. Pelosi, I triple-dog dare you to tell Agnes Gibboney that enforcing our immigration laws aren’t important.

Apparently, doing nothing is the Democrats’ plan. Americans, if you want lax border security, catch-and-release immigration enforcement and MS-13 running free without fear, vote Democrat. I’ve yet to find one that’s serious about securing the border. Americans, if you want the opioid epidemic to get worse, vote Democrat. Thanks to the Obama administration’s lax border enforcement, drug shipments entered the US without interruption or interdiction.

This Prager University video explains what must be done to take illegal immigration seriously:

With Democrats complaining about the costs of securing the border, let’s ask these whiney lefties how much it costs the US to pay for educating illegal aliens, how much it costs for the illegal aliens’ welfare benefits and how much it costs in terms of crimes committed by illegal aliens.

I’m betting that the cost of building a wall is a pittance compared with the costs of drug smuggling, welfare benefits and education.

Finally, let’s praise governors Doug Ducey and Greg Abbott for swiftly deploying the National Guard troops. They’re doing more than their fair share to keep Americans safe. That’s something I can’t say about the Democrats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

I just finished writing this post, which I titled Applying David Hogg’s principles. (I’m pinning that post to the top of the page for the rest of today.) It’s a fair title because I’m using Hogg’s principles and definitions against him. However, it didn’t do the hero of the story, Mary Ann Mendoza, justice. With that, I’d like to tell LFR readers about Mary Ann Mendoza and her painful ordeal.

Brandon, Ms. Mendoza’s son, tragically was killed by a drunk driver whose blood-alcohol content was .24%. That’s tragic enough but it gets worse. The drunk driver was identified as Raul Silva-Corona, an illegal alien who was a “42-year-old Mexican native” who “remained in the U.S. despite being charged with burglary, assault and leaving the scene of an accident in 1994. He remained here still after pleading guilty to a charge of criminal conspiracy in 2002.”

Naturally, the articles didn’t mention that he was an illegal alien or that he’d been convicted of the crimes listed above. BTW, if letting criminals stay in St. Cloud makes it a welcoming city, then I’d rather be a hostile city. I’m not interested in being a welcoming city if we have to treat illegal aliens kindly. But I digress.

People would’ve understood if Mary Ann Mendoza had passed on the opportunity to become an advocate against lawlessness. Fortunately for us, she didn’t choose that path:

The pointlessness of it all made Mendoza’s path clear. She says she must fight against what she sees as an epidemic that’s largely ignored by the mainstream media, many politicians and most of the American public. “I never got one call, ever, from any politician in Arizona. My son was a police officer. Not one of them gave a crap about it,” she says.

Instead of feeling sorry for herself, she opted to become an advocate fighting career politicians who haven’t lifted a finger to fix the problem. They aren’t trustworthy. Meanwhile, Mary Ann Mendoza is tireless in her pursuit of justice:

To be sure, Mendoza is ideally engineered to be a mouthpiece for the pro-enforcement cause: a grieving, articulate mother whose police officer son was half-Hispanic, in a state on the front lines of the immigration war. She’s aware of the optics, but rejects the notion that she’s being used as a pawn. Mendoza says she’s learned to leverage her story to achieve results she sees as positive, such as creating a new advocacy group for people affected by illegal crime. “There are people who say I’ve politicized my son’s death. I haven’t,” she says. “I’ve aligned myself in a situation where I want to see certain things done so another American family isn’t affected like I was.”

This video tells quite the story:

If politicians (overwhelmingly Democrats) don’t give a damn about protecting us, then it’s time to fire them this November. This is a case of if-you-aren’t-part-of-the-solution-you’re-part-of-the-problem. As Rep. McSally noted in the video, this isn’t just about booting criminals out of the U.S. Border security means much more than that. It’s about stopping human trafficking, preventing MS-13 from setting up shop and interdicting drug shipments from international cartels.

Any Democrat that won’t commit to building the wall immediately should be defeated this November. If they aren’t up for re-election this November, then these Democrats must be defeated the next time they’re up for re-election. This must happen because these Democrats aren’t serious about protecting citizens. They aren’t serious about public safety. This is the litmus test of this election.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

William Saletan is attempting to rewrite history. His latest column attempts to paint over President Obama’s history by saying that President Trump “rewards America’s enemies and punishes its friends.” No president rewarded its enemies more or punished America’s allies more than President Obama. Let’s remember the multiple times that President Obama attempted to punish Israel. Think of how, during the Arab Spring, he threw Egypt under the diplomatic bus. Think of the time early in his administration when he got rid of Winston Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office.

In terms of rewarding friends, President Trump is great at it. He’s the candidate that promised to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He’s the president that moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. To the Jewish people, there’s no quicker way to endear yourself to them than by doing that. There’s no greater ally to the United States than Israel. Especially considering where it’s located and its history, Israel hasn’t survive without help from the United States. Watch the effusive praise Israeli PM Netanyahu lavished on President Trump during their recent meeting:

On the premise that President Trump “rewards America’s enemies and punishes its friends,” Saletan wrote “On Monday, in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump took credit for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. ‘Many presidents’ had talked about doing that, said Trump, but ‘I was able to do it.’ He seemed unaware that this supposed feat was a concession to Netanyahu, which previous presidents had held back as a bargaining chip.”

Actually, President Trump did it for a reason that DC elites can’t grasp. President Trump did it because he’s into keeping promises. Here’s something else that Saletan doesn’t comprehend:

That’s how Trump sees the meeting with Kim. It’s not about confronting North Korea. It’s a chance to upstage previous presidents.

Bulletin to Saletan: yes, it’s about confronting Kim. In fact, it’s all about confronting Kim Jung-Un. Next, Saletan said:

Trump ridiculed the idea that “Obama could have done that.” Obama “would not have done it,” he jeered. “Neither would Bush, and neither would Clinton. And they had their shot, and all they did was nothing.”

I don’t see this as being a controversial statement. The history is clear. Clinton, Bush and Obama kicked the can down the road. Now that NoKo is on the verge of getting deliverable nuclear weapons, President Trump has determined that there isn’t any more road left to kick that can down. He’s decided, totally unlike Susan Rice, that North Korea can’t get a nuclear weapon.

Not only didn’t Saletan prove his statement correct. It’s that there’s abundant proof that he’s just plain wrong.

When it comes to political wisdom, Lindsey Graham isn’t too bright. The NYTimes is quoting Sen. Graham as saying that “The president’s going to have a vote on his concept. I don’t think it will get 60 votes. The bottom line then is: What do you do next? You can do what we’ve done for the last 35 years — blame each other. Or you can actually start fixing the broken immigration system. If you came out of this with strong border security — the president getting his wall and the Dream Act population being taken care of, most Americans would applaud.”

Sen. Graham isn’t too bright if he thinks he’s on the winning side in this fight. Americans want a DACA fix as long as it comes with the wall and an end to chain migration. Each of those issues have approval ratings of 70%. If Sen. Graham thinks that President Trump is on the losing end of that fight, he isn’t too bright.

The American people understand that bad bipartisan deals are really just bad deals. They’ve seen DC pass bipartisan deals for years while things got worse. They’re upset with elitists in both parties. They’re demanding that these elitists do something different this time. It’s a revolutionary concept but it’s worked in the past. It’s called listening to the people. Don’t tell us that the things that the American people want done in their name is complicated.

It’s only complicated trying to explain why politicians ignored the will of the people. Then it gets real complicated — for the politician. That’s their problem.

Meanwhile, politicians in the “Common Sense Coalition” who are up for election this year better prepare to get their comeuppance in November. Watch Sen. Schumer’s speech, then ask yourself whether he’s bothered to listen to the American people:

After watching that speech, I’m left wondering whether Sen. Schumer thinks the American people are simply an inconvenient afterthought. Lost in his political spin is whether the bill the Common Sense Coalition is putting together is something that the American people would reject. Also lost in Sen. Schumer’s spin is whether the Common Sense Coalition’s bill would fix anything or whether it would just be another bipartisan bill that doesn’t do what the American people expect it to do.

Thanks to President Trump’s populism and his commitment to the American people, Democrats and wayward Republicans are finding out that resisting the American people isn’t a great way to earn a living in politics. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s speech summed things up perfectly:

My Democratic colleagues have spent months demanding the Senate take up this issue. They even shut down the government, unnecessarily, I might add, in order to secure this very week of debate. But now that the time has come to make law instead of just making points, they’re stalling.

Why? Why, after months and months spent demanding that the Senate take up this issue, do they now object to even starting the debate? Because they know, no matter how long they spend in closed-door negotiations, they can’t change the fact that the president has spelled out a fair and generous framework that will be necessary to earn his signature. They cannot take ‘yes’ for an answer. So, instead of moving to fulfill their promises and address the DACA issue, they haven’t even allowed the debate to begin.

It’s clear that Sen. McConnell listened to the people. He’s kept his promise. When he kept that promise, Democrats shut down debate. That’s the indisputable fact.

If Democrats want to face the American people after shutting down the government so they could debate immigration policies, then shut down debate when Sen. McConnell scheduled a week of debate on immigration/DACA, that’s their option. They shouldn’t be surprised if the people, including DACA activists, take brickbats after them when Democrats campaign on immigration/DACA.

Finally, I’d put together ads for each of the members of the Common Sense Coalition that starts with Republicans wanting to fix DACA and border security, then transitions into a frame where the narrator asks these immigration liberals which side of their mouth they want to talk out of.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Susan Rice’s NYTimes op-ed is a collection of whiny complaints. Among her litany of complaints, one complaint stood out. It’s actually worth examining.

In the op-ed, Rice said “The same policy stagnation afflicts our ability to confront the most pressing threats to our security, from North Korea to the risk of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, from pandemic disease to Russian aggression. Our ability to counter such outside menaces is increasingly undermined by our collective failure to work together. Indeed, the most significant, long-term threat to our security may be our domestic political polarization.”

Let’s ask ourselves where the political polarization is coming from. Let’s start at the beginning of the Trump administration. When massive numbers of Democrats boycott President Trump’s inauguration, which party is sowing seeds of political polarization? It isn’t Republicans. When every Democrat votes against making even the slightest change to Obamacare, who is the agent of political polarization? It isn’t Republicans. When Democrats vote unanimously against tax cuts that are putting money in families’ pockets and energizing the US economy, who’s sewing seeds of political polarization? It isn’t Republicans. When President Trump puts together a thoughtful immigration plan that give a little (too much?) on DACA amnesty in exchange for funding of the Wall and ending chain migration and the diversity visa lottery programs and Democrats criticize it within minutes of its presentation, who’s sewing seeds of political polarization? It isn’t the Republicans.

It’s foolish to argue that Republicans don’t contribute to the political polarization. There’s a difference, though, between contributing to a negative situation and agitating for political polarization. The Democrats’ resistance movement is based solely on political polarization.

After Ms. Rice’s opening tirade, she gets into an Alice-in-Wonderland argument:

Similarly, the Iranians know that our resolve to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon may crumble under partisan pressure. China is pursuing its economic and strategic ambitions in Asia unconstrained by an America so divided that we jettisoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement we negotiated, while its signatories reap its rewards without us.

First, it wasn’t the Trump administration that negotiated a treaty so bad that they wouldn’t let the Senate vote on it. That treaty didn’t prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. It sped up the timetable for them getting a nuclear weapon. Then after speeding up that timetable, the US president shipped $150,000,000,000 to Iran, which it then quickly used to fund Hezbollah’s terrorist activities. Talk about brilliant.

Next, China is getting confronted by the Trump administration. The results haven’t always been what we’ve wanted but they’re confronting them. The Obama administration’s policy of leading from behind didn’t work. Period.

Rice’s op-ed is titled “We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us”. If you define Us as the Obama administration, I agree.

I suspect that Democrats got caught by surprise when Republicans took the fight to Democrats over the government shutdown. In the past, Republicans’ messaging during a shutdown was ineffective. This time, Republicans, especially from the administration, has been aggressive and effective.

This morning at 6:17 am ET, President Trump tweeted “Democrats are far more concerned with Illegal Immigrants than they are with our great Military or Safety at our dangerous Southern Border. They could have easily made a deal but decided to play Shutdown politics instead. #WeNeedMoreRepublicansIn18 in order to power through mess!” At 6:33 am ET, Trump tweeted “This is the One Year Anniversary of my Presidency and the Democrats wanted to give me a nice present. #DemocratShutdown.” Finally, at 6:44 am, Trump tweeted “For those asking, the Republicans only have 51 votes in the Senate, and they need 60. That is why we need to elect more Republicans in 2018 Election! We can then be even tougher on Crime (and Border), and even better to our Military & Veterans!” followed by the catchphrase ‘#AMERICA FIRST!'”

The administration wasn’t finished. Last night, WH Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders issued a blistering statement that said in part “Senate Democrats own the Schumer Shutdown. Tonight, they put partisan politics above our national security, military families, vulnerable children and our nation’s ability to serve.” Then she really blistered Democrats, saying “we will not negotiate the status of unlawful immigrants while Democrats hold our lawful citizens hostage over their reckless demands.” Ms. Sanders finishes strong, saying “During this politically manufactured Schumer Shutdown, the President and his administration will fight for and protect the American people.”

That wasn’t all. Mitch McConnell blistered Democrats in this speech on the Senate floor. Here’s the key part of Sen. McConnell’s speech:

But what has their filibuster accomplished? The answer is simple – their very own government shutdown. Shutdown effects on the American people will come as no surprise. All week, as we have stood on the floor and begged our colleagues to come to their senses, Senate Republicans have described exactly what this will mean. For America’s men and women in uniform, shutting down the government means delayed pay. For the many thousands of civilian employees who support their missions, it means furloughs. And for the families of fallen heroes, it may well mean a freeze on survivor death benefits. For veterans who rely on our promise of care, shutting down the government means threatening their access to treatment.

For so many Americans struggling with opioid addiction, the same is true. And thanks to the Democratic Leader’s decision to filibuster an extension of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, low-income families will slip closer to losing health coverage for their kids. And in many states this is an emergency.

I’m having trouble understanding which one of those outcomes my Democratic colleagues could possibly be proud of. Which one of them?

If Democrats were smart, (there’s considerable doubt whether they are) they’d call Mitch McConnell and say that they’ll agree to a long-term budget agreement, including a significant spending increase for the military.

It’s possible to win a fight if it’s just between which governing philosophy is best. The minute it’s a fight between the military and vulnerable children on one side and illegal immigrants on the other side, it’s over. That PR fight is finished.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,