Archive for the ‘Joe Biden’ Category

Newt Gingrich’s op-ed studies the differences between President Trump and Joe Biden. Speaker Gingrich opens the op-ed by saying “I recently received a fundraising email from former Vice President Joe Biden that captured the profound difference in the approach to foreign policy between Democrats and President Trump. Biden wrote: ‘Did you see the video of our friends and allies in London this week? World leaders were LAUGHING at the President of the United States, after he once again embarrassed himself and tarnished the reputation of the United States at a summit.'”

These world leaders were laughing at the fact that President Trump is the most transparent world leader. Trudeau apparently isn’t aware of President Trump’s habit of answering reporters’ questions, whether it’s on his way to Marine One, during Cabinet meetings, wherever he happens to be. But I digress.

In this setting, the untold story is how successful President Trump has been at getting NATO members to increase their defense spending. That this is a major achievement can be seen from the fact that Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama tried to get NATO members to increase their defense spending and both presidents failed. Trump has succeeded.

Biden is essentially a pacifist. He didn’t speak out when John Kerry negotiated the worst nuclear treaty in history. Biden think twice about negotiating a path to nuclear weapons for Iran. That France, Germany and other pacifist countries approve of the US behavior during the Obama administration isn’t an accomplishment. Remember that the Obama administration gained approval for shipping blankets and MREs to Ukraine during their hot war with Russia.

President Trump has started fixing Europe’s corruption issues while strengthening NATO. Obama-Biden weakened the Middle East by ignoring ISIS, letting Syria use chemical weapons and giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons. If Biden thinks that’s a legacy to be proud of, then he’s an idiot.

You don’t have to take my word for the scale of the Trump impact on NATO. Here is what NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (a Norwegian) said about the American impact at a news conference with President Trump:

“Let me thank you for the leadership you show on the issue of defense spending because it is very important that we all contribute more to our shared security, and it is really having an impact because, as you said, allies are now spending more on defense,” Stoltenberg told Trump. “So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact.”

The Obama-Biden administration didn’t force this type of positive change. Their trademark was pacifism. Strategic patience was their byword. That’s code for ‘let’s do nothing.’ They were foreign policy failures.

Proving that he still swings a wicked wooden cane, Gramps Biden lashed out at a man at a townhall meeting during Biden’s No Malarkey tour. Biden’s overreaction started when a man at an Iowa townhall meeting “accused the 77-year-old former vice president of being ‘too old'” and after the man “took a swipe at son Hunter’s role on the board of a controversial Ukrainian natural gas firm.”

Then the man dug in deeper, saying “accused the 77-year-old former vice president of being “too old” and took a swipe at son Hunter’s role on the board of a controversial Ukrainian natural gas firm.” That was apparently more than Biden could handle, causing the former VP to respond “You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true and no one has ever said that.”

Then things got really heated:

“Look, the reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time and I know more than most people and I can get things done,” Biden said. “And you want to check my shape? Let’s do push-ups together man, let’s run, let’s do whatever you wanna do. And number two, no one has said my son has done anything wrong and I did not, on any occasion,” he continued, only to be cut off by the man in the audience who shouted that he “never said” Biden was “doing anything wrong.”

What a bunch of BS. It’s impossible to think that everything was innocent when Hunter Biden got a $1,000,000/yr. no-show job in an industry he knew nothing about in a nation he’d never visited.

What part of that sounds even slightly plausible? A: There isn’t a part of it that sounds plausible. Here’s the video of the exchange:

A while ago, Adam Schiff and other Democrats compared his secret impeachment hearings held in a SCIF in the basement of Capitol Hill to grand jury proceedings. That’s BS. They’re as similar as oil and water.

Most importantly, impeachment hearings involve the leader of the free world. The Democrats’ impeachment hearings have taken months, which have distracted President Trump from his important responsibilities. When a grand jury indicts a criminal, the only person getting penalized is the potential criminal. When the president gets impeached, the people get punished as much as the president does. (Does anyone think that China wouldn’t have caved by now on a trade deal if not for this impeachment fiasco?)

Next, when witnesses testify before a grand jury, they’ve actually witnessed something. Over half of the people that the Democrats deposed didn’t witness a thing about what the Democrats are impeaching President Trump about. Testifiers like Marie Yovanovitch, George Kent, William Taylor and others didn’t listen to the call. None of those testifiers has even met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call but hasn’t met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman raised a concern but that was determined to be insignificant. Later, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the rough transcript was accurate.

Democrats have a very weak case. They’re whining that White House staff won’t testify. When they had the chance to take them to court to compel testimony, though, they declined to compel testimony through the courts. Democrats have frequently said that the White House exerting various privileges might add more articles of impeachment.

That’s why the White House has declined to participate in Wednesday’s hearing of the Judiciary Committee:

“This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone, continuing the West Wing’s attack on the procedural form of the impeachment proceedings. Cipollone said Nadler provided only “vague” details about the hearing, and that unnamed academics, and not “fact witnesses”, would apparently be attending.

“As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings,” Cipollone said. “More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.”

Thus far, Democrats have vetoed each of the Republican witness requests. They’ve blocked the CIA snitch from testifying because he knows whether Schiff’s office sought him out. They won’t let Hunter Biden testify because connecting him with Burisma’s corruption hurts their case. They won’t Joe Biden testify because explaining this away would prove difficult:

Democrats are afraid that good prosecutors like Matt Gaetz and John Ratcliffe will expose Biden’s corruption. It’s a safe bet that they’d make Biden look like a fool. That’s why Democrats can’t play this fair. Playing fair wouldn’t get the result they’ve wanted:

To summarize: Many Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the get-go. Frustrated at their inability to get it done, they jumped on their last, best hope, taking shortcuts to ensure their preferred result and racing to beat the political deadline imposed by their party’s presidential contest. Through it all, they have insisted they are acting only with great reluctance and sorrow.

The question now is whether the public will believe it.

Based on David Hale’s deposition, it’s impossible to not think of him as a potential star witness for the GOP. Starting with pg. 96 of Hale’s deposition, Hale was asked “But during the pendency of the security assistance hold, from July 18 through the date you got the cable from Ambassador Taylor, did you hear the names Biden, Burisma?”

Hale replied “No. No, not in government channels. If it appeared in the media, it was in the New York Times — I won’t say I don’t read the New York Times or whatever. But, yeah, it was not something that was apparent to me.”

Next, GOP Counsel Castor asked “So at no point during that time did the official chain of command, from the field, articulate these concerns to you?” Hale replied “No. No.”
Castor: And, in fact, you didn’t even hear the name Biden, Burisma?
Hale: No. No. When the whistleblower reports and all that came out of that, that’s when I first saw this.

In other words, the man with first-hand knowledge of the holding of lethal military aid and the Biden investigation said that he hadn’t heard about conditioning lethal aid with the Biden investigation until the faux whistleblower’s report was published.

This can’t be emphasized enough. David Hale said that he didn’t hear about tying the lethal military aid to investigating the Bidens. Couple that with the fact that Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, said “Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Couple Hale’s statement with Minister Prystaiko’s statement and President Zelenskiy’s statement that President Trump never tied the aid to investigating the Bidens. After tying those statements together, it’s impossible to take the Impeachment Democrats’ theory of the event seriously. People of integrity would admit that the Democrats’ case is the weakest impeachment case ever. First, lots of people wouldn’t admit that anything speculated on or proven rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Next, there isn’t much in the way of evidence that hurts President Trump. Whether you hate President Trump or think that he’s Superman, it isn’t shameful to admit that last week’s testimony didn’t produce evidence of any sort.

Third, people of integrity wouldn’t hesitate in admitting that Zelenskiy’s, Prystaiko’s and Hale’s statements affirm that President Trump applied little or no pressure on President Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. Without that, the Impeachment Democrats’ case collapses faster than a house of cards. It’s time to end these seemingly endless investigations.

This summer, impeachment Democrats tried stirring up passion for impeachment by having Robert Mueller testify. That was a historic failure, with Mueller essentially admitting that he didn’t write the report with his name on it. The Democrats’ next failure was with the Lewandowski hearing. At that hearing, Lewandowski toyed with Chairman Nadler to such an extent that it cost Nadler his opportunity to shine as chairman of the impeachment hearings.

This NY Post editorial proves that practice doesn’t always make perfect:

Democrats must have learned from the disastrous public hearings they’ve held in their attempt to impeach President Trump: Now, apparently, their witnesses must audition first behind closed doors before they go live before the TV cameras.

That was the case with the Dems’ “star” witnesses, US Chargé d’affaires for Ukraine Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who testified behind closed doors before appearing for Wednesday’s televised impeachment show. And for former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who debuts on the small screen Friday.

Kent, Taylor and Yovanovitch are leading off the Democrats’ case for impeachment. The thing that they’ve got in common is that none of them have firsthand knowledge of what happened. They can offer opinions on what US foreign policy should be but that’s it. Policy differences between the President and career bureaucrats doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense. In fact, it isn’t close to that threshold.

The lesson to be learned is that this is the wimpiest set of facts ever to be considered for impeachment. Last night, it was reported that Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters that “Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

That’s firsthand information on the central issue of the Democrats’ case. It utterly demolishes the Democrats’ theory that President Trump tried extorting or bribing President Zelenskiy into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. This Trump-hater should ride off into the sunset because she’s a bitter partisan:

The truth is that Democrats simply don’t have evidence to support their impeachment theory. Though they won’t admit it, it’s getting close to the time when the jury cries out ‘Game. Set. Match.’ Get out the jelly, folks. These Democrats are toast.

This article is the political equivalent of a pair of nuclear bomb explosions, one right in front of Nancy Pelosi’s office, the other in front of Adam Schiff’s office. The Hill is reporting that “‘Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,’ Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine.”

Foreign Minister Prystaiko continued, saying “I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Unlike most of the testimony Wednesday (or the expected testimony Friday), this is firsthand information. The testimony that we watched Wednesday that was supposedly damaging to President Trump wouldn’t have gotten into a court of law. More on that later.

The damaging testimony heard Wednesday would’ve hurt President Obama. For instance, when Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Trump had sent lethal military aid to Ukraine, Taylor affirmed that as accurate. When Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Obama had supplied lethal military aid to Ukraine, he said President Obama hadn’t supplied Ukraine with lethal military aid. When Taylor was asked which president’s military aid was better, Taylor affirmed that President Trump’s aid was superior.

FOOTNOTE: Both sides said that they won the day on Wednesday. The difference is that Republicans had proof of their victory. Democrats only had spin. Republicans could point to Jim Jordan’s dizzying recitation of the modification to Ambassador Sondland’s deposition. That’s the one where Jordan finished by saying that he’d seen church prayer chains that were less complicated:

Another explosive event from Thursday happened when Speaker Pelosi accused President Trump of bribery:

Jim Jordan reacted to Pelosi’s quote, saying “It’s ridiculous, just ridiculous.” Which it is. Let’s tie these stories together. First, let’s deal with Pelosi’s accusation:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharpened the focus of Democrats’ impeachment case against President Trump on Thursday, accusing the president of committing bribery when he withheld vital military assistance from Ukraine at the same time he was seeking its commitment to publicly investigate his political rivals.

There’s just one problem with that theory. Its premise just got blown out of the water:

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,” Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, a man with firsthand knowledge of what as negotiated and what wasn’t negotiated, said that military aid was never linked to Ukraine investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. If Democrats were smart, which I’m confident they aren’t, they’d finish their public hearings at the end of next week, then close shop. Why wouldn’t Democrats want to follow this advice?

There’s an old cribbage saying about a hand with all even cards that aren’t consecutive. That saying is that “the only right way to throw that hand is away.” That’s my advice to Democrats. The hand that they’re playing is terrible.

Finally, Sean Hannity announced Thursday night that he’d contacted of the 53 Republican Senators since Wednesday night. Each senator was asked if they’d support rules for impeachment that gave President Trump’s legal team the opportunity to cross-examine whistle-blowers. The other question each senator was asked was whether they’d support an impeachment rules package that required the following of legal rules of evidence. Specifically, they were asked whether they’d support a rule that hearsay testimony would be excluded.

Mitch McConnell replied immediately, saying that he’d only support impeachment rules that excluded hearsay testimony and included the protections outlined in the Sixth Amendment. That’d essentially wipe out the Democrats’ testimony. Plus, it’d guarantee the whistleblower’s unmasking.

Is that truly the path Democrats want to take? The smart choice is folding. Let’s see just how smart Democrats are.

The Democrats’ defense strategy isn’t a mystery. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, is rigging the process so only Democrat-approved witnesses can testify or be cross-examined. Schiff is preventing the Republicans from presenting an alternative explanation for what happened in Ukraine.

By preventing Hunter Biden from testifying, Schiff will prevent Republicans from asking legitimate questions about corruption. That’s important because the Democrats’ spin is that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy to interfere with the 2020 election. If Republicans can prove that Ukraine had corruption problems (it does) and that Hunter Biden had corruption issues or even had a whiff of corruption, then that justifies President Trump’s asking President Zelenskiy to look into the Bidens.

Democrats can’t afford the introduction of an alternative theory of what happened in Ukraine. Also, Democrats can’t let the whistleblower testify because he’d certainly be asked if he’d been coached by Schiff’s staff. If the faux whistleblower admits that he’s talked with Schiff’s staff, that will open the floodgates for the Republicans’ questions.

Democrats can’t let Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, become part of the story, either. That’s because Zaid is a card-carrying member of the #Resist movement. He’s proudly tweeted that a “coup” had started:


Zaid also said that CNN would play a major role in President Trump not serving his full term. The more that Republicans can highlight the Democrats’ hyperpartisanship, the weaker the Democrats’ case becomes.

The Democrats’ credibility would get shattered if President Trump was justified in calling for Hunter Biden’s investigation. This article highlights the fact that Hunter Biden will play a major role in the hearings whether he’s there or not:

Kent also told congressional investigators that he had repeatedly raised concerns with the Obama administration about Burisma, and also discussed the administration’s efforts to remove Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin from his post. At the time, Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky, the former minister of ecology and natural resources of Ukraine— also the founder of Burisma.

Shokin was fired in April 2016, and his case was closed by the prosecutor who replaced him, Yuriy Lutsenko (though Ukraine is now reviewing such cases). Biden once famously boasted on camera that when he was vice president and leading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin.

Schiff is trying his best to keep Hunter Biden off the stand:

Schiff said the inquiry “is a solemn undertaking, enshrined by the Founders in the Constitution” and that the hearings “will not serve as vehicles for any Member to carry out the same sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit.”

That isn’t the sound of impartiality. That’s what partisanship sounds like. This week, expect Democrats to sound like partisans. Expect Democrats to be on the defensive.

In case nobody’s noticed, Democrats have written their verdict on President Trump. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, isn’t into nuance. He’s been clear for years that he’s certain President Trump should be impeached in the House, then convicted in the Senate. He’s also made it clear that he plans on protecting the Biden family. After Republicans submitted their list of witnesses that they’d like to cross-examine, it didn’t take long for Schiff to protect the Biden family:

“This inquiry is not, and will not serve … as a vehicle to undertake the same sham investigations into the Bidens or 2016 that the President pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit, or to facilitate the President’s effort to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm,” Schiff said in a statement.

That sounds fair — if you’re living in the Soviet Union, Iran or North Korea. If you’re living in the United States and you’re passionate about civil rights, though, it sounds like a railroad job.

Let’s dig into the so-called whistleblower that Schiff and the Democrats are thoughtlessly protecting. Let’s have a discussion on whether he/she should have their anonymity protected at all costs. The faux whistleblower’s attorneys insist on preserving the whistleblower’s anonymity. That’s understandable because lawyers are paid to protect their clients.

What society must ask is whether we can tolerate a society where a sitting president can be impeached with accusations made by an anonymous person. The men who wrote the Constitution thought about that 2+ centuries ago. They rejected that proposition when they wrote the Sixth Amendment. This is the text of the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Democrats have said that the time to call the faux whistleblower is during the Senate trial. That’s illogical from the standpoint that impeaching a president is a more grievous matter than a criminal trial. The impact of impeachment doesn’t just impact the president. It impacts the entire nation. The sooner this is behind us, the better off we’ll be.

That doesn’t mean that #Resistance Democrats will stop resisting. The odds of that happening are slim to nonexistent. It’s that it’s important to put this partisan impeachment behind us ASAP. The faux whistleblower’s attorney is clearly a card-carrying member of the #Resistance. Adam Schiff, as noted earlier, has rendered his verdict in terms of impeachment. The Democrats’ unquestioned leader on impeachment, Schiff has insisted for years that he had proof that President Trump had colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election:

It’s noteworthy that Mueller’s hyperpartisan lawyers didn’t find that proof. But I digress. The truth is that the faux whistleblower’s job should be protected but his identity shouldn’t be protected. Our society can’t tolerate a system of justice that lets anonymous snitches take down a US president.

Our society should only impeach people who commit impeachment-worthy offenses. The fact that a pair of Democrats voted against impeachment but no Republicans voted for impeachment signals that this is a partisan exercise. This isn’t anything other than the Democrats’ attempt to use impeachment as a way of defeating President Trump. The notion that our society should tolerate partisan snitches is frightening. Democrats supporting this partisan snitch should be punished at the ballot box next November.

The Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, Mr. Schiff, has already stated that he thinks that investigating the Biden family is a sham. Considering the fact that Vice President Biden bragged about getting a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma fired, I’d argue that Hunter Biden is worthy of deposing. Schiff can’t afford that because if Hunter Biden says something, then that undermines Schiff’s case. What if we find out that Biden is corrupt? Wouldn’t that justify President Trump’s inquiry?

At the heart of the Democrats’ impeachment drive is the Democrats’ contention that President Trump asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden. That’s a theory that the media, myself included, hasn’t examined, at least not seriously. The thought that President Trump is worried about Joe Biden, especially at a time when Biden’s fundraising is struggling and his cash on hand balance is low, is misguided thinking.

President Trump understands that he’s a force of nature, politically speaking, and that there isn’t a candidate at the Democrats’ debates that’s clicking with the voters. Sleepy Joe Biden doesn’t excite anyone. Elizabeth Warren just blew up her candidacy with her Medicare-for-All tax increase. Bernie Sanders’ campaign just died at the hands of Crazy Bernie. Check out Crazy Bernie’s immigration proposal:

Key Points

  1. Institute a moratorium on deportations until a thorough audit of past practices and policies is complete.
  2. Reinstate and expand DACA and develop a humane policy for those seeking asylum.
  3. Completely reshape and reform our immigration enforcement system, including breaking up ICE and CBP and redistributing their functions to their proper authorities.
  4. Dismantle cruel and inhumane deportation programs and detention centers and reunite families who have been separated.
  5. Live up to our ideals as a nation and welcome refugees and those seeking asylum, including those displaced by climate change.

To use an old carpenter’s saying, Crazy Bernie’s plan is a full bubble off center. But I digress. The subject was Biden.

Supposedly, Joe is the champion of blue collar workers everywhere. There’s a flaw with that logic, though, which I’ve written about frequently. Sleepy Joe wants to ban fossil fuels. This video is from the Greenpeace USA Youtube channel:

The Obama-Biden administration also prevented the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. It didn’t take long for President Trump to reverse that.

These are the policies and candidacies that Democrats think are winners in 2020? There’s nothing to think these policies will connect with blue collar voters in Rust Belt states that Democrats need to flip. If Biden doesn’t flip ‘Blue Firewall’ states like Pennsylvania and Michigan back into the Democrats’ column, Democrats can kiss this election goodbye. Check this article out:

The battle is a microcosm of what is happening nationally: Big-city Democratic mayors are aligning themselves with leftist local officials and environmental activists to renounce disfavored industries. It also exposes the Democrats’ deep challenges with blue-collar voters. In both Western Pennsylvania and the Scranton area, the shale industry is opening up prosperity not seen for two generations—and inflaming climate zealots. “A Democrat can’t win Pennsylvania without voter support from those two regions,” said Mike Mikus, a strategist who consulted for Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s re-election campaign last year. “And you can’t win the presidency as a Democrat if you lose Pennsylvania.”

The point of this is that Biden is a fatally flawed presidential candidate. President Trump didn’t need Ukraine’s help to defeat Biden. Further, President Trump ran on draining the Swamp. If anyone personifies the Swamp better than Joe and Hunter Biden, it’d be the Podesta brothers.

Unlike other presidents, President Trump has made a habit of keeping his promise. He doesn’t have a perfect record but it’s better than any recent president.

  1. He’s building the wall, despite the Democrats obstructionism.
  2. President Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  3. President Trump signed the biggest tax cuts in US history.
  4. He promised small-town workers that they wouldn’t be forgotten. Thanks to the booming energy industry, he’s more than kept that promise.

Democrats whine about President Trump going after Joe and Hunter Biden because they aren’t used to a president actually getting serious about corruption. Joe and Hunter Biden are government corruption personified. They aren’t at John Murtha’s level but they’re still in the Swamp Hall of Fame.

There’s no question whether Elizabeth Warren stirs passion with her followers. Sen. Warren’s followers aren’t her problem. She’s her own worst enemy at times. A perfect example of this happened when Sen. Warren explained her Medicare-for-All plan. There’s no doubt about whether she’d like to have this part back:


Saying that you’re putting people in the insurance industry through a major transition (that’s if you’re lucky) in Des Moines, IA, isn’t too bright. Sen. Warren’s plan includes eliminating private health insurance. Think of that statement to be the equivalent of Hillary making this statement:

Sen. Warren thinks about herself first, last and always. It isn’t surprising that she expects health insurance experts to just accept her edict. From a policy standpoint, Sen. Warren’s Medicare-for-All plan stinks. There’s no way to pay for it. From a political campaign standpoint, Sen. Warren’s campaign manager must’ve cringed when Sen. Warren told people living in the insurance capitol of the United States that they’re destined for pink slips if she’s elected president.

That’s like telling Iowa farmers that you hate corn and pigs. That’s like a Wisconsin politician telling tailgaters at Lambeau Field that he/she hates the Packers. It’s political suicide.

Recently, Joe Biden has struggled with Iowa. This incident won’t put Biden over the top in Iowa but it’s a great opportunity for him to sound like the sane candidate in Iowa. Frankly, it’s a gift to his campaign. The comparison isn’t flattering to Sen. Warren. I’m certain that this isn’t a coincidence:

Joe Biden raised $5.3 million through a surge of online contributions in October that rolled in after President Donald Trump launched unfounded attacks against the former vice president over his son’s Ukrainian dealings.

The swell of cash came from 182,000 donations, with $28 being the average amount given, according to figures provided to The Associated Press by the campaign, which did not include money that Biden raised through big-dollar fundraisers. It comes after his internet fundraising operation stumbled over the summer, leading critics to suggest he lacked grassroots support.

This helps, too:

Actress Alyssa Milano will co-host a fundraiser next month for former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, Variety reported.

Sen. Warren just committed an unforced error. What’s still TBD is whether Biden can take advantage of Warren’s mistake.