Columbus Conundrums

In a single breath the anti-Christopher Columbus Progressives say that:

A) Columbus didn't set foot in the modern US so

B) We should recognize Leif Erikson instead, even though he never set foot in the modern US and

C) We should blame Columbus for the genocide of the Native Americans eve though it happened hundreds of years after his death and was mainly confined to the areas occupied by the modern US and, finally,

D) We should celebrate Indigenous People's in honor of the people who Columbus never encountered (see A above).

I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to someone.

The "Impeachment". Where are we at?

If rumors and partial news accounts are correct then the impeachment that's not an impeachment becomes clearer.

First, there was no House vote to begin impeachment because not all Democrats would have voted for it. It's one thing to have a party-line vote. It's much harder to justify if there is bipartisan opposition and only partisan support for it.

Pelosi and the Democrats are trying to have it both ways. They haven't had a formal vote to begin impeachment but they are acting as if they had.

In some ways this is a continuation of the Russian investigation. The Democrats waited for the Mueller Report only to have it come up empty. Yes, there were instances of obstruction of justice identified but many of those were nothing more than the President complaining to the press. The Democrats were sure that Mueller must have uncovered SOMETHING but the grand jury proceedings are sealed and the only way to get them unsealed is to begin a formal impeachment. The Democrats have filed a motion to have the grand jury records opened but the judge resisted since there was no formal impeachment vote.

Everything about the whistle-blower is suspicious. It now appears that he approached the Democrats first and they helped him write up his report. They even managed to get the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community to change the requirements and eliminate the need for 1st hand knowledge. The Democrats are making every effort to conceal the whistle-blower's identity but it has leaked out that he is a registered Democrat and he has a connection with one of the presidential candidates. Now it's being reported that the candidate in question is none other than Joe Biden. That would explain why his identity is being kept so secret. A close connection to Biden means that instead of being a civil servant who was outraged at the abuse of power he had heard about, he might well be a Biden supporter who wants to shield the Bidens from an investigation.

This would sound a little paranoid if they hadn't done the same thing last year with Judge Kavanaugh. If they had forwarded Christine Ford's original assertion to the full Senate Judiciary Committee before the hearings, the FBI would have interviewed the people named and reported back that everyone named denied it and that Kavanaugh's diary gave him an alibi. Nothing further would have been heard about the accusation.

Instead the Democrats referred Ford to an attorney who coached her. The original story, "Kavanaugh groped me over my clothes at a party but I pulled away" was too mild. So details were added in lurid detail, "He put his hand over my mouth and I thought he was going to kill me!" and "It gave me a life-long fear of being enclosed." This last part was an outright lie. Ford claimed that she was so afraid of being enclosed that she couldn't stand to fly but her history showed that she flew often and seemed to enjoy it.

So the Democrats have a recent history of coaching a witness and stage-managing their allegations. They also learned last year that once an accuser's identity is known it becomes easy to discredit the accuser. So they are suggesting going to extraordinary lengths. It's been suggested that the whistle-blower will be at a remote location with his face blurred and his voice altered. Is this really to protect his identity or to cover it up?

But none of this amounts to more than a fishing expedition and an attempt to stop the investigation into the beginning of the Russian conspiracy hoax.

The Race So Far

Bernie Saunders had to be taken to the hospital and given two stents. His campaign was already in trouble. There were reports of shakeups. Elizabeth Warren was endorsed by the Working Family's Party of New York. That's important because they are to the extreme left and normally would be more comfortable with an avowed socialist. Saunders has been dropping in the polls, ranking well behind Warren and Biden. Given his failing campaign and worries about his health I think we can cross him off of the likely winners list. Not that I really expected him to get the nomination. A grouchy 78-year-old socialist doesn't have wide appeal, even among today's Democrats. Four years ago he benefited from being the 2nd choice for Warren supporters and the only choice for the Not-Hillary vote. With those gone he was coasting on name recognition.

Joe Biden is also fading. There are questions about his memory and his honesty. The Ukraine story may sink him even if nothing comes of it. And he's also in his late 70s. He spends most of his time running on the Obama/Biden administration but that's a hard sell. It would be very unusual for a former vice president to be refused the nomination if he wants it but Joe may manage to pull that off.

That leaves Elizabeth Warren among the front-runners. She's The youngest of the front-runners (including Trump) and projects a lot more energy and earnestness than Saunders or Biden. She's currently the front-runner in some polls. I'd give her better-than-even odds of getting the nomination. I'd say it was a sure thing except for the tradition of giving the nomination to former vice presidents.

How will the election come out?

Biden insists that he can beat Trump "like a drum". He's fooling himself. If he gets the nomination he'll lose to Trump. He'll look old, tired and confused compared to Trump.

But Warren's my top pick. How will she do?

Trump has a lot of advantages. He's the incumbent. That's always a good thing in a healthy economy. And people know him now. Four years ago Democrats were calling him mentally unstable and likely to start a war. Instead he's the first president in decades who hasn't involved us in new wars, at least not so far. And he can claim to be a peacemaker based on his negotiations with North Korean. Republicans, including me, were worried that Trump would turn out to be a New York Liberal in disguise. He hasn't. His administration has been mainstream Republican and to the right of both Bushes. Trump won in 2016 even though his campaign was in constant turnover and he was outspent two-to-one. This time he will have the bigger campaign chest and experienced campaigners won't be afraid that working for him will ruin their careers. The impeachment proceedings are also likely to help Trump. Unless the Democrats can make a much stronger case than they have, it just looks like an attempted coup and that's enough to motevate lukewarm voters to vote. That happened in 2018 when the circus surrounding Kavanaugh's confirmation is credited with motivating enough Republicans to keep the Senate.

Warren has some significant handicaps. She wants to run without corporate money. That only helps Trump but it's doubtful that corporations and big-money donors will support her regardless. She is proposing government takeover of health care and education. She wants to raise taxes and to tax wealth itself. She has proposed a partial takeover of large businesses with the government mandating the membership of corporate boards. Any of those will cause major economic disruption. All of them put together are likely to crash the economy harder than the Great Depression. The only way a politician can push through this sort of wrenching change is during a major economic downturn when people think that they have nothing to lose. Trying to pass this during an economic boom is nearly impossible. She's certain to turn Wall Street against her which is major since they've been supporting Democrats over Republicans for the last several elections cycles. I doubt that Warren will go down in a defeat comparable to McGovern or Mondale. She's certain to win California and New York. But she's also certain to lose a lot of states that haven't voted Republican since Reagan.

One other handicap that Warren will have. If she's on the ballot then this will be the 4th election in a row with a woman or black running. The novelty of voting for the first woman candidate is gone.

So, my final prediction - Trump vs Warren with Trump winning.

Why Now?

A week ago Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would be investigating impeaching President Trump over an unreleased whistle-blower report claiming that Trump threatened to withhold military aid meant for Ukraine unless they reopened an investigation into Joe Biden's son. According to the rumor, Trump demanded the investigation be reopened six times during the phone call. This seemed very premature since Trump had already announced that he would release both the transcript of the call to Ukraine and the whistle-blower report by the end of the week. Why not wait?

Sure enough, Trump did release both and it was a big nothing-burger. While Trump did ask that the investigation be reopened, he only mentioned it once and that was after several other requests. There was no mention of a quid pro quo agreement. The military aid funds that had been held have already been released even though the investigation has not been reopened.

The whistle-blower report was similarly unimpressive. The author admitted to not having any direct knowledge so it's all "people familiar with ... tell me". There was an accusation that the original transcript had been hidden on a secure server because people understood the enormity of what the President did. This accusation also fell apart because Trump willingly released the transcript and because Susan Rice admitted that the Obama administration had put similar transcripts on the secure server. Also, after the Washington Post printed transcripts of Trump's first two calls to foreign leaders, they can be excused for taking extra steps.

So why did Pelosi launch an impeachment so early? After a week, a few things have become clear starting with the fact that there is no reason for impeachment here.A week ago it looked like Pelosi had lost control of the House to the Squad and other pro-impeachment Democrats. That is certainly a factor. There is a vocal wing of the Democratic party that has always planned on impeaching Trump and was just looking for an excuse.

The real factor here is timing. There is only four months until the primaries start and an impeachment will be a major distraction. No one will be watching the primaries if the President is on trial in the Senate. Also the longer things drag on the worse the case for impeachment. Why bother to impeach a president with an election coming up in a few months?

But another factor has come up over the weekend. Attorney General Barr has been talking to the Australian and Italian governments about the origins of the Steele Dossier. This seems to be a reasonable thing for the Attorney General to look into. There are credible reports that officials from both of these countries entrapped a low-level Trump campaign worker with promises of Clinton's deleted emails. Was this done by low-level officials acting on their own or did these governments try to interfere in a US election. You'd think that people would want to know. Instead the Washington Post made a shot across Barr's bow, by suggesting that he is at risk of prison time. Prison time for investigating election fraud? Seriously?

So maybe the other factor here is that the left knows the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration crossed some lines and they are using the impeachment to try to stop the investigation.

Either way, they are out of time. With deadlines approaching, they seized on the Ukraine call because they don't have anything else to use and they are committed to impeaching the president no matter what.