Can Dems win an election based on masks, lockdowns and non-answers to court packing?
Nobody ever said politics was easy explained, but in this ultra-odd year of 2020, one of the two major American political parties is staking their claim to the presidency on requiring the wearing of personal protective masks, maintaining economic lockdowns that keep people from working, and potential Supreme Court packing. These are issues that some polls claim are popular depending on how the questions are asked… but are people really buying into it?
It defies common sense to believe that the direction of the country -- and therefore its history -- could be determined by such frivolous preferences, but Democrats seem bent on playing out the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus paranoia to its fullest extreme. With just under three weeks to go until Election Day, and early voting having already started in many if not most states, the rush to drive voters to make their choice is intense.
The problem being that many, many people are well on their journey to reassessing whether voting to oust an otherwise successful incumbent president is the prudent thing to do, especially when the alternative is hazy, evasive and unclear, as it is with Democrat nominee Joe Biden and his passive/aggressive smiley and angry at-the-same-time running mate, Kamala Harris.
You don’t see it much in the mainstream establishment media, which prefers to home in on voter fear and terror of catching the CCP virus (COVID-19), but if you look behind the proverbial curtain, Americans are darn sick of the Democrats’ fearmongering over the foreign plague.
In a piece titled “Were COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns worse than doing nothing?”, Michael McKenna summed it up well at The Washington Times, “We are well on our way to sacrificing a year in the lives of all of our citizens. That’s 350 million years of life lost. If 400,000 Americans die of the virus, and those people die 10 years earlier than their life expectancy (a reasonable assumption given that the virus is especially dangerous to the aged), that’s 4 million years of life lost. Even if you assume that one set of numbers is way too generous and the other way too stingy, the policy analysis outcome is clear.
“In short, the destruction of economic, social, personal and familial lives may have accomplished little or actually been worse than doing nothing. There is no convincing evidence to the alternative at the moment, and, interestingly, none has been asked for by anyone in authority.
“Everyone picks what science they choose to follow, even Mr. Biden.”
Having closely followed the issue for the past seven months, I’ve never seen it put quite as succinctly as Mr. McKenna managed in one column. It’s safe to say Americans have been bludgeoned over the head by liberal politicians pontificating about “following the science” since the day the CCP virus invaded our shores from China or Europe. It’s almost as though a white coat wearing academic with pens in his pocket is positioned on every doorstep in the country, providing data and prescriptions for each of us on how we should safely proceed.
Practically everyone in the western world relies on “science” to some extent every day. Those of us with kids participating in outdoor sports routinely check the weather forecast to see if a practice or game will go on and if we’ll need a jacket for it. Or if you live along the west coast, you’re hoping badly needed rain is on its way to help suppress the fire danger. Or if you’re along the gulf coast (or east coast) you want some indication and advance warning if tropical weather is in store. Some of it is life and death, and other times, not so much.
“Science” is important. It is inexact, however, since there’s simply no way to plug in data from an unknown natural (or man-made?) occurrence like the CCP virus and produce predictable outcomes well ahead of time. In addition, there are lots of scientists with lots of opinions, only some of which we see commenting on the proper course for government to take in combatting a societal problem.
And aren’t there lots of sciences? Which discipline to trust? My undergraduate degree is in Political Science, and I also earned a juris doctorate in law school, so I’m both a doctor and a scientist. There’s at least one “scientist” who isn’t full of (well, you know)!
Somehow, the lockdowns just didn’t seem right from the beginning. One can only imagine policy makers holed up in a conference room tossing out ideas on what to say to the public. Some likely advocated for a full lockdown of everyone, similar to what took place in Italy. Others likely reasoned a partial curtailing would be best for folks, relying on experience and common sense to get us through it, along with recommendations from experts.
Still others might’ve suggested doing nothing at all -- or very little. No country in the world is the same as any other, and different populations of people contain their own variations. Here in the United States, it’s safe to say the residents of sparsely populated western North Dakota have little in common with the densely packed boroughs of New York City. President Trump and his administration took an easily supportable position of providing federal aid to the entire nation and then letting local authorities decide how to implement their action plans.
At first Democrats went along with the notion, commending Trump for his willingness to offer non-partisan help and each devised a means to fight the virus. Then the numbers kept ticking upwards and people in the most effected categories started dying by the thousands. The “science” hadn’t saved them from succumbing and the political class initiated the blame game. Democrats realized they didn’t have much else to offer the voters other than unified opposition to Trump and everything he did, so they placed fault at his feet.
Nothing quite like an election year to change the “science” to reflect a negative point-of-view.
The lockdowns, which received reluctant backing from most people in the beginning, didn’t do a whole lot to “slow the spread.” Democrats hid behind “science” to find scapegoats and pointed fingers at “super spreader” events where one infected person conceivably transmits the virus to another, and that person gives it to others, and so on and so on and so on. These same harbingers of doom said it all could’ve been prevented if that one person had worn his or her mask! It’s a patriotic duty to wear one! Save your fellow man! Don’t be selfish! Tuck your liberty away!
The cheekiest mask morons accused Trump of failing to “control the spread” in the White House, too. It just goes to show there’s no environment that’s foolproof -- except for maybe Joe Biden’s basement bunker. President Trump deserves a lot of credit for continuing to function in office. In essence, “do his job.” If we keep seeing signs that say “Heroes work here” on post offices and medical buildings, why should the president of the United States be seen in any lesser light just because he contracted the virus?
There’s loss of life and then there’s more loss of life. Death totals don’t reflect
The Democrats’ “House on Fire!” warnings about the dangers from the virus are eroding in effectiveness, and Trump’s experience with the treatment and recovery process play out the notion. Back on the campaign trail after less than ten days off it, Trump has a lot more to talk about than he did prior to October 2 (when he revealed his diagnosis). Far from spelling doom for all Republican candidates, the mandatory rest and recuperation period seem to have injected even more fight and energy into his reelection drive.
It's been liberating in some ways. For far too long, Democrats and their “science” dictated responses have basically instructed people to cease living a normal life. How much has been given up? Of course, there are the health-related consequences from putting life on hold to battle COVID-19 alone. McKenna did a great job of highlighting those. But what about the life events that have been lost to the pandemic?
In addition to the tremendous job reductions in the effected industries -- travel, tourism, hospitality, restaurants, retail stores, etc. -- how many weddings were postponed or outright canceled? Or baptisms? Or funerals? How about Bar and Bat Mitzvas? Confirmation classes? Youth gatherings? Graduation ceremonies? How many houses of worship will permanently close their doors because parishioners were ordered to stay away? What about family reunions or vacations? How do people feel about giving up that dream cruise to Alaska they’ve been planning for years? Or not getting to see their son’s high school football games because of crowd gathering restrictions?
How many friendships weren’t formed or were ended? How many dating relationships weren’t formed? It’s impossible to quantify, even with “science” as a guide. How many parents across the country have realized that the public school system isn’t necessarily what’s best for their children? Will there be increased calls for school vouchers and school choice now?
Will voters keep being receptive to the Democrats’ incessant secular sermons on “science” and mask-wearing when they recognize that their lives have been permanently altered (in a bad way) by mandates and lectures that don’t make any sense? What about the hypocrisy they display?
Trump provides new meaning to the refrain, “Believe all survivors!”
It's hard to fathom how it’s been two weeks since President Donald Trump and Joe Biden met face-to-face in the first presidential debate. A tired and irritable Trump lost perspective, and, perhaps because he’d had all the “It’s his fault” insults that he could stand, the man constantly interrupted and pecked at Biden.
Most observers agreed Biden won the debate on style, even if Trump was correct about his administration’s response and the fact many, many thousands of lives were saved by the president’s swift and comprehensive action. There was no doubt Trump knew volumes more about the virus than Biden did, though it didn’t shine through due to the president’s overly defensive posture. It sounded petty and angry, not hopeful and resolute.
Ironically, his tone changed -- dramatically -- when Trump and first lady Melania tested positive for the virus. The president strolled to a helicopter to be transferred to Walter Reed hospital, but worries about the future invaded the brains of everyone. For supporters, this looked awful bad. Trump had largely disdained the masks and downplayed the risk for himself. There was no good way to spin it.
After successful treatment and returning to the White House, however, Trump has a new positive way to describe the virus. Instead of maintaining a defensive stance on COVID-19, the president is empowered to speak from first-hand experience about it. How can his enemies possibly assault him as uncaring and ignorant of the virus’s purported danger when he’s a “survivor” himself?
Don’t liberals shout that we must “believe all survivors!”?
Trump has been given a new lease on the virus that didn’t exist a couple weeks ago. No wonder Grampa Joe won’t get anywhere near the debate stage with Trump this week. It has nothing to do with health risks. It’s about minimizing Trump’s ability to speak on a subject that’s personal -- and “humanizes” him. Democrats can’t tolerate it.
To pack or not to pack. You don’t deserve to know, dang it!
Whoever taught Biden and the rest of his fellow Democrats how to keep avoiding the senate filibuster/pack the Supreme Court question clearly didn’t think things through. The “Let’s not make my answer the issue” explanation sounded nice a time or two, but the refrain has gotten old. Not just old, either -- it’s Joe Biden old.
Watching the way Democrat senators have treated Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett the past couple days, it’s clear they’re planning to pack the institution as soon as they can get their grubby little paws on the power to do it. But even if Grampa Joe is elected president, it’s not a foregone conclusion that the filibuster will end, which may preclude a bill to increase the size of the bench.
Biden said Americans don’t “deserve” to know his position on the issue. What a dolt.
Democrats keep mentioning that Barrett’s nomination comes too close to the election. But would they have voted to confirm her if she’d been the nominee instead of Kavanaugh two years ago? Such gross hypocrisy is infuriating. The Republican senate is doing the right thing.
Few would dispute that Americans have grown weary of coronavirus restrictions that show no connection to common sense and haven’t proven effective in saving lives. President Trump knows the virus and can speak to its treatments and potential lethality. Democrats don’t have a clue, and they’re lying about their Supreme Court packing schemes, too.
Donald Trump coronavirus
Amy Coney Barrett hearings