Donald J. Trump on Hennessy's View

Love of Country Compels Trump to Fight On

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:36:02 -0600

We have been lied to since 1960.

Everyone knows Richard Nixon beat John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential race. Kennedy “won” because of election fraud in Illinois and Texas. Everyone knows that, too.

Nixon decided to let it go. He didn’t contest Illinois on the advice of people like George Romney and Prescott Bush. “Be the bigger man,” they told Nixon. “Put the country first.”

Romney and Bush were lying, of course. Nixon’s refusal to contest Illinois was an act of pure selfishness. He didn’t want to damage his political future by getting into a street fight with the Democrats. He wanted to live to fight another day.

If you see fraud and don’t say “fraud” you are a fraud.

—Nassim Nicholas Taleb

It’s a lie to say that conceding in a fraudulent election puts the country first. Conceding to fraud is consenting to fraud. It is fraud.

By conceding, Nixon put his political career before the integrity of the republic. Nixon had both moral and patriotic duties to demand an honest election. He, instead, endorsed the lie and the fraud of the 1960 election. Nixon became an accessory after the fact to a massive election fraud.

Recently, Catholic Bishop Richard Stika of Knoxville, TN, (and native of St. Louis) perpetuated the lie that there’s honor in participating in a fraud. Stika tweeted:

that would be done by this act of contesting the election. He eventually was elected president twice but unfortunately he lied about the cover up. Nixon accomplished many great things but they are hidden by the legacy of watergate. Love of country and not self is patriotic.
— Bishop Rick Stika (@BishopStika) November 15, 2020

Stika here makes a common error, conflating lack of conflict with peace. The exact same error led Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler.

Donald Trump is a patriot. He puts the integrity of America’s political system before his own self interest. Trump could go back to living like a billionaire in retirement, his exceedingly able kids running his real estate empire while he stumps at rallies before tens of thousands of paying fans. (Those tickets would be expensive.)

But Trump is doing what patriots do: sacrificing his time and treasure for the American people, half of whom hate his guts. Trump doesn’t care. He does what’s right. He fights when duty calls.

If believe in self-governance, you must support Trump’s fight for free and honest elections. Otherwise, you’re just a selfish politician doing what’s best for you.

Note: an earlier version of this post incorrectly identfied Bishop Stika’s diocese and Nashville.

Trump Has 3 Ways to Win; Biden Has 1

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Wed, 04 Nov 2020 20:37:47 -0600

Trump has three ways to win, while Biden has only one. And, the longer it takes, the better Trump’s chances.

Biden has one path to victory: getting ballots counted and certified without scrutiny. That’s it. If Biden can get enough states to stop counting votes while he’s in the lead, he wins. (As long as all the ballots are legit or assumed legit.)

Trump has three ways to win:

Get enough states to stop counting votes when he’s in the lead (same as Biden).
Delay the process to December 3, forcing state legislatures to pick the winner.
Get the election to the House of Representatives for a tie-breaker.

The first strategy for each candidate is obvious. Trump’s second and third strategies are less obvious, so let’s explore them a bit.

State Legislatures: If a state’s election results are not certified by the time the Electoral College meets, the state’s legislature chooses the electors. As luck would have, Republicans control the legislature in almost every state, still counting votes. So, if the counting process goes too long, Trump wins.

Congress: If Trump and Biden end up with the same number of certified electors, then the House of Representatives picks the winner. But each member of Congress does not get a vote. The 12th Amendment says each state delegation gets one vote. In both the current and next Congress, Republicans control the majority of state delegations, 26-23. If this election gets to the House of Representatives, Trump wins. And a tie is still mathematically possible.

That’s three ways for Trump to win and only one way to lose. If you’re a strategist, you now have to decide which path to take. This decision requires a level of understanding of the judicial process that I don’t have. Without that knowledge, I would take strategy number 2.

Now, It’s Your Turn to Act #

You want something to do, I know. We all do. Well, you have the essential job in this entire battle.

Pray.

Pray that God grants an election according to His holy will (not ours). Pray for the lawyers and actuaries and accountants who will challenge the ballots in the various states. Pray for the people who committed fraud to steal an election.

Pray for yourself. Not that your will be done, but that you receive the grace to accept God’s Will, whatever it may be. Pray that God does NOT give us the president we deserve but rather shows His mercy by giving the president who allows us to do His holy will.

I went to Holy Mass tonight and left feeling fortunate. Maybe God’s will for this election is to draw us all closer to Him through His Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Pray.

No One Tells You About Polls that Project a Big Win for Trump

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 24 Oct 2020 04:32:33 -0500

Most election polls include a question that pollsters rarely talk about: whom do you expect to win.

Yet, the answer to this question is more accurate than any other election forecasting tool. By a lot.

Finding the answers to this question is tricky. You have to get hold of the raw datasets and do the math yourself. Pollsters do not publish expectation data.

The most recent analysis of expectation data comes from early October, around the first debate. Are you ready for it?

As of October 3, 56 percent of likely voters expected President Trump to win reelection, and only 40 percent expected Biden to win, according to Gallup, via Western Journal.

Most people expect Trump to win despite polls showing Biden in the lead. And this split is not unusual.

The Science Behind the Numbers #

Back in 2012, researchers could still publish their findings without fear of being canceled. Two researchers, Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan and David Rothschild of Microsoft Statistical Research, published a paper on the accuracy of polling’s expectation question. Here’s a summary of their findings:

Our primary dataset consists of all the state-level electoral presidential college races from 1952 to 2008, where both the intention and expectation questions are asked. In the 77 cases in which the intention and expectation question predict different candidates, the expectation question picks the winner 60 times, while the intention question only picked the winner 17 times. That is, 78% of the time that these two approaches disagree, the expectation data was correct.

What’s more, expectation data is more accurate than voter intention data in predicting the margin of victory:

We find that relying on voters' expectations rather than their intentions yield substantial and statistically significant increases in forecasting accuracy. An optimally-weighted average puts over 90% weight on the expectations-based forecasts. Once one knows the results of a poll of voters' expectations, there is very little additional information left in the usual polls of voting intentions. Our findings remain robust to correcting for an array of known biases in voter intentions data.

The science is settled: voter expectation is a better predictor of outcomes than voter intent.

Expectations Have Been Rock Solid Since July #

Despite fluctuations in polls of voter intent, polls of election expectations have been remarkably consistent since at least July.

Fifty-six percent of respondents expect President Trump to win, and only 40 percent expect Biden to win.

This consistency seems particularly important this year. According to Gallup, President Trump came into 2020 with a 49 percent approval rating, the highest of his presidency. By July, his favorability was down to 38 percent due to the economic effects of Coronavirus.

Even when Trump’s popularity was at its lowest level, 56 percent of voters expected Trump to be re-elected.

Why Is Voter Expectation More Accurate than Voter Intent? #

Researchers believe three factors make expectation polls more accurate than polls of voter intent.

The expectation question increases the sample size by a factor of 5. When I ask you how you intend to vote, I learn the intentions of precisely one person. But when I ask you whom you expect to win, you mentally “poll” at least five of your closest friends, the yard signs and bumper stickers you see, and the relative frequency with which you hear the competing candidates' names. Your brain does this factoring in milliseconds and reports the results. “Trump,” you say.
You can more accurately predict which of your friends and relatives will vote than the best voter turnout models. Did you know that the Gallup organization invented the election polling system? Did you know that Gallup quit doing election polls decades ago? Did you know Gallup quit doing election polls because it was too hard to figure out who is likely vote and who is not? Likely-voter modeling is still the weakest link in the process. But people know their close associates well. I know several vocal Biden supporters who are unlikely to vote. Two of them are not even registered. They have Biden stickers on their cars. They had Hillary stickers four years ago. And they readily admit they’ve never registered to vote. That’s the kind of information that pollsters can’t discern.
Expectations breed outcomes because late-deciding voters vote for the candidate they expect to win, not the candidate they prefer. To a degree, expectations can be self-fulfilling prophecies. Some politically motivated polling firms try to manipulate the vote through a cognitive bias known as the Bandwagon Effect or Social Proof. This bias, simply stated, says that, free to do anything, most people will do what they see other people doing. There’s a lot of science to back this up. This is why Democrat pollsters try to convince you that the Democrat is going to win.

(Read How Late Deciders Are Like Fish)

Trump has a 78 Percent Chance of Winning #

Based on the expected outcome theory of elections, Donald Trump has a 78 percent chance of winning. We can reach this conclusion because, when voter intent and voter expectation polls disagree, the voter expectation poll wins 78 percent of the time.

We can also predict Trump’s margin of victory in the popular vote at something around 55 percent.

How Dems Play Wile E. Coyote to Trump's Roadrunner

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:33:27 -0500

The Commission on Presidential Debates, a partisan, anti-Trump cabal, may have just boosted Trump’s victory margin by trying to cheat.

The Trump Train seems to be in a tizzy over the Commission’s new rules and changes to topics for the second presidential debate. The rule change involved cutting the microphone of one party while the other party speaks. The topic change was to drop foreign policy because Trump has been nominated for so many Nobel Peace Prizes that the Commission considers even mentioning the topic unfair.

These changes, announced just days before Thursday’s final debate, sent me and many others to social media to scream “unfair!”

But, maybe we shouldn’t be upset. Come Friday morning, we might be thanking the Commission for giving Trump an unfair advantage in Thursday’s debate between Trump and crooked Joe the Bribe King.

Never Trump as Wile E. Coyote #

Since Trump took the magical escalator ride to the lobby of Trump Tower in 2015, his enemies have tried to defeat him by cheating. First, the Republican National Committee rigged everything against him. The neo-conservatives used their Deep State tools to undermine him. The media accused him of being “literally Hitler” almost daily.

Once Trump became the nominee, anti-Trump forces on stepped up their nefarious attacks, schemes, plans, and capers. They tried everything from planting CIA and FBI spies in his organization to tapping his phones, to buying a fake dossier from a Russian agent.

After his election and inauguration, the left and its Republican cabana boys tried everything, legal and illegal, licit and illicit, to keep America from becoming great again. Former Speaker Paul Ryan refused to enact the president’s agenda, leaked classified and confidential information, and sided with the leftist media against the president.

Of course, we all know about the fraudulent Mueller investigation, the crimes of Jim Comey, the fake Ukraine scandal, and everything else the left and Republican warhawks tried to bring Trump down.

And what did Trump do? Trump just kept on winning.

In fact, almost every crooked plot against Trump blew up in his enemies' faces like a Wile E. Coyote plot with an Acme product. A list of anti-Trump backfires reads like Wile E. Coyote’s list of mishaps with Acme products in the classic parody piece, Coyote v. Acme:

Mr. Coyote states that on occasions too numerous to list in this document he has suffered mishaps with explosives purchased of Defendant: the Acme “Little Giant” Firecracker, the Acme Self-Guided Aerial Bomb, etc. (For a full listing, see the Acme Mail Order Explosives Catalogue and attached deposition, entered in evidence as Exhibit C.) Indeed, it is safe to say that not once has an explosive purchased of Defendant by Mr. Coyote performed in an expected manner. To cite just one example: At the expense of much time and personal effort, Mr. Coyote constructed around the outer rim of a butte a wooden trough beginning at the top of the butte and spiralling downward around it to some few feet above a black X painted on the desert floor. The trough was designed in such a way that a spherical explosive of the type sold by Defendant would roll easily and swiftly down to the point of detonation indicated by the X. Mr. Coyote placed a generous pile of birdseed directly on the X, and then, carrying the spherical Acme Bomb (Catalogue # 78-832), climbed to the top of the butte. Mr. Coyote’s prey, seeing the birdseed, approached, and Mr. Coyote proceeded to light the fuse. In an instant, the fuse burned down to the stem, causing the bomb to detonate. In addition to reducing all Mr. Coyote’s careful preparations to naught, the premature detonation of Defendant’s product resulted in the following disfigurements to Mr. Coyote:

Severe singeing of the hair on the head, neck, and muzzle.

Sooty discoloration.

Fracture of the left ear at the stem, causing the ear to dangle in the aftershock with a creaking noise.

Full or partial combustion of whiskers, producing kinking, frazzling, and ashy disintegration.

Radical widening of the eyes, due to brow and lid charring.

Space for Rent in Joe’s Head #

Adam Schiff has played the role of Professor Coyote in the past, but the Debate Commission might have stepped into the spotlight this time. Here’s why:

Joe Biden is mentally incompetent. Everybody knows this. Trump-friendly Republicans said after Debate 1 that Trump probably should have interrupted Biden less because Biden was always on the verge of going off the rails like a crazy train. By silencing Biden’s microphone, the American people will be subjected to Biden’s defects in uninterrupted two-minute intervals.
The rules changes give Trump another example of election interference and rigging, and people don’t like unfairness.
But the main reason the Commission’s plot could blow up in its face is this: Trump can interrupt Biden’s mind without interrupting Biden. Some people (women) found Trump’s berating of Biden mean in Debate 1. Because they could hear Trump talking over Biden. With Trump’s mic off, the President can jabber at Biden the whole time Sleepy Joe is rambling, but folks at home won’t hear him. Only Biden will hear Trump creeping around in his brain, dropping trigger words like “laptop,” and “Hunter,” and “Burisma,” and “bribery,” and “low IQ.” And there’s nothing Biden or the moderator can do it about without interrupting Biden.

When you see Biden changing subjects multiple times during his “uninterrupted” two minutes of blather, you’ll know that Donald Trump has taken up some very expensive real estate in Biden’s vacant head.

Trump's Third Act 2020

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 10 Oct 2020 08:32:37 -0500

October 7, 2016: Access Hollywood #

October 7, 2016, was a Friday. My wife and I sat in our family room, waiting to leave for the movie theatre to see La La Land. The television served as background noise until about ten minutes before we left. That’s when a Fox News Alert popped up.

Fox reported that NBC News had released an audiotape of a conversation between Billy Bush and Donald Trump. The tape was made on a bus as Trump and Bush prepared for an Access Hollywood segment.

Already severely behind in the polls, this well-timed audiotape seemed to doom the Trump campaign just days before his final debate, in St. Louis, against Hillary Clinton.

October 10, 2015: Scott Adams Says #

Cartoonist Scott Adams proposed a hypothesis in 2015: Donald Trump scripts his campaigns the way movie-makers script movies. It goes something like this:

Act One: The hero is thrown into an unusual situation. In the case of Trump, he becomes the unlikely frontrunner in the race for President.

Act Two: The hero struggles through a series of minor mishaps and serendipitous advances as he tries to get back to something like status quo ante.

Act Three: I’ll let Scott Adams take over from here:

At the end of the second act, nearly all movies follow the model where some unsolvable problem rears its head. The audience must feel that the protagonist can’t escape this problem. We know the movie is fiction, but we still feel the emotions of the actors. We love the feeling of the third act because it reminds us of our own unsolvable problems. The main difference is that the movie hero finds a way to solve the unsolvable. That solution is what makes it a movie. The audience needs to feel the third act tension followed by an unexpected solution in order to get the chemical rush of movie enjoyment.

The Access Hollywood bombshell was almost certainly that “unsolvable problem” certain to derail Trump’s hero’s journey to the White House.

March 16, 2020: Coronavirus #

If you were scripting Trump: The Movie, you’d have thrown in a global pandemic at the start of Act Two. Now, what would be the ultimate complicating factor to segue into Act Three?

Of course. The hero contracts that virus that served as his nemesis throughout Act Two.

Coronavirus directly attacked Trump’s greatest achievement, the one thing that made defeating him impossible: the greatest economy in US history. Going into Act Two, Trump had managed to reduce Black and Hispanic unemployment to all-time lows, drive Black and Hispanic employment, income, and homeownership to all-time highs, and renegotiate a bunch of unfavorable trade deals. Jobs were a dime a dozen, and no one really wanted to run against Trump in 2020.

Then China unleashed a virus that sent the world into a panic. To fight the virus, Trump had to sacrifice his masterpiece. Like DaVinci burning the Last Supper and the Mona Lisa, Trump had to set a torch to the US economy to save American lives.

As the Second Act wound down, Trump had miraculously rejuvenated the economy, like the Wizard of Oz pulling strings to impose his will on America’s job engine. He seemed, once again, on the clear path to victory, until . . .

October 2, 2020: Quarantine #

Another Friday, October 2, we awoke to Trump’s Ultimate Complicating Factor:

[TWEET DELETED]

The China Virus had infected the 74-year-old President of the United States and his wife with only four weeks left in the presidential campaign.

“It’s over,” a lot of people thought.

“He won’t survive,” they said.

Many of his political opponents, predictably, cheered the news and publicly wished for his death.

And reports of Trump’s demise seemed self-evident when, late in the afternoon of October 2, the President made a lonely, masked stroll from the White House to Marine One for a 15-minute helicopter flight to Walter Reed Army Hospital.

Watching videos (probably B roll) of Marine One disappearing over the Washington DC horizon, I’m sure I wasn’t alone in wondering if Trump would ever return.

October 7, 2020: Please Take Your Seats. Act Three Is About to Begin #

Did you notice the masks? When Trump left the White House to board Marine One for Walter Reed, he wore a black mask. When he returned, his mask was white. That wasn’t coincidence.

If you’re watching a movie and you have no idea how it ends, at this point, you might glance at your watch and ask, “Does he have time to get out of this?”

On October 2, most “experts” said this would knock Trump off the campaign trail for at least two weeks. Astute political students would probably say, “it’s over.” Unlike some politicians who serve as mere representatives of an ideal, Donald Trump is the ideal himself. Mike Pence is a brilliant, honorable, and able man who, in normal times, might have been the Republicans' best hope in 2016 and 2020. But Trump is something outside of and above politics. Without Trump, there is no Republican brand.

As Act Three began, Trump’s doctors arranged themselves in a crescent around a microphone to announce the President’s condition. The press conference of October 3 did not go as planned. Dishonest and opportunistic journalists misrepresented almost every word Dr. Connaly spoke. After the presser, word spread that Trump was gravely ill, and the White House staff was in panic mode. Somber news anchors warned us to prepare for a Presidential Funeral and a transition of power to Mike Pence.

About 24 hours later, Donald Trump was waving from the back seat of a black SUV to supporters who’d lined the streets around Walter Reed. “I wanted to thank them,” he said. “Such love.”

Trump’s drive-by rally in front of Walter Reed.

In less than 72 hours, Trump had contracted China Virus, been forced into the best medical facility in the world, and emerged back onto the makeshift campaign trail, seemingly unscathed.

President Trump returns to White House from Walter Reed just 48 hours after media all but pronounced him dead.

As the week of October 4, 2020, unfolded, Trump would return to the White House on Monday, disrupt the China Virus relief bill negotiations on Tuesday, appear on various Fox News shows throughout the week, and conduct a two-hour, live virtual rally on the Rush Limbaugh show Friday. By Friday night, the Trump had announced plans for a rally in Sanford, Florida, the following Monday.

Trump gives America optimistic thumbs-up from White House balcony on Monday, October 7

Meanwhile, targeted polls began to show Trump taking the lead in key battleground states. Kamala Harris, the Democrat vice presidential candidate, suffered a miserable performance against VP Mike Pence in the only vice presidential debate. The Democrat, Speaker of the House, had announced a bill that would allow psychiatrists to remove a president under the 25th Amendment.

A Pew Research survey released in the week showed that 45 percent of white liberals under the age of 30 had been diagnosed with psychological or psychiatric disorders:

Pew Research Survey shows white liberals under 30 are psychologically unstable.

And a Gallup Poll showed that 56 percent of Americans believe they are better off now than they were four years ago (the most ever). The same poll showed 56 percent of Americans also think that Donald Trump will be re-elected.

Gallup Poll reveals most Americans believe they’re better off now than four years ago. First time ever.

November 3, 2020: But The Movie Isn’t Over #

Our hero isn’t out of the woods just yet. With Trump, news cycles are about 10 minutes. Complicating factors are bound to emerge in the three weeks left before the November 3 election. Media and Democrat collusion are bound to produce more hoaxes.

But President Trump’s unpredictability follows a pattern: emergence, exposition, rising action, ultimate complicating factor, heroic rebound, denouement.

We saw this pattern throughout the 2015 Republican race, the 2016 general election, the Russia Hoax, and the impeachment farce. While we cannot predict the next confounding variable to emerge, we can expect Trump to rally from any setback in a way no one could possibly imagine.

The suspense is what drives us to the movies. It’s also what makes Donald Trump the most fascinating figure in modern history.

Stay tuned. You’ll be telling your grandkids about Trump’s magnificent Act Three of 2020.

I’ll leave you with this video by Russel Brand.

King David, Emperor Constantine, Saint Augustine, and Donald Trump?

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:30:49 -0500

For 3,000 years (or more), God has called unworthy men to advance His Kingdom on earth. Why, then, are some Christian conservatives so appalled by President Trump?

Specifically, I am thinking of people like Erick Erickson, an ordained deacon in the Catholic Church. Erickson never misses an opportunity to remind his readers and Twitter followers that Donald Trump has been divorced twice, uses foul language, insults people, boasts, and exaggerates. At the same time, Erickson recognizes that Trump is our last human defense against the children of darkness. It’s as if his daily reminders of Trump’s flaws were mere virtue signals to tell his followers, “I know better than you.”

No Christian would point to Donald Trump’s life and say, “Son, that’s the path to follow.” Simultaneously, it seems less than Christian to point out Mr. Trump’s flaws every day of the week. Is it possible that Mr. Erickson cannot admit that his evaluation of Trump in 2015 was wrong?

Another virulent anti-Trumper from 2015, Glenn Beck, recently posted a humble and thorough mea culpa. On August 27, Beck posted this thread on Twitter:

1). I am feeling so humbled this week. I feel truly horrible for the things I said and believed in 2016 about @realDonaldTrump . I believed the worst politically, which he proved me wrong at almost every turn. In the most dramatic cases (life/Israel/China/authoritarian) cont
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) August 28, 2020

2. I expected @realDonaldTrump to take control federally at the first opportunity. Here we are in a massive crisis. Bush ‘violated the free market to save the free market.’ Trump could have violated federalism to ‘save federalism’ yet he has stood firm through COVID. Con’t
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) August 28, 2020

3. But let me cut to the chase. I believed he actually didn’t care about people. When @realDonaldTrump called me after my fathers death, I assigned the motive to politics - AND SAID SO. What haunts me this week is how my words must have hit his children. How ... con’t
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) August 28, 2020

4. Did I miss, the sharpness of my ‘judgement’ without consideration of family. Me? A guy who has lived it from his side. I wanted to end my interview with @realDonaldTrump son this week w/ a personal apology, who had spent 20 minutes with me as if we were old friends. Con’t
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) August 28, 2020

5. I didn’t want to embarrass myself in the end and failed to do the right thing again. I don’t regret my doubts or expressing my concern in 16, but the fact that I missed his humanity and was blind to his family. I said at the time, ‘I hope I am wrong and will...’ con’t
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) August 28, 2020

6. Will be the first to admit it.’I did. On air and personally to the president himself.But it was all about politics. I knew he loved his children and they him. What I failed to see, is the reason I think they love him. @realDonaldTrump is a loud New Yorker with a private heart
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) August 28, 2020

I’m sure Mr. Beck realizes that President Trump remains a flawed man, just like the rest of us. Unlike Erickson, Beck understands that God uses the weak and inadequate just as effectively as He uses the pious and devout.

Isn’t it peculiar that a Mormon seems better to grasp God’s remarkable power than a Catholic Deacon?

Scripture and tradition contain many examples of God using very flawed characters to advance His kingdom on earth. There’s every reason to believe we are witnessing another such instance in the presidency of Donald Trump.

King David (about 1,000 BC) #

King David slept with his neighbor’s wife, knocked her up, and had her husband killed to keep Bathsheba for himself. That’s a pretty bad series of sins:

First Commandment: making sex a god before God.
Fourth Commandment: dishonoring parenthood and the family.
Fifth Commandment: murdered (indirectly) Uriah.
Sixth Commandment: committed adultery.
Night Commandment: coveting his neighbor’s wife.

And yet, King David went on to be a great king who authored most of the Psalms. God chose David’s lineage to produce our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Both Joseph and Mary were of the House of David.

If God can accomplish so much with an adulterous murderer like David, how much can he accomplish with a boastful playboy like Trump?

Emperor Constantine (272-337 AD) #

Constantine was a pagan army officer who became Roman Emperor the way most did: naked ambition.

Constantine grew up during the greatest (or worst) of the Roman persecutions of Christians. Diocletian was his emperor. Yet, upon becoming emperor, Constantine ended the persecutions, made Christianity the official religion of Rome, and declared that God alone was responsible for his ascent to the throne.

Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and launched the universal growth of the Church. Many attribute Constantine’s conversion to his mother, St. Helena.

Saint Augustine of Hippo (died 430 AD) #

St. Augustine grew up with a pagan father and a Christian mother (St. Monica). Augustine, while never anti-Christian, was a lot like Donald Trump, with one exception: Augustine liked the drink. (He’s the patron saint of brewers.)

Augustine lived a licentious life, partying, drinking, drugs, and women. He sired a child out of wedlock. He never married the child’s mother. His life tortured his mother, Monica, who never stopped praying that he would straighten up and fly right.

During his wild year, the brilliant and educated Augustine fell into a popular heretical religion, Manichaeism.

Augustine eventually found his way to Milan, where St. Ambrose was then bishop. The skeptical Augustine began listening to Ambrose’s sermons and was overwhelmed. Unlike the Manichaeans, whose philosophies left huge intellectual holes unfilled, Ambrose’s sermons seemed complete. Augustine could not pose a question that Ambrose could not answer to Augustine’s satisfaction.

Even under Ambrose’s tutelage, and with his mother now in Milan, Augustine’s womanizing continued. After refusing to marry the mother of his child, he became involved with another woman.

Still, Augustine became a great priest, bishop, and Doctor of the Church, writing some of Christendom’s most influential works.

Donald Trump #

Which brings us to President Trump.

Luckily, I don’t need to document all the reasons Trump seems unfit to be a great Christian world leader. You know his flaws. What you might not have thought about, though, is how much Trump has in common with some of the greatest names in history: David, Constantine, Augustine.

Salvation is not about where you begin but where you end up. Donald Trump is married, now, to a Catholic woman who seems somewhat devout. There is no doubt that Trump’s understanding of Christianity has improved just in the five years since he declared his candidacy for president.

Like Constantine, Trump has placed himself between Christians and those who would drive Christ from the public square, if not exterminate Christians altogether.

The history books are still being written, of course. So far, Trump is a more vigorous defender of the faith than the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I will continue to pray for Donald Trump’s complete conversion. We would love to have him the Catholic pantheon of sinners whom God called into exceptional service. Please pray with me.

Why Bother - Again

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 06 Jul 2020 14:29:25 -0500

Everything seems to be falling apart. Hope fades eternal.

Five years ago, apparently, many of us felt the same way. Many people said “thank you” for this post from August 2015. It seems more fitting today than anything new I could write.

Why Bother

Note: This was written in August, 2015, during the Obama administration. Lamentations about the current state of affairs pertain to an era now past. Hope for the future, though, burns eternal.

We yearn for civic character but satisfy ourselves with symbolic gestures and celebrity circuses. We perceive no greatness in our leaders, a new meanness in ourselves. Small wonder that each new election brings a new jolt, its aftermath a new disappointment.

– Neil Howe & William Strauss, The Fourth Turning

Why bother?

So many say it or think it. Why bother?

I think it myself. A lot. I pull out of the civic process for big chunks of time, disappointed in the people I’ve voted for, disappointed in people I’ve campaigned for, disappointed in people I fight alongside, disappointed in my own ineffectiveness. Sometimes it’s best to pretend I was never involved.

But the world always brings me back.

Why bother?

Because the labor participation rate is the lowest it’s been since the first year of the Jimmy Carter administration. People who want to work don’t work. People who want full-time jobs work one or more part-time jobs. People who believe that if they work hard and stay in school and don’t have babies can’t find meaningful work. Or they hear the rules have changed, and now “making it” means a government check and a room in Mom’s basement.

Why bother?

Because lives matter. Yes, black lives matter. All lives matter. And lives get snuffed out every day of every week because 40 years of federal programs have failed the people they’re designed to help. They’ve cheapened life and deprived millions of the dignity of decent work, decent wages, and a safe community. The war on drugs and the war on poverty have body counts like any other war. Housing and education programs have made housing less available and education less meaningful. And the government’s failures hurt real flesh and blood human beings.

Why bother?

Because God and my family blessed me with the brain and the education and the curiosity to learn that the solution to jobs and crime, to apathy and hopelessness, are not impossible mysteries of the cosmos but proven, quantified social policies that work every time and everywhere they’re tried.

Why bother?

Because the burden of knowledge is a call to duty. We want people to experience the dignity of meaningful work and the pride of living their own lives. We know how to make that happen. And we’re frustrated that a meddlesome few won’t let us do it.

Why bother?

Because we were told from childhood on to leave every place a little better than we found it. Whether it’s the schools we attend, the bathrooms we use, or the earth we wander for 80 years, we feel a compulsion to leave everything better than we found it.

I am almost 52 years old. For the first 30 years of my life, things were getting better, particularly from 1981 to 1993. Then we plateaued. And the past decade has been straight drop down.

Before my time is up, I want to know every person who can work finds meaningful work to do, that everyone who works can afford to care for himself and his family, that the safety nets we’ve built support those who truly need them without the stress of able-bodied people using the safety net as a hammock.

Why bother?

Because we know that discouraging people from becoming the best they can be is to deny them their God given right to flourish, to live, to feel the pride of doing something for themselves and for the benefit of others.

Why bother?

Because we are Americans. We take the words of our founding documents as creed. We believe in the self-evident truth that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights and that our government was established to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our children.

Why bother?

Because the job of securing liberty is never done. The lust for power and control never sleep. And the duty falls to each generation to renew our founding creed, improve its outcomes, and pass along its wisdom and promises to the next.

Why bother?

Because we love people so much we are willing to give up our nights and weekends, our money and, if necessary, our lives to see our fellow Americans live free with dignity and opportunity for all.

Why bother?

Because we are conservatives. Ours is not an economic system or a math formula. We don’t believe in big business as the solution to our problems. Nor do we believe it’s “every man for himself.”

Rather, we bother because conservatism is a moral philosophy from Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments to the preamble of the Constitution, our moral philosophy is based on human rights–life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, the dignity of work, the rewards of labor, the love of family, and the security of a freely chosen community.

Those are the principles and conditions we seek to conserve. Not merely some tradition whose origins we cannot name. Not some a priori truth that’s too sacred to expose to empirical scrutiny. It’s the words we all know by heart–the words Jefferson penned and Martin Luther King sang from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that all men are created equal.

In our America, murder is rare because every person sees every other person as a child of God with rights equal to their own life.

In our America, welfare is rare because every person seeks to engage in meaningful work trusting the benefits of that work will go to the worker.

In our America, unemployment is short and rare because every person wants to work and every community feels shame when it has unemployed people in its midst.

In our America, racial strife is rare because we recognize the inherent value and dignity God infused in every person.

In our America, want is unheard of because our generosity of spirit knows no limits.

In our America, people are vigilant against intruders, thieves, and free-riders because every person contributed to the greatness of the society.

In our America, bad things still happen, but we pull together, nurse the wounded, comfort the grieving, and look forward to the next challenge.

In our America, work is a blessing, not a punishment.

In our America, the needy are “untapped resources, not liabilities to be managed," as Arthur C. Brooks wonderfully puts it.

In our America, history is not a home we seek to re-enter, but a well-learned lesson that gives us hope and wisdom as we press toward the other side.

Some say our America is impossible. They may be right. But deep down inside, I believe they’re wrong. The only thing really impossible is imagining the impossible. Imagination is simply a memory that hasn’t happened yet.

In 1775, this country was impossible because it existed only in the imaginations of a few men. Yet here we are.

Yes, the past decade has been difficult, but we’ve survived difficulties before. The Jamestown settlers lost 80 percent of their population, including their most prominent citizens.The Pilgrims lost half their members to disease, starvation, and crime. Slaves rounded up in Africa died by the scores crossing the Atlantic, only to emerge into slavery. We fought a brutal civil war to end slavery and preserve a fractured union. Economic panics and natural disasters pocked the 19th century. Depression and world wars scarred the 20th.

And somehow that mythical nation dreamt up in the imaginations of a few spirited colonists survives 240 years later.

Today a friend of mine told me that America is at a crossroads.We must choose between an autocrat of the left or an autocrat of right.

I told him, “Maybe I’m too much like James T. Kirk, but I don’t believe in no-win situations.”

That’s why I believe we can preserve this imaginary nation. We cannot preserve America by becoming un-American. We can survive only by doubling down on the contradictions that made us the greatest nation in history.

We are rough but decent
We are irreverent but polite
We are individual but highly social
We are brave but seek the safety of community
We are strong and armed but gentle and giving
We are fierce in battle but gracious in victory
We are wealthy beyond reason but industrious and fair
We are one nation segmented 300 million ways
We are a nation of God with compassion for those unblessed with faith
We are Americans
We are proud but humble

We are great because of our people not because of our government. If our government is great, it is so because of the people who designed, fund it, regulate it, and populate it.

We are great because decent people were left free to live their own lives and pursue their own happiness. We remain great so long as free people choose to live harmoniously together, to share a portion of their wealth to meet common needs and to care for the indigent.

It’s a precarious balance, this freedom, like walking a tightrope. On one side is tyranny, on the other is anarchy.

Why bother?

Because I want to see what’s on the other end of the rope. And I can’t do it alone.

Please share your thoughts below.

Trump Triumphant

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Fri, 08 May 2020 04:56:39 -0500

Donald Trump just had another one of those weeks for which he’s become famous.

There was the week hit bombed Syria while dining with President Xi of China at Mar a Lago.
There was Easter Week 2019 when the Mueller Report exonerated and the economy hit new highs.
There was the week of the State of the Union Address that included his exoneration in the Senate.

But, this week’s outbreak of liberty and its commensurate exposure of Trump’s enemies as pure scum is the best so far.

Unsealed documents in the Department of Justice’s sham frame-up of General Flynn proved the highest levels of the Obama administration were involved in a coup against the incoming Trump administration.
The DOJ dropped its case against General Flynn.
States began opening from the hysterical Coronavirus shutdown.
A hairdresser in Dallas jailed for refusing to apologize to a egomaniacal judge was ordered released by the Texas Supreme Court.

Let freedom ring!

Trump doesn’t rack up small wins. He’s not consistent. He’s not like a steady, non-flashy golfer. Trump is the Tiger Woods of politics. Monster drive into the woods. Missed second shot into a bunker. Solid wedge onto the green. Fifty-foot putt that changes directions three times for a birdie.

Next hole, do it again.

I can’t remember all the spectacular weeks Trump’s had since announcing his candidacy, but the pattern’s always the same. Something he says creates a commotion. His opponents (and his less resilient supporters) say, “this is it! He’s done.” Then, begins a series of two steps forward, three back, until he seems to be doomed.

Then comes the incredible reversal. Like this week.

Now, we know there is a Deep State, but its members are pretty dumb. They’re dangerous because they’re powerful and, until now, at least, above the law. But they’re stupid and clumsy, too.

Donald Trump accurate stated the Obama Administration wiretapped his transition team back in January 2017. He was mocked. But he was right.

Expect the president to say something crazy in the coming days. (Read about all the times Trump’s crazy statements turned out to be true.) The media will go berserk. And, eventually, Trump’s crazy statement will turn out to be completely accurate.

In the end, Trump will triumph, as he always does.

Impeachment Is a Styrofoam Bird

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:16:10 -0600

This post is about impeachment. But, first, you need to hear about a toy bird from the 1970s.

Disappointing Toys #

When I was seven or eight, I just had to have a Zorr: The Mighty Eagle.

Zorr could soar on the wind for hours, just like a real eagle. The TV commercials left me certain that Zorr would make the most popular kid on my block—maybe the whole parish. I’d have a pet eagle, really. A pet eagle that’s better than a real eagle, because it wouldn’t crap all over the house or fly off with the neighbor’s Yorkie clutched in its vice-like talons.

My parents were more practical than I was. But, at the time, I thought they were unimaginative and uncaring. “You’ll get tired of it in fifteen minutes,” my mom told me when I broached the subject. “Besides, we live in the city. You don’t have any place to fly it.”

Dumb I thought. We live next door to a vacant lot that’s 200 by 50 feet.

“I’ll get you a kite,” my dad told me. “That stupid bird is twenty dollars.”

But I wouldn’t relent. I just had to have a Zorr: The Mighty Eagle so that other kids would like me. John Godfrey will be jealous I thought.

Being the youngest child and the only boy, though, my parents finally gave in. For my birthday that year.

I knew what it was by the shape of the package. I ripped open the wrapping paper and felt my heart skip a beat as the image of that proud bird emerged. Unfortunately, this was seven o’clock, and it was already getting dark. I’d have to wait until the next day to fly it.

But I have no patience or impulse control.

I carefully removed the parts from the box. Styrofoam wings and body and tail. Plastic talons. A tailhook device made of yellow platic. And a spool of kite string. For twenty dollars.

I assembled the bird without so much as a glance at the eight-page assembly instruction book. I only read about how to fly Zorr. Then, I decided to give my mighty eagle a test flight in the house.

I placed Zorr in the middle of the living room and paid out about six feet of line. I yelled for everyone to get out of the way. My flight plan involved running through the living room, into the dining room, making a sharp bank to the right into the kitchen, then a mad dash straight to the front door.

My only concern was that the insanely aerodynamic bird would gain altitude too quickly and crash into the ceiling. I would have to watch my speed closely.

“Three, two, one, lift off!” I yelled as my little Keds sneakers tore a path out of the living room into the dining room. I looked back with price to see my Mighty Eagle jerk into the air just like a real eagle.

I felt my heart stop when the bird’s starboard wing clipped the door jamb between the living room and dining room. Two-thirds of the wing remained attached. The other third ripped away and fluttered to the carpet.

I don’t remember crying, but I’m sure I did.

My dad tried to tape the broken wing, then balance the weight by taping the other wing. But the designers didn’t account for the weight of the tape.

I’m sure my parents thought, “we told you not to ask for that stupid bird,” but they only consoled me.

The next day was brilliant and sunny and dry. A perfect day for Zorr to soar for hours above Scanlan Avenue in south St. Louis. But I didn’t even take it outside.

When my mom asked me “why don’t you go fly your bird,” I just said, “maybe later.”

I don’t remember what I did the rest of October 6, but I know I didn’t touch that stupid, twenty-dollar chunk of compromised styrofoam. I do remember feeling bad that my dad had paid all that money for a useless toy. And I hoped no one would ever mention Zorr again.

Which is how Nancy Pelosi and a lot of Democrats feel today.

Disappointing Political Stunts #

At a press conference just hours after passing two articles of impeachment of the President of the United States, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and leader of the Democrat Party refused to answer questions about impeachment.

I feel her pain.

For three years, the Democrats have dreamed of impeaching Donald J. Trump. They lay awake at night, too giddy to sleep as visions of “ayes have it” danced in their heads. They imagined how popular their impeachment would make them with all the cool kids. And how jealous those nasty Republicans would be.

And, then, they got their wish.

And it crashed.

And it turns out impeachment is nothing like what it was advertised to be. And, making it worse, they tried to fly it too soon and in the wrong place and damaged it before they really got a chance to use it.

So the Democrats got what they asked for, but it only made them feel worse.

You should listen to your parents.

A Brief History of Executive Privilege

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 09:47:43 -0600

A Brief History of Executive Privilege for Democrats

You’ve heard Democrats say that Trump must be removed from office because he asserted executive privilege.

Most Democrats believe that executive privilege is a major crime. But must Democrats hate reading, too, so it’s likely they don’t know any better.

Because I’m generous with knowledge, information, and wisdom, I’m taking time out of my busy Saturday to help you educate the ignorant Democrats in your life. (You can thank me later.)

Is Executive Privilege a Crime? #

The answer is no.

Between 1962 and 2012, US presidents asserted executive privilege 34 times by every president except . . . whoops, every president.

Democrats asserted executive privilege the most:

President	# Exec. Priv. Assertions	D	R
Kennedy	2	2	-
Johnson	1	3	-
Nixon	4	3	4
Ford	1	3	5
Carter	1	4	5
Reagan	3	4	8
H.W. Bush	1	4	9
Clinton	14	18	9
Bush 43	6	18	15
Obama	1	19	15

All prior cases of executive privilege were resolved either through negotiation or by the courts. Congress has never impeached a president for asserting executive privilege.

My source for this information is the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Their source was the Congressional Research Service, 2012. You can see it here, but look quick. When the people who run that website realize their 2012 story to support Obama also now supports President Trump, they’ll destroy that page. (I’ve saved the page as a pdf to protect it from the memory hole.)

Judicial and Popular Treatment of Executive Privilege #

It’s funny that when Obama asserted executive privilege to stifle a Congressional investigation into Eric Holder’s deadly Fast and Furious fiasco, the press rushed to educate the lowly public on the history of executive privilege.

But when a Republican president asserts the same privilege, the press pretends there’s no such thing as executive privilege. In fact, the first president to assert executive privilege was Andrew Jackson. And the Supreme Court has upheld the assertion numerous times.

The Supreme Court limits a president’s ability to assert executive privilege in many areas. But in two areas, the court pretty much gives the Executive branch carte blanch immunity from prying Congressional eyes.

Those two areas: national security and diplomacy.

From United States v. Nixon (1974):

In C. & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Crop., 333 U. S. 103, 111 (1948), dealing with Presidential authority involving foreign policy considerations, the Court said:

“The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation’s organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret.”

Trump Will Prevail #

Friends of mine seem concerned that the ignorant Democrats' impeachment will hurt President Trump. It won’t. As much as I hate to use this analogy, Trump is like the creature from Predator—he actually benefits from attacks. Trump is truly antifragile, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s brilliant definition: he gains from disorder.

(Since I have no fear that Democrats will act on my strategic advice, I’ll give them some for free: if you want to destroy Trump, flatter him, avoid confrontations with him, and mimic his “we’ll see” approach to predicting the future.)

I don’t know if the trumped-up impeachment articles will pass the full House next week. If they do, I’d expect a very short trial in the Senate, ending in acquittal.

After his acquittal in the Senate, Trump will be more powerful than ever. The Durham indictments will begin rolling out. Many FBI and DOJ big shots will do perp walks into federal buildings on bleak, gray afternoons, their trench coats draped over their handcuffed wrists with aging attorneys running alongside trying to push back the reporters.

At least, that’s the image in my mind. It could be different.

But Trump will be free to be Trump. And 2020 will turn into a landslide of Boris proportions.

P.S. #

Thanks to our great friend Ed Martin for having me on The Ed Martin Movement on December 13. You can listen to the podcast of the episode here.

Yes, President Trump Will Win Re-election

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 00:21:47 +0000

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman today asked a rhetorical question: Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?

The headline reflects the question he hears from his Democrat friends. They seem resigned to defeat. And the answer is: Yes. President Trump will win re-election in 2020.

The reasons Trump will get re-elected:

The Hate Squad. Four radical communist freshmen Representatives are the face of the new Democrat party. They are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American. They want you and me dead. They are not adversaries, but true enemies. Enemies of America as much as Nazi Germany and the USSR. As they continue to dominate news cycles, President Trump looks ever more like a stable genius by comparison.
The Economy. The United States' economy is easily the strongest it has ever been. Stronger than the Reagan years. Stronger than the Clinton years. Stronger than the 1950s. Unemployment for everyone except white males is at an all-time low.
The World. After eight years of a president who bad-mouthed his own country while agreeing with every foreign criticism of the United States and of Americans, Donald Trump has restored international respect for the United States. Sure, foreign “leaders” publicly and privately disparage the President. They do it because Donald Trump has exposed their idiotic elitist agenda. Their agenda was and is intended to sponge off the wealth generated by hard-working American people. Donald Trump is cutting off their gravy train, and they hate it. But they will not cross us. They wouldn’t dare.
The Donald. The most important reason Trump will win is Trump. He is a genius strategist. When Nancy Pelosi had nearly succeeded in isolating and marginalizing The Hate Squad, Donald Trump turned that Hate Squad into the face of the Democrat Party. And the de facto majority leadership of the House Democrat caucus. With three tweets, President Trump made The Hate Squad the only news Democrats can generate.

In a little more than a year, some hapless Democrat will slither onto the stage at Washington University to serve as the mop with which Donald Trump wipes the floor. A month later, CNN’s panel will cry and curse as Trump passes 273.

And that’s when things will get ugly. That’s when the radical left convinces itself that its only path to dominance will be through violence. And they will attack. Guerrilla warfare. In the streets, in theatres, and, especially, in churches.

When President Trump wins re-election, the climax is right around the corner.

What Could Be In Mueller Report

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 23 Mar 2019 15:21:52 -0500

Just a quick warning. On break from Lenten retreat, but this is bugging me.

Many conservatives are celebrating the Mueller report even though they have no idea what it says.

That’s dangerous, as I pointed out in my post on loving Rachel Maddow:

Finally, we still don’t know the details of the Mueller report. It could contain information that sends conservatives to Twitter to express our rage and anger. We don’t know.

The DoJ’s official stance is that it cannot indict a sitting president. That’s the House of Representatives' job through impeachment. With that in mind, it’s possible that Mueller concluded that President Trump acted with “corrupt intent” in firing Comey and would be charged with obstucting justice if he weren’t the sitting president.

If something like that were to come out of the report, Rachel Maddow will be smiling. It will take the House of Representatives about a week to impeach. What would happen in the Senate is anybody’s guess, but I wouldn’t count on the like of Roy Blunt and Mitch McConnell to stand by the president.

That’s one of the reasons I wrote that post at 2:30 a.m. I think it’s premature to dance on anybody’s grave. The fat lady hasn’t started singing yet.

Perfect Words from Trump

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 12:23:21 +0000

Even his supporters say President Trump’s speech is sometimes inelegant. Intentional or accidental, the president’s word choice often triggers his enemies and sometimes confuses his many supporters. But on Friday President Trump had the best words for sure.

Talking about the possibility of Democrats seizing control of the US House of Representatives, he said, “could happen . . . could happen.”

But the killer line we all must remember came next: “Don’t worry about it. I’ll just figure it out.”

Folks, that’s exactly the attitude to have between now and Wednesday morning. Don’t worry about it—Donald Trump will figure it out. He always does. This is how he operates.

Don’t worry about it. I’ll just figure it out.

—President Donald Trump on possibility of Democrats seizing the House in 2018 midterm election

Sure, a Democrat win would likely trigger a financial crisis similar to 2008-2009. Democrats will repeatedly shut down the government and spend most of their time investigating the innocent and protecting the guilty. But life goes on, and President Trump makes life much better.

This is why I now spend about four times as much time and energy on prayer and spiritual reading and going to mass than I spend on keeping up with politics. God can even fix me. And no matter how bad things get, we can always become better saints.

Vote Republican on Tuesday, but pray before that. Pray that people open their hearts to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus' example and to the Father’s plan. With those things in order, appropriate actions will become obvious. The path illuminates itself.

Happy Elections!

Donald the Great

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 01:05:57 +0000

In less than two years, Donald J. Trump has already achieved more as President of the United States than most of his predecessors did in eight or more years.

Trump has eliminated more federal regulations than all past presidents combined
Trump pushed through Congress one of the largest tax cuts in history
Trump has renegotiated numerous trade agreements, including NAFTA
Trump has reinvigorated American manufacturing
Trump has sparked the strongest economy in US history
Trump has reduce unemployment for blacks and Hispanics to their lowest levels in history
Trump has achieved a remarkable 35% favorability rating among blacks, the highest for a Republican in modern times
Trump has placed on the Supreme Court two solidly conservative jurists
Trump has given Republicans the courage to stand up to evil progressives
Trump has reunited the warring factions of the Republican base
Trump has changed Americans' expectations of the office of president
Trump has redefined what it means to be presidential
Trump has exposed America’s domestic enemies and left vulnerable

Even those who viscerally hate Donald Trump—and there are many—cannot deny that Trump’s impact on the USA and on the world exceeds even his impact on the New York City skyline. America will never be the same.

I, for one, think President Trump’s effect on the country is a blessing. From his pro-life accomplishments to his economic miracle-working, Trump has made America great again. While establishmentarian world “leaders” reject Trump’s brash style of leadership, the people of the world recognize that America is back in a big way.

Consider this: with one month to go until the mid-term elections, the only subject of conversation on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News is Donald Trump. President Trump is not the most frequent topic, he’s the only topic. Even weather reports are primarily about Donald Trump.

Movie stars, pop music stars, models, TV actors, professional athletes, and almost every other class of celebrity brands himself vis-a-vis Donald Trump.

Television talkshow hosts choose their wardrobes and hairstyles based on how they look compared to Donald Trump.

People talk about Trump at work, in restaurants, and at sporting events. Trump is everywhere.

No president, no human, in my lifetime has so consumed every facet of life. Franklin Roosevelt might have had a similar stature in the United States in the 30s and 40s. Churchill was as big in Britain during World War II. But no man in modern times has captivated the whole world like Donald Trump.

Regardless of politics, you know that Donald Trump is the most powerful and best-known political leader in your lifetime. And you know that his presidency has already changed the world in ways that won’t be fully understandable for decades. Further, you know that the entire panoply of leftists, progressives, Marxists, and mainstream Democrats deployed in full battle array have not been able to stop a single Trump initiative. Even the wall is going up right before our eyes.

With the elevation of Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump becomes Donald the Great.

Trump: Morning in America Part II

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 01 May 2018 12:12:23 +0000

When you hide the name and simply list accomplishments, any reasonable person would agree that Donald Trump has done more good for the country than any president in living memory.

Economy #

** African-America unemployment lowest in history ** Hispanic unemployment lowest in history ** Female unemployment lowest in 18 years ** Stock market up 35% since *election

** Manufacturing jobs growing for *first time in decades ** Steelworkers going to back to work after humiliating layoffs ** Regulatory cuts have reinvigorated dying industries ** Millions of new jobs planned across the country

Foreign Policy & Security #

** Korean peace talks re-energized after 20+ years of US failure ** ISIS reduced to a street gang ** US Embassy returned to Jerusalem, where it belongs ** Military spending restored to pre-Obama levels ** Foreign leaders accepting that Reagan-era American leadership is back

National Mood #

** “Morning in America” feeling is back ** Consumer confidence and business confidence hitting record highs month after month ** Millennials have become the largest group of homebuyers, defying demographer predictions ** First-time homebuyers make 65% of all home sales (huge!) ** Millennials have begun *mass migration to suburbs with 20% decline in urban core homebuying

Cultural Shift #

** Kanye West has jumped onto the Trump Train ** Leftist assaults on free thought and free speech have finally produced a long-overdue backlash ** Trump’s approval rating is holding above 50% despite relentless attacks by the media ** Traditional American values are on the rise

War on Trump Waning #

** House Intel Committee concluded no evidence of collusion with Russia ** Mueller investigation has failed to produce any evidence of misconduct by Trump Campaign despite a year of investigation by more than two dozen FBI and DOJ agents ** Jim Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Andrew McCabe have admitted or been proven to have used our intel community to try to influence and overturn the 2016 election ** CNN’s Jake Tapper has been shown to have colluded with James Clapper to influence the 2016 election ** Despite years of reckless media attacks, Trump’s base is stronger than ever

What’s Next? #

As warmer weather finally arrives across the USA and vacation season begins, expect Americans to pay less attention to the news and more attention to the way the country is actually functioning right now.

People will discover a new feeling of optimism and possibilities. They will notice more smiles on the faces they see in restaurants, on subways, and walking down the street.

With relief from the constant drumbeat of negativity on TV and podcasts, people will become even more enthusiastic. You might find yourself asking, “what if Trump was right all along?”

And the upward spiral of optimism and possibility will spring forward.

It’s morning in America again.

Leadership.

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:58:32 +0000

https://youtu.be/JjMfrBY-K6g?t=2m15s

President Trump wins praise from all side for his strength, dignity, and leadership following the left’s rifle attack on Republican members of Congress.

“We can all agree that we are blessed to be Americans.”

The Joy of Trump

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:01:19 +0000

What bothers you most when you’re in a bad mood?

You can imagine what it’s like be in a bad mood, can’t you? People go through periods of deep funk when nothing seems bright or cheerful, don’t they?

And when you’re in those moods, what’s the worst thing? That’s right, it’s being around a bunch of happy people having fun.

And that’s exactly how the left feels when they see Trump at a press conference: miserable amid the fun.

Leftists are pessimists by training. They see the dark cloud but never the silver lining. They live to find out what’s wrong with every picture. They see the world as a fixed pie and they demand their slices.

People of the Right tend to be optimists. We see the value of rain, the beauty in works of art, and the growing of the pie. We see the future as better than the recent past. Maybe we have to go through hell to reach that shiny future, but we believe it can be done and we can do it.

The right believes in shared sacrifice and shared happiness. The left believes in equal distribution of misery. It’s a subtle difference, but it makes all the difference in the world.

Understanding that, you can imagine how miserable the whole left world was yesterday. Donald Trump was so damn happy at his press conference. He was having a ball! Trump Nation stopped to share in our President’s joy. Here are some texts I sent and received during the presser:

Greatest presidential press conference in history. This is pure governance gold. One for the ages.

BEST PRESSER EVER!!!!!!! Wow!!!!!!!!!

This is awesome. I’m listening on headphones at work laughing like an idiot.

Epic!!!!

He called Schumer a lightweight!

I just stood in front of a tv in a McDonald’s for the entire presser. Truly epic.

These were real-time, live reactions to what we were seeing and hearing. These were not planned, staged reactions edited for effect. They were heartfelt responses to a moment of shared joy among friends.

Now, if you’re prone to melancholy and you see the world as a terrible place full unfairness, you hated it. You hated Trump’s joy. You hate him, not for his policies or anything he’s said in the past. You hate him because he enjoys life.

Even the Washington Post recognized his joy, as I pointed out yesterday:

he became more fiery and animated — joyful, even — when he began to banter and joust with the assembled reporters.

Remember that quote. It’s important. To the left, joy is a sin. And Trump’s joy even caught the attention of fake-news purveyor, Politico:

But he did so with a kind of gleeful abandon, even a sly playfulness at times (“Now, that’s what I call a nice question,” he said when someone asked a softball about his wife, Melania) that suggested he himself was in on the act. The sheer concentration of the performance not only probably played well with his core supporters, but seemed just another iteration of the new normal that is Trump’s Washington.

The great Jim Hoft captured our joy in the faces of Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway taken during Trump’s presser:

And no one was more depressed or angrier than CNN’s Jake Tapper. His reaction to Trump’s joyful presser was almost a suicide note caught on video. Trapper saw nothing but dark clouds.

If you are a soldier in harm’s way right now, if you are a hungry child in Appalachia or the inner city, if you are an unemployed worker in a hollow shell of a steel town, that’s not a president who seemed rather focused on your particular needs and wants,That’s a president focused on his bad press."

A lot of Americans are going to watch that press conference and think, ‘That guy is not focused on me. I don’t even know what he’s focused on.’

Tapper proved my point about leftists perfectly. Trapper is trapped in fixed-pie thinking. And fixed-pie thinking leads to war and violence because fairness demands that we take what others have.

And we’ve been here before.

Most Republican presidents, though they embody some degree of joy, present themselves as serious, concerned, and even a little dour. Or maybe it’s my age. Maybe my psyche holds the residue of Richard Nixon as the quintessential Republican. He was the first Republican president in my life.

Ronald Reagan, though, was anything but dour. His sunny optimism and his faith in America and her people carried the nation. The left hated Reagan, not so much for his policies, as for his joy. Those cotton-headed Millennials don’t know it, but the left portrayed Reagan as an anti-women, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Jew fascist bent on blowing up the world.

The left hated Reagan, and Reagan’s unconstrained joy only made them hate him worse. They lied about him and his cabinet. They vilified Reagan’s friends.

The leftist press has always been dishonest and vengeful. But sometimes even the leftist press comes around.

Reagan’s chief nemesis in the press was Sam Donaldson who admitted that his respect for Reagan “only grew.” In a short piece in USAToday commemorating Reagan’s 100th birthday, Donaldson wrote:

Perhaps, above all, it was his great optimism about America and Americans and the way he carried himself through his eight years that mark his greatness. When Reagan walked into a room, he was unfailingly polite and friendly without any good ol' boy posturing. You knew you were in the presence of the president of the United States.

Trump’s demeanor and temperament are very different from Reagan’s, of course. Trump expresses his optimism differently. Trump’s version of friendliness reflects his Queens upbringing while Reagan’s reflected Dixon, Illinois.

[caption id=“attachment_21626” align=“aligncenter” width=“750”]

2/5/1981 President Reagan during an interview with Sam Donaldson of ABC News Leslie Stahl of CBS News and Judith Woodruff of NBC News with James Brady at the Cross Hall White House Library[/caption]

But Reagan and Trump share an optimism and faith in America that well from the same spring. Pessimists don’t wear ball caps emblazoned with the rallying cry “Make America Great Again.” Leftists, we have learned, believe America never was great and never will be. Leftists like Tapper suffer from a pervasive pessimism that borders on the pathological. That’s why Trump’s joyful presser only increased Jake Tapper’s feelings of depression and hopelessness.

I hope Tapper got a good night’s sleep and came to his senses. America could experience a lot of joy during the Trump administration. I’d hate for all that joy to ruin Jake’s life.

But I won’t let Tapper’s psychosis get me down because it’s going to be okay.

Greatest Presser Ever. Wow. Stunned Happy.

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:58:32 +0000

Imagine Michael Jordan’s best game ever. Or Tiger Woods. That’s what it was like watching President Trump today. Amazing.

The President looked poised, cheerful, and humorous. He volleyed with Jim Acosta of CNN. He rated each question “good” or “bad.” He explained why he doesn’t want a nuclear war with Russia because the press seems to think nuclear war is a good thing. He mocked those in the press who want him to bomb that Russian intel ship off Virginia.

His maturity and gravitas made the press look like coked-up chimpanzees by contrast. He destroyed them. I bet a lot of White House correspondents are blowing 0.23 on breathalyzers tonight. They were ruined. They’re narrative, months in the making, erased. Trump took a powerful magnet to their biased hard drives. And Jim Acosta is now to Trump what Sam Donaldson was to Reagan: his straight man.

It was the best hour+ of Donald Trump’s political career. If you missed it, watch the whole thing on FoxNews.com. This is one for the ages!

Rush Limbaugh raved:

Trump is the guy calling them out. I’ve never seen anything like this today. I have never seen it. We have wanted Republican presidents all of my life to deal with these people this way, and the only thing we ever got was Spiro Agnew. We’ve not seen anything like this, and Trump did it with an air of confidence and self-assuredness. He was not nervous at all. He was having fun with them. He was toying with them. It’s like if you got a cat. You know how you get these little laser pointers and you have a little kitten or a cat and the cat goes nuts chasing the light? It will run into a wall.

That’s what I was watching here today. It was just… It was fantastic, and the American people are gonna eat this up. . . . He accused Obama of running the shadow government. He accused Hillary Clinton and George Soros of being the people paying for people to show up and protest things. He held nothing back!** He ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being in part of a deal that gave up 20% of our uranium supply and for having that cheap little red reset button when she became secretary of state**. And each time he mentions Obama. He mentions… He didn’t say “shadow government” but he said, “Our opponents are doing what they can.”

He called all of this fake news. He was on spot with all this. You know, it’s hard to say. You get caught up in the moment. **But this was one of the most effective press conferences I’ve ever seen. **

I was listening on earbuds and I couldn’t stop laughing. People probably thought I’d lost my mind. Trump delivered all my angry tweets from last night with humor and good cheer! As if showing me how it’s done. **It was absolutely the greatest political press conference in history. **

Expect to see a lot of reporters' heads explode in the next 48 hours. He destroyed the crooked media. He destroyed Obama’s shadow government. He destroyed the criminal intel leakers. He destroyed his critics like no one has done before. He did with a smile. Even the corrupt Washington Post noted “he became more fiery and animated — joyful, even — when he began to banter and joust with the assembled reporters.”

And he did it all by being himself. For 78 minutes, he showed the country what it missed if it missed his campaign.

I’ve never been prouder of a vote in my life.

Glad to See Trump Focusing on Working People Instead of Worrying About Hillary Clinton

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:01:39 +0000

You might have heard that President-elect Trump has said he doesn’t want to waste time and attention on Hillary’s email server. You also might have heard that some people are upset about that. I’m not one of them.

Months ago I was telling people Trump should announce that, if elected, he will pardon Hillary Clinton for all crimes related to her email scandal. I had two reasons for promoting this strategy.

First, by announcing your intention to pardon her, you make her look guilty. Like when Ford pardoned Nixon. Even Clinton’s supporters would have to argue with themselves whether she deserved to be pardoned or whether Trump was overstepping his authority as President. Plus, a pre-emptive pardon would have made people think past the sale. To have the self-debate, people would first have to see Trump as President.

Second, like Ford’s pardon of Nixon, it would signal a focus on fixing real problems for the future instead of settling scores from the past. In 1974, inflation was going crazy. Gerald Ford needed to put Watergate behind him so he could order a couple million Whip Inflation Now buttons to pass out to people in lieu of actual solutions. President Trump will take office with a stagnant economy and a big debt to members of the former middle class in America–the blue-collar workers who put incredible faith in a bombastic billionaire from Queens. The last thing Trump needs is the distraction of the Clintons' various scandals. If the next four years are all about Hillary’s crimes and cover-ups, she might as well have won.

There’s another reason I like Trump’s decision to let others in the his administration worry about the Clintons. I want to forget about the Clintons. They’re old, they’re sickly, and they won’t be around very long. I want to focus, instead, on making America great again, getting middle-class wages growing again, and reducing the amount of war and terrorism in the world.

That said, I have no problem with the FBI and DOJ continuing their investigations of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. If either investigation uncovers crimes, I’d like to see an independent prosecutor decide what to do. Same goes for the people who broke immunity deals during the server investigation. And if the DOJ determines Hillary broke the law, a special prosecutor should look into that, too.

In short, I want to see justice done, but I want Trump left free to do what he does best: working 19 hours a day and making huge decisions quickly to make America great again. Embroiling himself in the Clintons' sordid affairs can’t help his agenda.

With all the troubles in the world, the crimes of two small people from Arkansas don’t amount to a hill of beans. Trump and the American people already served the Clintons with the most painful punishment they could receive. Hillary will never be the first female President, and Bill will have to pay his “interns” out of his own pocket.

That’s enough justice for me. Plus, donations to the Clinton Foundation are down 37 percent since the election. So Chelsea’s hurting, too.

Let’s keep our eyes on the prize. Make America great again. We can do that without settling old scores. And magnanimity is a fine quality in a leader.

In case you’re wondering how to think about Trump, I wrote a book about it.

It's Been a Great Month for ISIS

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 21:07:11 +0000

If you’re football team, you’re measured by games won. If you’re a computer company, you’re measured by products shipped. If you’re and international terrorist organization, you’re measured by mayhem created.

Let’s face it, ISIS is on a roll.

What a week! Nearly 200 murders across three countries on two continents. Not bad for a JV team, huh? Let’s look at the week:

** Istanbul Airport: 45 murdered, 52 hospitalized. ** Bangladesh Bakery: 20 murdered, 13 escaped. ** Baghdad Mall: 115 murdered, 200 injured.

If we go back a couple of weeks, there was the Orlando Pulse night club massacre that puts ISIS’s death toll over 200.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry says all this carnage proves ISIS is losing. Whatever.

I think it’s pretty clear that no one in this administration has a clue how to do anything but preach. And I include Crooked Hillary in “this administration.” They’re like the doctor, then professor, and the politician: they tell others what to do even though they can do nothing of value themselves.

Meanwhile, this administration’s refugee and immigrant policy has introduced drug-resistant tuberculosis to Wisconsin and possible other states. When America had a sane immigration policy, people with infectious diseases were barred. That’s because the first purpose of our government is the safety and welfare of Americans. This administration thinks the first purpose of government is to flood the country with people who hate us.

I guess when you’re part of a global elite with bunkers and private islands, you don’t care how many of your countrymen might die to keep you fat, dumb, and happy. For those who are not part of that global elite, I say it’s time we bulldoze those bunkers.

Now, if only we had a candidate for president who puts America first and reminds people of a bulldozer . . .

You might find such a candidate in my new book.

How to Feel Safe from Terrorism

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:48:17 +0000

Think about the word “news.” In a moment, I’m going to ask you more questions about the news. Before that, though, you probably heard about the terrible terrorist attack in Istanbul, Turkey. Dozens killed, scores injured. “It was like hell,” one witness recalled.

Where did you get news of this latest terrorist attack? Facebook? Television? Radio?

Do you remember what you were doing when you heard the news? Take a moment to think back to when you first heard the news. Close your eyes if you think it will help remember and recall.

How did you feel when you heard reports of explosions in the Istanbul airport? Were you surprised? Did you know at the time that Istanbul is in Turkey, or did you think “where is Istanbul?”

Did you tell anyone? I did. I read the FoxNews.com headline to a colleague. “Multiple explosions reported at Istanbul airport,” or something like that.

Do you watch news on television or do you rely on the internet to keep informed? You are reading this blog now. Is this news to you? Or do you think news means CNN or the Wall Street Journal or CBS Radio news? Whatever you think when you think “news,” you’re bound to hear a lot more about terrorism soon.

Sometime today or tomorrow you will likely watch the news again. When you hear more about terrorism, ask yourself, “Is it supposed to be this way?” Don’t you wish when you hear about terrorism and terrorists it would be the last time?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say that ISIS is almost defeated. They say there’s less terrorism today. So why do you hear about so many new terrorist attacks? Could it be that Obama and Clinton lie to you?

You should keep track of how much people talk about terrorism on the news. The news people are mostly Democrats–over 90 percent of people in the news business. So you’d expect them to say what Obama and Clinton want them to tell you. And the news still talks about terrorism, terrorists, and terror attacks, don’t they?

Maybe terrorism is getting worse, not better. Maybe ISIS is getting stronger, not weaker. Maybe your kids are less safe today than they were eight years ago.

You might find yourself hearing “terror” and thinking about terrorism more and more. If you do, ask yourself this: who made it so bad? The people who’ve been running the government for 8 years, or the guy who runs buildings and golf courses?

The more you hear “terror,” the more you like Donald Trump. And the more you like Donald Trump, the less you fear terrorism.

It’s so easy now, isn’t it?

If you really want to feel safe from terrorism, try reading my new book. It’s bullet-proof.

Permission to Trump

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 19:44:05 +0000

Ever feel like it’s not okay to admit you’re for Trump?

Everybody who listens to this new podcast, Permission to Trump, will benefit in one way or another. Some people will feel liberated. Others vindicated. Everyone improved.

[soundcloud url=“https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/270829707” params=“auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=“100%” height=“450” iframe=“true” /]

You will want to listen and share with your friends. And soon you’ll want to buy my new book Turning on Trump. Sign up to stay up to date now.

Mark Levin Is Turning On Trump

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:30:11 +0000

“That’s outstanding,” said the Great One.

The Republican leadership in Congress doesn’t have the guts to go to the floor of the Senate or the floor of the House and make these charges. This is outstanding. You can’t let Hillary Clinton get away with her corruption, her cronyism, her criminality. I don’t care who you support or don’t support. She’s detestable.

[Via Breitbart.com]

Mark Levin said some terrible things about Donald Trump. Levin supported Ted Cruz in the primaries. Sometimes he sounded like Glenn Beck wrote his monologues.

But situations change. People change. People turn on Trump.

I can’t possibly know if Mark Levin will end up supporting Trump enthusiastically or not. I’m not in Levin’s head. But Levin’s monologue about Trump’s masterful speech on Wednesday feels familiar. I went through a similar turning.

My new book, Turning On Trump, walks you through my turn. Whether you’re a Never Trumper, a Trump Lover, or somewhere in between, you’ll find something to cheer about when you buy Turning On Trump. If you’re undecided, you will want to find out how one Tea Party leader changed his mind about America’s most pressing needs. And if you know someone who needs to hear it’s okay to change your mind, buying Turning On Trump as a gift will make you feel wonderful. It’s almost effortless.

You can sign up to be notified when the book hits the stands here.

Here’s Mark Levin’s brilliant monologue on the Trump speech.

Trump and the TSA

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 17 May 2016 21:30:43 +0000

Say what you want about Donald Trump, the customer service at his properties is insanely great. And The Donald personally sets the standard for that service. He also inspects it, and he has a sick level of attention to detail. Donald Trump doesn’t miss a thing when it comes to providing a perfect environment for his guests and residents.

The opposite is true of the TSA. Like most government-run operations, the TSA sucks at customer service. Here are some recent headlines about the way TSA treats flying consumers:

Nightmarish Lines Continue at Airport Security Checkpoints #

CHICAGO (CBS) — Travelers flying out of Chicago just can’t catch a break. With increasingly long lines to get through security at the city’s airports, many travelers have been missing their flights, and some ended up sleeping at O’Hare International Airport on Sunday.

American Airlines put out cots for fewer than 100 travelers who missed their flights Sunday night due to the long lines at TSA security checkpoints.

Adrian Petra said he missed his flight after standing in line for 2 hours and 20 minutes.

PASSENGER: TSA LAUGHED AT MILE-LONG LINES #

TSA agents stood around and cracked jokes while passengers waited over four hours #

Long TSA lines snake through Atlanta airport

**ATLANTA — **

Travelers faced a rough Monday morning at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport as security wait times climbed to over an hour.

People took to social media to post photos of the line snaking through the main security area and into baggage claim.

Channel 2’s Steve Gehlbach reported lines were over an hour long. Some travelers tweeted saying the lines were longer.

And the government blamed customers, of course. Homeland Security issued this rebuke to complaining passengers:

There are several factors that have caused checkpoint lines to take longer to screen passengers… including more people traveling with carry-on bags, in many cases bringing more than the airline industry standard of one carry-on bag and one personal item per traveler;

Passenger preparedness can have a significant impact on wait times at security checkpoints nationwide…Individuals who come to the TSA checkpoint unprepared for a trip can have a negative impact on the time it takes to complete the screening process.

Filthy bureaucrats.

So what’s the solution? Donald Trump, of course.

Who else could turn a customer service nightmare into a beautiful experience you want to brag about on TripAdvisor? Donald Trump.

If I were Trump’s campaign team, I’d be all over this. “Don’t worry, American fliers, President Trump knows how to make airport security the greatest customer service organization in the world. It will be beautiful! You’re gonna love it!”

The best part? Those won’t be government TSA bureaucrats doing the screenings–they’ll be private Trump-trained screeners. Free enterprise, baby.

If I were one of those TSA agents coking and joking about the two and a half hour lines, I’d freshen up my resume. They’re about to hear The Donald say, “You’re fired!”

[Tweet “We Want Private Trump-Trained Airport Screeners”]

President Trump

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 16 May 2016 22:10:55 +0000

You’ve probably noticed a lot of people are saying “President Trump” lately. And reading “President Trump” online, haven’t you?

If not, you’ll probably notice it later today or tomorrow.

[Tweet “Catch yourself saying ‘President Trump’ now? @realDonaldTrump”]

It’s common during election years for pundits to occasionally say “President So-and-so,” usually sarcastically. And some “President Trump” talk is sarcastic. But most of this President Trump talk is subconscious prediction. People think President Trump is a thing, so their brains are warming up.

Just today, for instance, Politico’s lead story read:

Centrist Democrats: We can work with President Trump #

A couple of weeks ago, Bernie Sanders said “President Trump” a few times during a speech. Why didn’t the headline refer to Donald Trump? Because they’re thinking past the sale.

You might think, “I’ve heard people say ‘President Clinton,’ too.” I’m sure you have. But there already is a President Clinton. Bill Clinton. He was President from 1993 to 2001. So you’d expect people to refer to Bill as “President Clinton.” But far more people are talking about President Trump than about President Hillary Clinton. Here’s how I know.

Because there’s already been a President Clinton, mentions of President Clinton should double the mentions of President Trump, assuming people are mentioning President Trump and President (Hillary) Clinton equally. But that’s not the case.

Instead, according Google Trends, over the last 90 days, President Trump trumps President Clinton by 3 to 1:

That means three times as many people are saying “President Trump” as are saying “President Clinton.” And many of the Clinton mentions refer to Bill Clinton, not to crooked Hillary.

When I predicted Trump will win in a landslide, I pointed out that expectations matter. Google Trends now shows clearly that people expect Trump to win.

If you find yourself saying “President Trump,” you’re in good company, no matter your party identity or ideology. Everybody’s saying President Trump these days.

_NOTE: I’ve updated the chart with red for Trump and blue for Clinton to conform to familiar color coding for the parties. Thanks to commenter Dave for pointing this out. _

Who Is Conservative?

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 08 May 2016 22:49:32 +0000

People think they’re rational, but we’re not. For example, on many issues,** Trump’s positions are almost identical to Ronald Reagan’s.** When it comes to abortion, trade, taxes, foreign policy and the military, and entitlements like Social Security, you can’t fit a dime between Reagan and Trump.

So why do people see Trump as far to the left of Reagan?

Contrasts and comparisons.

Reagan ran against George Bush and John B. Anderson. Also-rans included Howard Baker and Phil Crane, John Connally, Harold Stassen, Bob Dole, Larry Pressler, and Lowell Weicker. That made Reagan the most conservative Republican by a wide margin. George H. W. Bush was an eastern seaboard Rockefeller Republican in 1979 and 1980. Bush didn’t became a conservative until after he became Reagan’s VP. John B. Anderson never became a conservative. **Anderson ran as an independent to try to throw the election to Jimmy Carter. **Bill Kristol is a lot like John Anderson. And in four years, Kristol will be forgotten just like Anderson.

[Tweet “Trump’s positions are almost identical to Ronald Reagan’s. “]

Conservative is relative. I know conservatives tend to believe there’s no such thing as relativity, but they’re wrong about that. Conservatism is relative. I won’t bother with defining left-right or liberal-conservative or any other dimensions of political thought. They’re meaningless. But I will point out that all of the definitions I’ve seen are relative. A position is conservative or liberal only relative to other positions.

Nowhere does the constitution mention “conservatism." And the modern concept of conservatism didn’t really exist at the time of our founding. America’s founders were pretty much all radical liberals for their time. They believed in liberty, and they were willing to overthrow their government to get it. That’s very radical and very liberal.

I think modern conservatism seeks to conserve classical liberalism. But that’s just my opinion. You are entitled to be as mistaken as me.

But let’s play pretend for a moment that there is a conservative absolute. If there were, Ronald Reagan would be the only absolute conservative president in the lifetimes of anyone now alive, would he not? Everyone agrees.

So let’s see how Trump compares to Reagan on some key issues and themes, okay?

[table caption=“Trump vs. Reagan” colwidth=“20%|40%|40%” colalign=“center|left|left”] Issue,Trump,Reagan Theme,Make America Great Again,Let’s Make America Great Again Trade, 45% tariff on unfair imports from China, 100% tariff on Japanese semi-conductors, 45% tariff on Japanese motorcycles Abortion, Opposes abortion except cases of rape, incest, or life of mother, Opposed abortion except to save the life of the mother

Social Security, Committed to preserving Social Security, eliminate fraud and waste, increase efficiency, “…ironclad commitment to Social Security”, signed 1983 bill and encouraged every Republican to read it. “To be sure, we must reform it, root out the fraud, make it more efficient, and ensure that the program is solvent.” Taxes, Cut taxes, overhaul tax code, flatten brackets, 25% tax cut early, then overhaul tax system & reduce rates Defense, Build a military so powerful no one will dare bother us, avoid nation-building and open-ended wars of intervention, Rebuilt the military and launched SSD to break the Soviet Union without a war

Illegal Immigration, Build a wall, deport illegal aliens, Granted amnesty to illegal aliens and reform immigration laws [/table]

Those are not the only issues, but they’re some of the leading issues of both Reagan and Trump. On some issues, Trump is slightly to Reagan’s left. On other issues, like illegal immigration, Trump is somewhat to Reagan’s right. Overall, there’s little difference between Reagan and Trump on many key issues.

Why does it feel like Trump is so far to Reagan’s left? Because memories are fluid. Memories are not fixed. They change over time.

When Reagan took office, we had very few conservative think tanks, few conservative magazines, and a handful of conservative pundits. Since then, conservatism has bloomed into an industry, Conservative, Inc. Tens of thousands of people make their living being conservative. That’s something new. And it’s made conservatism kind of weird. In fact, Conservative, Inc., has done for conservatism what the Civil Rights Industry has done for African-Americans. That’s not a compliment to either corporation. Have you looked at African-American unemployment lately?

Plus, the internet came along after Reagan. The internet lets us all hide inside affinity bubbles–safe spaces where we can hide away from any ideas that we don’t agree with. In these affinity bubbles, we morph our memories to fit a narrative. We’ve made Reagan more “conservative” than he was. We’ve created Reagan in our own image and likeness.

That’s why so many Cruz fans lost their minds when Phyllis Schlafly endorsed Trump. A lot of Cruz supporters remember the Reagan years differently than they actually happened. That’s just the way the brain works.

I believe the Constitution, though flawed, provides the best government ever conceived for human flourishing. And I believe the best hope for Constitutional government lies in understanding how things really are and dealing with reality on reality’s terms. That’s why I formally endorsed Donald J. Trump for President.

If you can’t vote for Trump because he’s too liberal, you probably couldn’t have voted for Reagan, either. You just don’t remember.

And if you’re thinking about voting for Hillary or working against Trump, you’d probably cheat on your wife to punish your daughter for marrying a guy you don’t like.

Trump for President. I Endorse.

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Fri, 06 May 2016 18:05:33 +0000

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill I will choose a path that’s clear I will choose freewill

–RUSH, Freewill

Last July and August and once in September, I was down on Donald Trump. I predicted that a Trump nomination would be the last nail in the coffin of conservatism.

I was right. The brilliant Ed Morrissey agrees.

But I was wrong, too. I totally underestimated Donald Trump.

I read (scanned?) The Art of the Deal back in the 1990s. Had I read it carefully, I might not have made that error last July. Or I might have. I don’t know.

But I re-read The Art of the Deal recently and realized something amazing: Donald Trump gets things done. More importantly, Donal Trump gets things done that everyone thought couldn’t be done.

** The Commodore Hotel. ** Central Park Ice Rink. ** Trump Tower. ** Trump Taj Mahal.

The smartest executives in the industries involved said all of those magnificent projects could not possibly be completed.

Trump completed them.

Under budget

On time.

**Trump gets things done. **

And now he’s getting this election done.

Hillary should run in fear.

Earlier I mentioned Ed Morrissey. Now I’m going to share with you something Ed wrote. Something you should memorize.

Conservatism has to be more than a debating society. It has to offer practical improvements, and in order to do that it has to engage people where they live. **For too long, the conservative movement has mainly argued philosophy and employed obstructionism while assuming the rest of country understood the stakes. As this primary has demonstrated, even many self-identified conservatives have tired of ideology and all-or-nothing politics. **

Until the conservative movement rolls up its sleeves and does the hard work of engaging voters and applying solutions rather than slogans, the reaction from voters they desperately need will continue to be, “Who cares? We have to straighten out the country.”

Holy crap! That’s it! That’s why** I don’t call myself a conservative any longer**. Conservatism has no meaning.

Look at the comments on this post. So many members of the conservative debate society. Do they give a crap about anybody’s real life problems? Sad. They can’t win votes. They hate America if America stands in the way of their narrow, shallow, weak visions. Sad.

** I want America to be GREAT again. ** I want my boys, who serve our country in the US Navy, to come home alive. ** I want a military so huge that it deters aggression. ** I want two decades without a war. ** I want a vibrant economy. ** I want men to be men. ** I want women to feel safe. ** I want a civil society. ** I want to speak my mind. ** I want my grandchildren to believe life only gets better. ** I want good jobs for people who don’t have advanced degrees. ** I want America to be great again.

Therefore, I endorse Donald J. Trump for President of the United States. Because he’s the only sonofabitch in this race who wants those things to happen.

For America. For Trump.

Now, before you hate on me, watch this. Watch it to the end:

https://youtu.be/lxaKUo5naoY

For Trump

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Wed, 04 May 2016 04:41:43 +0000

I’m for Trump.

I like stating the positive.

So I’m for Trump.

The NR Against Trump writers can own it if Hillary wins and appoints a Supreme Court justice who’s to the left of Bader-Ginsberg as Scalia’s replacement. They’ll take that to their graves.

For me, I’m for Trump. I’ll admit he wasn’t my first choice, but he was far from my last choice. My first choice, Ben Carson, endorsed The Donald.

Trump seems to love America and Americans. His kids love him. His ex-wife endorsed him. And he has a history of accomplishing things everybody else thought hopeless.

A lot of people think America is hopeless, but Trump thinks he can fix it. Why not give him this chance? No one else has a plausible plan to fix our country. Trump’s plan might be a little vague, but it’s still viable. Everybody else’s was dead on arrival. And who doesn’t want to make America great again? Reagan did.

So I’m for Trump. How bad could it be?

I’m working on a longer post. Look for it on Sunday. But this one pretty much sums up my feelings and thoughts tonight, the night Americans rejected the political elite and took a chance on someone different from anything we’ve seen before.

I’m for America.

I’m for Trump.

The Psychology of The Inevitable

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 01 May 2016 16:28:20 +0000

I have no idea who will win the Indiana primary 72 hours from the time I write. But the people inside Ted Cruz’s campaign seem to have an idea. And it’s not good for them. Cruz’s top team expects their candidate to lose. And Senator Cruz seems to have accepted that outcome.

Expectations Matter More Than Preferences #

Regular readers know that polls that ask “who do you think will win” trump polls that ask “who do you intend to vote for” or even “who did you vote for?”

Social psychologists and pollsters give several reasons for this, but the one that seems most likely is sample size. When I think about who will win, I do a quick mental poll of the people I know and how they intend to vote. Late in 2015, I realized that most of my friends said they were voting for Trump. I wrote in Trump: Good, Bad, and Ugly:

It’s important because expectations are far better predictors of actual winners than preference polls. From a 2012 NY Times story by David Leonhardt:

> "Over the last 60 years, poll questions that asked people which candidate they expected to win have been a better guide to the outcome of the presidential race than questions asking people whom they planned to vote for, the study found."

That study, by David Rothschild of Columbia University and Justin Wolfers of University of Michigan, is worth a read. The reason “who do you expect to win” beats “who do prefer to win” is because the former question effectively broadens the survey by a factor of 20 as respondents mentally poll up to 20 of their friends and family.

Additionally, late deciders usually break for the candidate they expect to win by about 60/40, consistent with studies of other animals.

Then on August 24, 2015, I came across this poll: 57 percent of Republicans expected Trump to become the nominee. It’s possible that the whole nominating process was already finished last August. If race wasn’t over then, it’s over now.

Slouching Toward Indiana #

Inevitability has crept into Ted Cruz’s mind, too. He’s behaving like a man who knows he’s lost. I watched his rally speech in Jeffersonville, Indiana, last Friday, just four days before the Indiana primary. Cruz’s demeanor and even his words reminded me of Senator Marco Rubio’s speeches in the days before the Florida primary. The anger was gone. The energy was there, but it was a different kind of energy. In Jeffersonville,** Cruz showed the sort of energy we see in a man who shrugged a great weight off his shoulders.** The word “acceptance” comes to mind.

If Trump wins Indiana on Tuesday, expect Cruz to speak early, thank his supporters, congratulate Donald Trump, and set the stage for the next act in his political career. Just like Marco Rubio the evening of the Florida primary.

As explained in this Politico story, Inside the Cruz Campaign, Confidence Crumbles:

Within the campaign, some are turning to the question of what’s next. One senior aide said there had been no discussion about dropping out before the final primary contests are held on June 7 but noted that Cruz wouldn’t be eager to prolong a campaign he was convinced he couldn’t win.

I realize that strong Cruz supporters will see his Jeffersonville performance differently. That’s okay. They’re supposed to keep the faith. The most likely outcome–almost inevitable at this point–is that Donald Trump will leave Indiana without a major opponent to the nomination.

Yes, I’ve seen the reports that Cruz intends to continue his campaign even if he loses Indiana. But before Florida, Rubio said he’d continue on even if he lost his home state.

To detect a difference in Cruz’s demeanor, I compared two speeches. One from Iowa just a week before the Iowa caucuses. The other from Jeffersonville, Indiana, the Friday before the Indiana primary. I looked for tone, volume, tempo, body language, and facial expression. I also looked at language.

Waterloo, Iowa Jeffersonville, Indiana

In Iowa, Cruz was fired up and combative. In Indiana, Cruz was almost apologetic at first, in the theological sense of the word. He was explaining his campaign rather than prosecuting it. Again, the polls could be wrong. But Cruz seems to believe the polls showing Trump in charge in the Hoosier state correct. A CNN source revealed those Cruz internal numbers:

But earlier in the week, Cruz allies and people close to the campaign described a budding sense of gloom, with internal polls diving as Trump mounted even stronger than expected showings in his native northeast. In Indiana, which Cruz backers once believed they were favored to win after his strong defeat of Trump in Wisconsin, Cruz’s numbers have fallen precipitously:** Once leading, Cruz now trails in the state by eight to 10 points, according to a person who has seen the numbers, with Trump over the 40% mark**. Cruz’s campaign did not respond when asked about those figures.

Remember the fish study. People want to go with the winner.

We See What We Want to See #

Of course Trump haters and Cruz lovers will see things a little different. What I saw in Iowa was a man on the ascent, fairly confident of victory. In Indiana, I saw a man who has accepted defeat but soldiers on to fulfill a commitment to his supporters. In between, Cruz passed through several stages including denial and anger. But that anger has gone away now.

Senator Cruz probably knows what I know, that** expectation polls trump preference polls**. And the latest poll of Republican expectations came out on Friday. Here’s how Rasmussen described the results:

Belief that Donald Trump is the likely Republican presidential nominee has soared to its highest level ever and matches perceptions that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic standard-bearer in the fall.

The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly Trump Change survey, taken following Trump’s five state primary wins on Tuesday, finds that 89% of Likely Republican Voters now think the billionaire businessman is likely to win the GOP nomination. Two-out-of-three (67%) say Trump’s nomination is Very Likely, up 18 points from 49% last week and up from 38% two weeks ago before Trump’s fortunes turned around with his mega-win in New York State.

It’s still possible, of course, that Trump could stumble, but he’ll have to fall fast and hard to lose the nomination. Cruz knows

this and indicated on Friday that his campaign is dead if he loses badly in Indiana. And the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that the Cruz internal numbers were right: Trump is surging in Indiana. Via WSJ.com:

Donald Trump holds a 15-point lead in the Republican presidential primary in Indiana, and a majority of GOP voters disapprove of the effort by underdogs Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich to coordinate a strategy to block him, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist Poll finds.

Gateway Pundit has more.

For the record, I have not endorsed Donald Trump or any of the candidates still campaigning. (I supported Ben Carson.) I have warned that Trump is not a conservative, but I’ve also pointed out that a Trump presidency probably won’t be as bad as many people think. And I prefer Trump to any Democrat because Trump will likely appoint more reasonable federal judges and Supreme Court justices. You know how important the courts are.

Time to Start on Hillary #

When asked about national head-to-head polls against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump likes to say, “I haven’t even started on her yet.”

It’s time. Everyone expects Trump to be the Republican nominee, and expectations matter.

The good news: the civil war on the right probably ends Tuesday when Senator Cruz suspends his campaign. Better news: if Senator Cruz can get his new friends in the US Senate to pass some of the legislation he’s campaigned on, President Trump will sign it.

Finally, I’m a strategist, not a pollster. I am less concerned with what will happen than what people should do about what happens. If Cruz loses Indiana, the best outcome would be for Cruz to suspend his campaign and focus on influencing his fellow Senators to send great legislation to President Trump’s desk in 2017. On the other hand, Cruz could win Indiana in a landslide and make me look like a terrible forecaster.

So don’t place any $17.99 bets on what you read on my blog. Instead, spend that $17.99 on the hardcover edition of my latest book.

Government Censors Health Information. Collusion! Rigged!

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:30:24 +0000

You’ve probably found yourself saying words like “rigged” and “collusion” recently. They’ve become sexy words, haven’t they. That’s because Donald Trump’s made rigged and collusion household words. He’s put them in your head.

You might even use them wrong. “There was a collusion on highway forty-four.” Or “I rigged my shorts.” (BTW, Hillary sounds weak and hoarse, doesn’t she? Grating.)

If you haven’t noticed yourself saying rigged and collusion, pay attention tomorrow. I’m guessing you’ll say rigged and collusion–both words–before you fall asleep. (But don’t worry, you’ll sleep like a baby.)

Scott Adams, the genius who creates Dilbert, pointed out Trump’s remarkable ability to get in people’s heads long ago. Scott Adams is right, of course, and you knew it all along. Great cartoonists see people more accurately than psychologists.

But people are using the words “rigged” and “collusion” for another reason, independent of Trump. America is rigged. And the federal government does collude with big corporations to protect entrenched incumbents against innovation and creativity. People in St. Louis know how effectively government and big taxicab companies colluded to rig the market against rideshare companies like Lyft and Uber. Uber finally decided to ignore the riggers and colluders and offer to drive drunks home safely.

So if you’re an inventor who can’t catch a break, it’s probably not your fault. The system is rigged. It’s always been rigged, but it’s more rigged now than ever before, isn’t it? Just look around.

When government and huge corporate interests rig the system, little guys get screwed. Sometimes people die. And the government just laughs, doesn’t it?

You know I’m working with the Coalition for Safer Drinking to break the collusion racket of big liquor and big government. I wrote a book about it: Fight to Evolve. I love innovation, but I hate collusion and rigged markets. NTX technology makes drinking alcohol safer than eating some fast foods. But the government banned people from telling you these facts, because bureaucrats want to protect huge liquor companies and their profits. Screw them.

I’m not supporting the colluding riggers anymore. I’m speaking for myself and saying what I believe, as I have most of the time since I wrote Conservative Manifesto in 1993.

And I think you’re ready to throw off the mask of some rigged collusion and speak for yourself, are you not? You want to begin by ignoring the federal government’s order to remain ignorant of NTX by reading my new book Fight to Evolve. You can defy the colluders.

Irritate a colluding rigger: Drink safer alcohol.

How a Strategist Looks at the Supreme Court Nomination Battle

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 02 Apr 2016 15:57:20 +0000

In a moment, we’re going to look the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland and find the best strategy for Senate Republicans. In a moment. First, let’s just relax and think about a party. And pretend you’re a paid strategist.

Hennessy’s View Podcast: [soundcloud url=“https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/256943967” params=“auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=“100%” height=“450” iframe=“true” /]

Party Now or Party Later? #

Tim and Mary Johnson want to have a party for their friends. They’ve been talking about it since spring, and now it’s nearly winter. Their condo is too small and the walls too thin for a big party inside, so they decide they must hold the party outside on their patio and common ground. Finally, they decide “it’s now or never.”

Mary and Tim start calling their friends on Tuesday. They invite 20 people to their house on Saturday afternoon for barbecue and drinks. Weather is supposed to be perfect: clear, sunny, 70 degrees, zero percent chance of rain. You couldn’t ask for better day. The problem is, only 15 people can make it this Saturday.

The Johnsons really want all of their friends to be there, so they ask about the following weekend. It turns out everyone can make it the following weekend, so Tim checks the weather on Wednesday. Even though it’s over a week out, the weather the following weekend is expected to be cold with highs in the 40s with occasional rain and drizzle throughout the weekend. Tim knows that forecasts a week out are only about 50 percent accurate.

Before reading on, please write what you think the Johnson’s should do. Should they hold a party this weekend for 15 of the 20 people they want and 99 percent chance of great weather, or should they plan their party for the following weekend when all 20 of their friends can make it but there’s a 50-50 chance they’ll have to cancel it altogether? Please, write your answer and how you arrived at it. I’ll wait. [You should write your answers in the comments below.]

Strategists reduce uncertainty to risk. Uncertainty cannot be quantified; risk can. Here’s how I conclude the Johnsons should hold their party this weekend instead of next week.

** This weekend, they have a 100 percent chance of a party with 75 percent of their friends. Multiply those values, and you get a party quality of .75. ** Next weekend they have (at best) a 50 percent change of a party with 100 percent of their friends and a 50 percent chance of no party at all. .5 * 1 = .50. ** Therefore, with information available on Wednesday, the Johnsons choice is obvious. Seventy-five percent of a perfect party is better than fifty percent chance of a perfect party and fifty percent chance at no party at all.

Answer: Party Now!

Confirm or Don’t Confirm? #

And that’s exactly the situation facing Senate Republicans in the confirmation question of Merrick Garland. First, ignore the emotional issues and wishing to “beat” Obama. Think about the issue strategically and find your best strategy.

Let’s say that, as a judge, Antonin Scalia was a 99 on a scale of 100. For comparison, let’s call Ruth Bader Ginsberg a 1 on the same scale. From everything I’ve read, Merrick Garland is about a 75 on that scale, probably like Anthony Kennedy. You might disagree with that, but there’s no way to prove anything. So I’m basing my 75 score for Garland on the descriptions and ratings from several Supreme Court watchers left and right. I’m pretty sure 75 is a good score for Garland.

So if the Republicans confirm Garland, they are fairly certain of adding a judge who’s 75 percent of their ideal.

Now, let’s see if they decide not to confirm.

** If the Senate holds hearings and rejects Garland, Obama will not appoint someone more to the Republicans' liking, so we need go no further down that path. ** If a Republican wins the White House and the Republicans keep control of the Senate, the next president could appoint another 99 judge like Scalia. Let’s call that the best-case scenario. ** If a Democrat wins the White House and the Republicans keep the Senate, the new president will likely appoint someone more like Ginsburg. Let’s call that a 25 score. And the Senate will eventually confirm someone. ** If Democrats wins the White House and the Senate, expect the new president to appoint another 1 on the 100 scale.

So what are the odds of each of these scenarios?

I’m going to do some wishful thinking here and ignore the current prediction markets. Prediction markets are far more accurate at forecasting political outcomes than opinion surveys. That’s because asking people who they think will win is more effective than asking who they hope will win. I’m very optimistic and say there’s a 50-50 chance of either party winning the White House and a 60-40 chance the Republicans will control the next Senate. (Prediction markets are far less optimistic.)

(Here’s more on Exceptions vs. Opinion)

Now, we just do the math:

** Merrick Garland: 75 * 1.0 = 75 ** R President, R Senate: 99 * .5 *.6 = 29.7 ** D President, R Senate: 25 * .5 *.4 = 5 ** D President, D Senate: 1 * .5 *.4 = .2

This formula is pretty simple. It’s just the expected conservatism of the judge (1 to 99) multiplied by the chance of each variable based on my very optimistic values. I use .5 for either party winning the White House and .6 that the GOP will keep the Senate.

You can make the case that you think Ted Cruz will win both the nomination and the general election and that the GOP will keep control of the Senate, but that’s not strategy. It’s daydreaming. If you’re 100 percent certain that Cruz will be the next president, how certain were you in October 2012 that Romney would win?

You can fudge my numbers and try it your way, but only blind wishful thinking will return a result where not confirming Garland becomes a winning strategy. Think the GOP has 75 percent chance at the White House? Okay: 99 * .75 * .6 = 44.55. Confirming Garland is still the strongest play. Give the GOP 75 percent chance at both President and Senate? That’s 55.89, still almost 20 points below confirming Garland now.

I urge you to do the math until you get the results you want. You’ll then make a great government budgeting expert, because wishful thinking is why we have a $19 trillion debt. But it won’t make you a strategist, and our side needs strategy now.

(For more on how the Republican vanguard discourages new blood, read this.)

Strategy, Not Emotions #

At this point, the only argument for not confirming Garland is purely emotional: you don’t want Obama to “win.” Fitness to lead requires, at some point, getting over emotional wins and losses and going for real wins using logic and reason.

“But, Bill,” you might say, “if the Senate confirms Garland, then Cruz wins, we’ll have wasted the appointment.” It might seem that way, but think about this: how long will Ruth Bader Ginsburg stay on the bench? And she’s a 1, remember. So let’s say the GOP confirms Garland now. That’s a net lost of 24 points from Scalia. Then Ginsburg leaves the bench and Cruz appoints another 99 to replace her. That’s now a net gain of 75 for our side. Thinking about the next move is critical to strategy, and you’re becoming a more strategic person with every word you read.

Plus, confirming Garland would send a signal to the non-ideological voters that Republicans can get something done. That’s a good signal to send to the 80 percent of voters who are more ambivalent ideologically. That would increase the chances that the Republicans keep the Senate in November.

Finally, I’ll say this. If Garland had been confirmed two weeks ago, he might have ruled with the conservatives on the public union ruling last week. That victory alone would have been huge. But now it’s lost for a generation.

Therefore, I reluctantly say the Senate should confirm Garland to the Supreme Court before Obama withdraws the appointment. It’s nothing personal; it’s just math.

If this post makes you think I’ve lost my mind, wait till you read my new book.

I'm trying to write the truth

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:30:21 +0000

I was a pretender.

In 2012, I pretended I believed Mitt Romney would win. But I knew better. I just didn’t have the heart to tell the truth to the volunteers banging doors and working call lists from our election office in South County.

But I knew Romney would lose. I suspected the GOP would not regain the Senate.

When some of our hardest workers showed up to help break down the office and move our belongings, I couldn’t look at them. Nor could I look at them at the election night watch party. I sat in the back room blogging, but I could hear them yelling at the TV as one key state after another fell to Obama. “You’re wrong! They’ve only counted three percent of the votes!”

After that, I told myself “never again.” I’m done encouraging magical thinking. And, though I sometimes get the facts wrong, I try to tell the truth when it’s important.

Which is why you’ve been reading a lot about Donald Trump on this blog.

Last summer, I was firmly in the anti-Trump camp with posts like:

Trump: Good, Bad, and Ugly <–The most important

We Deserve Better

Trump: The Final Nail in the Conservative Coffin?

The fact that most people expected Trump to win told me I should stop writing him off, but in August and September I still thought he’d fade.

Then came the terrorist attacks in France and San Bernardino. Those events led me to believe Trump would win. I wasn’t happy about it, but my gut said ‘it’s over."

In December, I did a lot of critical thinking. I challenged my own beliefs about Donald Trump. Some beliefs changed, some were dropped, many survived. In the process, I gained some new beliefs, too. For instance, I learned that Trump is a master of persuasion. Since one of my titles is Persuasive Design Director, I should have recognized this skill sooner. But my professional judgment was clouded by my personal animosity. Confirmation bias blinded me to many of Trump’s good or useful qualities.

I wasn’t sure how to present my revelation to the world. So I avoided the subject as much as possible. I was afraid writing or speaking the truth as I saw it would anger my friends who still hated Trump or believed Ted Cruz was divinely anointed to be our 45th president. I was afraid that telling the truth would sound like an endorsement to the deep parts of their brains where powerful feelings and emotions lurk. I was afraid I’d be called a “sell-out” just for telling the truth as I saw it. Brave, I know.

Then I started seeing so many people trapped in self-imposed confirmation bias loops, or affinity bubbles. Just like I was last summer. In the conservative echo chamber, Trump became a larger-than-life monster bent on destroying America.

So I decided to write.

It’s Time to Choose

Party Like It’s 1992

I wasn’t trying to change anyone’s vote; I was trying to prepare them for what I believed was inevitable. And I was trying to get people to critically examine their beliefs of the likeliest results and likeliest consequences of the nominating process. I wanted to caution people against making promises they couldn’t keep or predictions they wouldn’t want repeated.

I particularly wanted Cruz supporters to realize his Evangelical strategy was flawed. It was based on bad interpretation of data from 2012 and 2008. The analysts who came up with the strategy failed to measure all the variables that were available to them. If they had, they’d have discovered that the missing voters of 2012 were not conservative Evangelicals but Ross Perot voters and Reagan Democrats. Here’s what Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics wrote:

What Cruz is really talking about doing is something akin to what Barack Obama did in 2008, when he turned a sizeable number of non-voting African-Americans into voters. Cruz is hoping that evangelicals and conservatives who have traditionally just not voted will opt to vote for him. It’s a tough haul, since the National Election Study suggests turnout among born-again Christians is around 80 percent to begin with. But stranger things have happened (I suppose).

The candidate who actually fits the profile of a “missing white voter” candidate is Donald Trump. As I noted Wednesday, he fits in the mold of the Nixon-Perot-Huckabee-Santorum populist strain of Republicanism.

In other words, Cruz’s plan was get his top-performing segment to performer even better. Every motivation designer knows that’s very difficult and very expensive and runs the risk of frustrating your best supporters. (Remember, I do persuasion and motivation for a living.)

At this point I had three strong data points suggesting Trump would probably win the nomination:

*1. Trump has remarkable persuasion skills. *2. Voters expect Trump to win, and voter expectations are far more accurate at predicting winners than voter preference polls (because voters lie). *3. Cruz’s Evangelical strategy was flawed, but Donald Trump was designed for the “missing white voter.”

So when National Review, Glenn Beck, and others lost their minds in January, I felt I had to step up my game. They were actually helping Trump, not hurting him. And a lot of people now hate me for it. For telling the truth as I saw it.

Since then, Trump has won three straight primaries and caucuses, and he’s expected to sweep or nearly sweep Super Tuesday. He picked up two endorsements from sitting governors yesterday, and Newt Gingrich believes the nomination is over.

Some readers might think it’s my fault for not doing more for Cruz. Well Cruz was never my first choice. I like all of his policies, but that’s not enough. Cruz’s policies are not popular with Congressional Republicans. Congress will not rubber-stamp whatever a President Cruz sends up the hill. (If he couldn’t get the bills through the Senate as a Senator, why would he be able to do it as President?) To be effective, a president must be persuasive. If Ted Cruz can’t persuade a majority of Evangelicals to vote for him in South Carolina or Nevada, how will he persuade Congress to pass his flat tax? But, most of all, I never saw a path to the White House for Cruz. His general election strategy was too flawed, as I’ve said many times already.

I am not trying to influence the election. I’m just trying to tell people what I think will happen. And I’m encouraging people to have a useful contingency plan in case I’m right. I do this knowing you might not want to hear it from me. But I know that hearing it early from me will make the realization less painful.

I’ve learned that writing the truth is a lot harder than encouraging people’s fantasies. It hurts me to know my honesty pains some readers, but I think it’s my job as a blogger. And if the truth as I see it is too painful, you don’t have to read my posts. But I’m glad you do.

Thanks for reading.

A crushing defeat for Glenn Beck

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 06:16:53 +0000

Glenn Beck was pretty sure that God killed Antonin Scalia so Ted Cruz would win the presidency.

Glenn Beck’s theology is very different from mine.

In 2010, I worried that Glenn Beck was doing more harm than good. For days, I’d watched Beck tell his watchers that the world was ending and they would be crushed. Here’s what I wrote:

Beck offers no solutions. At least, he hasn’t in the past two days. Yes, he tells us to pray. But he’s unwittingly driving people toward catatonia. And he’s doing this to the very people we most need engaged right now.

To be honest, I was pissed at him. He was undoing our work on the ground for Ed Martin. Glenn Beck was effectively discouraging people from voting.

Jump ahead to 2016. Glenn Beck, just a few months after announcing his exit from politics and from the Republican party, Beck decided that God is a Cruz guy, and God commanded him to endorse Ted Cruz. And God commanded YOU to vote for Ted Cruz.

Walter Hudson of PJ Media describes the problems with Beck’s weird revelation:

Glenn Beck has endorsed Ted Cruz for president, which his organization emphasized as his “first ever presidential endorsement.” That distinction proves significant in the context of Beck’s dominionism. He has said that Cruz was “raised for this hour” by the “hand of divine providence.” Most recently, Beck has offered the outlandish claim that God brought about the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to “wake up” conservative voters and summon support for Cruz.

As a Christian, I retain unshakable faith in the sovereignty of God. In a sense, you could truthfully say that He brought about Scalia’s death, but only in the same way that He has brought about anything that has ever happened. Assigning special theological significance to a particular death or a particular candidacy for president requires a certain level of presumption that I, for one, would not dare.

God isn’t doing Glenn Beck any favors tonight.

Donald Trump not only blew away expectations for Nevada, he also registered a record number of new voters in the state. And he broke through the media-imposed glass ceiling of 32 percent. With about 30 percent of the votes counted, Trump has 45 percent! Including more than 40 percent of the Hispanic vote.

In short, Trump became the nominee-apparent tonight.

Trump received 50 percent of the Evangelical vote (according to Fox News entrance polls), almost doubling Ted Cruz’s support from that group. Cruz’s theory was that Evangelicals would carry him to the White House. Trump won women, men, Hispanics, and post-grad educated voters. Trump won it all.

Glenn Beck tried to drag God into a political campaign. In the process he dragged a lot of good people into this race with lies and promises of magic. Now, Beck has been exposed as a charlatan. Let’s hope he has the decency to retire to the rock he crawled out from.

Ted Cruz's ultimate strategy

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:30:29 +0000

Ted Cruz has a powerful strategy available to him. This strategy could not only determine the winner of the Republican convention but put Cruz in position to influence policy for generations.

But it’s probably not what you’re thinking.

I’m going to lay out some assumptions, many of which you could disagree with. That’s okay. But for the purposes of this post, let’s stipulate:

*1. Ted Cruz believes, like Glenn Beck, that Donald Trump would make a worse president than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders. I say this because Glenn Beck has been joined to Cruz’s hip since before Iowa and these are things Beck believes, at least this month. *2. Ted Cruz’s hypothesis of evangelical voters carrying him to the White House was rejected in New Hampshire and again in South Carolina. It will likely fail across the country. While he may be right about 50 million or so evangelicals not voting in 2012, he was wrong that most of them would vote for him if they voted. *3. Ted Cruz is unlikely to get enough delegates to win before the convention. I say this because Ted Cruz’s best states award delegates proportionally, while the best states for Rubio or Trump award winner-take-all. Which means, for example, if Cruz wins Texas by one vote, he walks away with 3 more delegates than number two. But if Trump wins Florida by one vote, Trump as all 99 delegates to himself. That pattern repeats itself through the primaries. States with lots of evangelical conservatives are proportional (like Iowa), states with fewer evangelical conservatives are winner-take-all (like South Carolina). So winning a majority of states will probably not win a majority of delegates for Cruz. FiveThirtyEight provided everything I know about this. *4. Ted Cruz sincerely wants what’s best for America. *5. Senate Republicans would love to get rid of Ted Cruz.

You’re free to reject any of those, but let’s just play along for a little. Let’s just say all five points are true. Now what?

Here’s Ted Cruz’s ultimate strategy.

Cruz could make an offer to Trump and to Rubio separately: “I will drop out of the race and endorse you on one condition: you must, in writing, guarantee to make me your first Supreme Court appointee.”

The first who signs the affidavit wins. Oh, and let each candidate know that the same offer is before the other rival. Play a little Prisoners' Dilemma with them.

Most likely, game over. One of the two will make the deal and that candidate will pick up a lot of support. Ted Cruz will overcome the controversies from Iowa and South Carolina that led some people to question his integrity and political acumen. In fact, Cruz would come off as the most selfless statesman in generations. And even if Trump takes the offer and wins the White House, Ted Cruz will be there on the Supreme Court to keep him in check.

What if both candidates reject the offer?

Then you go public. Trump and Rubio would both look bad for rejecting a brilliant and humble offer from Cruz. Maybe the goodwill Cruz would generate would be enough to overcome assumption number 3. Maybe not.

But if Cruz, Rubio, and Trump all stay in the race to the convention, Cruz will end up playing power broker between them anyway, cutting a deal to deliver his delegates to the ultimate winner.

There’s my best strategy for Cruz. Have a better one?

This is the Gen X election

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:30:39 +0000

Who would have thought that Pat Buchanan would become the spokesman for Generation X?

I put a lot of stock into generational history. I am a big fan of Howe and Strauss, a pair of historians whose works include Generations: The History of America’s Future, 13ers: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, Millennials Rising, and, my favorite, The Fourth Turning.

As someone born in the 13th generation of Americans, more commonly called Generation X after the book by Douglas Coupland, I am overly captivated by that generation. My generation. The generation that was too young for Woodstock and too old by the time we turned twelve.

As a generation, Xers are iconoclastic, sarcastic, and just a bit nihilistic. (Our Boomer brothers and sisters grew up with bomb shelters to survive nuclear war. We just looked up.)

We rebelled against the Boomers' excesses, but we still bummed pot off our older Boomer siblings. We were something of an Eddie Haskel generation–clean-cut, polite, and well dressed around the grown-ups, but we carried a flask in one pocket and a half bag in the other. We laughed at the Boomers who created so much tension by openly rebelling against the conformity of the post-war era. We rejected conformity, too, but we did it with more stealth. We didn’t get caught. And when we did get caught, we charmed our way out of the most serious consequences.

That’s just my opinion. You mileage may vary. But here’s how those masters of generational history describe the Xers.

The 13th Generation (Nomad, born 1961-1981) survived a hurried childhood of divorce, latchkeys, open classrooms, devil-child movies, and a shift from G to R ratings. They came of age curtailing the earlier rise in youth crime and fall in test scores—yet heard themselves denounced as so wild and stupid as to put The Nation at Risk. As young adults, maneuvering through a sexual battlescape of AIDS and blighted courtship rituals, they date and marry cautiously. In jobs, they embrace risk and prefer free agency over loyal corporatism. From grunge to hip-hop, their splintery culture reveals a hardened edge. Politically, they lean toward pragmatism and nonaffiliation and would rather volunteer than vote. Widely criticized as Xers or slackers, they inhabit a Reality Bites economy of declining young-adult living standards. (American: Tom Cruise, Jodie Foster, Michael Dell, Deion Sanders, Winona Ryder, Quentin Tarantino; Foreign: Princess Di, Alanis Morissette)

Howe, Neil; Strauss, William (2009-01-16). The Fourth Turning (Kindle Locations 2805-2812). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

That was written in 1997, by the way. I was thirty-three, Bill Clinton was president, and few people had heard of Osama bin Laden or Monica Lewinsky.

I realize Donald Trump’s support is strongest among Boomers and older (60+), and Sanders’s support comes from Millennials. But the reason these iconoclastic candidates are around at all is because the Gen X culture finally made it to politics in 2016.

Even though we dressed like Alex P. Keaton, our heroes were working class American rebels. Our music pissed off the Glenn Miller (WWII) and the Pat Boone (Silent Generation) crowds, of course. But grunge and hip-hop also pissed off the Boomers. We liked everything hard: Joan Jett, Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, Nirvana. The song I heard most in 1985 was a Dire Straits song about installing microwave ovens and custom kitchen deliveries while dreaming about being a star on MTV. Everybody was working for the weekend, and the girls just wanted to have fun, and I had one hand in my pocket and the other one’s smoking a cigarette.

Well, the Eddie Haskel generation, the generation that nobody watched, is now running stuff. The slackers are in charge. The principal’s name is McFly. We hung around with the establishment kids in college (because they had cool boats and good drugs), but we never were of them. We ran in circles with the elites, but, by mutual agreement, we never got too close. And didn’t touch the fine porcelain statues in the foyer. (But we did hook up with their sisters.)

And now that reckless, dangerous generation is in charge–of business, of political campaigns, and of the media. Yeah, there’s a lot of Boomers hanging around in the the C-Suite, but the Xers are, for a short time, calling the shots.

And the shots we’re calling are angry and risky, like a Van Halen song.

Tory Neumyer writes on Fortune.com about the end of the political establishment that’s held sway since V-J Day:

This cycle, dynasty hasn’t counted for much. In the debate two days earlier, Trump viciously attacked the elder Bush’s record, marking the first time anyone can remember a GOP poll leader lacerating the party’s most recent President. Trump earned boos for the performance, but the audience in attendance—South Carolina party faithfuls—was so distant from the Republican rank and file that the question “Why are people booing?” trended on Google during the debate. What’s more, the businessman’s soaring popularity statewide didn’t suffer. If Palmetto State Republicans didn’t punish that heresy against the last Republican commander in chief, it could spell the last gasp for Jeb, who finished 6th in Iowa and 4th in Iowa.

Punish heresy? Hell, no. Not in the Gen X election year of 2016. Heresy’s what we gave up Lent for.

I’m not saying all Gen Xers will vote for Trump. I am saying the Gen X attitude that formed in the 1980s and 1990s has finally pervaded the generations on all sides. Just as the Boomer attitude, hatched in the 60s and 70s, didn’t really seize full power until the Clinton administration. (George H.W. Bush belonged to the World War II Hero generation, as was every president before him, back to Kennedy.)

Nor am I saying the next president will be an Xer. That doesn’t matter. Just as Reagan embodied the spiritual awakening and suspicion of government that the Boomers launched, it’s very possible for someone of an earlier generation to animate the zeitgeist of Generation X. Boomer Trump is very much an Xer in attitude. So are Sanders, Cruz, and Rubio. Bush and Clinton typify the Boomer attitude which turns off Xers.

Maybe successful candidates need a bridge between Boomers Millennials–the two largest generations in American history. And that bridge is Gen X. While Xers are too small in number to dominate an election, we’re the conduit needed to win.

Pat Buchanan sees the problem for a political establishment that refused to listen to us since 1996:

But while difficult to see how Sanders captures the nomination and wins in November, the rebellion in the GOP is larger, stronger and deeper. In every national or state poll, anti-establishment candidates command a majority of Republican voters. Which presents a problem for the establishment.

The Beltway elites may succeed in blocking Trump or Ted Cruz. But the eventual nominee and the party will have to respect and to some degree accommodate the agendas of the rebellion on immigration, border security, trade and anti-intervention, or face a fatal split.

After Ed Martin decided to run for Attorney General to give Ann Wagner clear sailing to the US House of Representatives, I sat down with her for a few hours. Ann and I graduated from high school the same year, so we had a lot of shared memories of the time.

I asked her how she got into politics. “1996,” she said. “After Missouri voted for Buchanan in the caucuses, I had to do whatever it took to make sure nothing like that ever happens again.”

I told her that I had a small business that sold bumperstickers and shirts. Our most popular item in 1993 and 1994 read “He’s Rested, He’s Ready, He’s Right! Buchanan ‘96.”

Ann laughed when I told her. Maybe she thought I was kidding.

The Buchanan Brigades are running the show, now. While the establishment could still produce the next president, he or she will be unable to govern, I’m afraid. The divisions are too many, the chasms too wide, the trust too broken, the economy too leveraged.

We’ve been warning the establishment for decades that we’re not gonna take it. They didn’t listen.

But something tells me they’re listening now. They might even be listening to Pat.

When does accountability begin?

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 05:18:56 +0000

Leverage: don’t make deals without it.

–Donald Trump, The Art of the Deal, 1987

It’s tempting to go Machiavellian during primaries. Even during general elections after primaries. But there’s a great danger for the grassroots.

**If we don’t hold candidates accountable during the race when we have all the leverage, how can we possibly hold office-holders accountable? **

Check out this paragraph from the Washington Post:

Cruz offered a lawyerly defense of his campaign’s actions, blaming media reporting for the mistake. He also apologized to Carson.** But the low-key retired neurosurgeon sliced apart Cruz’s defense with a quiet but deadly response that completely undermined the senator’s argument.**

I’ll give you that WaPo is no Cruz fan.** But they’re also not Trump fans. And they think Carson’s lost his once-great mind.**

But to say the Washington Post is in bed with the GOP establishment would be pretty bold. They’re not. The Washington Post is in bed with the Clinton establishment. And the Clinton establishment thinks Cruz is their most beatable opponent. Hillary would love to see Ted Cruz win the GOP nomination. (Even though you and I know she might regret it.)

So that paragraph from WaPo is probably an honest assessment.

“Lawerly” is not a good sign. But “lawerly” rings true, doesn’t it?

As a Heritage Action Sentinel I’m charged with holding elected officials accountable. To some degree that means getting around their weasel words and lawerly justifications.

I agree that Ted Cruz’s ideological positions are pure. No doubt.

But his campaign’s behavior in Iowa was less than honorable. Just ask Dr. Carson.

I’m not asking Senator Cruz to change any of his positions (although he might want to change the order of precedence). I am asking that he change his tactics. And maybe some of his campaign staff.

And you and I have a lot of options between now and the Missouri primary. That’s our leverage for accountability. I plan to use mine.

Bottom line:** if you don’t hold candidates accountable, don’t bother trying to hold elected officials accountable.** You’re wasting your time. They know you’ll cave.

The biggest shock in Iowa

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 04:08:40 +0000

The polls were wrong. But that wasn’t the biggest shock.

The big shock was . . . who was that guy pretending to be Donald Trump?

Millions and millions of people waited to watch The Donald melt down after finishing second behind Ted Cruz.

But it didn’t happen. Instead, Trump managed to show humility and graciousness without giving up his signature bravado. Pretty brilliant. As Romney and Rove learned in 2012, though, air power will not win many races. You need boots on the ground. Cruz had them; Trump didn’t.

A bigger shock: Marco Rubio’s performance. And that’s bad news for both Cruz and Trump. Rubio stands to pick up the lion’s share of support from Kasich, Jeb!, Christie, and Fiorina as they drop. Add 60 percent of those supporters to Rubio’s numbers, and he’s the frontrunner. Plus, Rubio stands to win a lot of delegates in the deep blue states (California, New York, etc.).

Expect the establishment and the media to turn their fire toward Cruz.

But the biggest shock: Bernie Sanders might have driven a wooden stake into the heart of Countess Clinton and the Arkansas Vampire Gang. As I write, with 91 percent in, Hillary leads by 0.02.

Even if Hillary prevails, the margin of error will likely be less than 1%. She will do better on the delegate count, but with an indictment looming for mishandling top secret documents while Secretary of State (and repeatedly lying about it), Clinton is in serious trouble.

What if high turnout in Iowa means something else

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 01:38:20 +0000

Reports on Twitter say turnout in Iowa very high.

Some caucuses are reportedly running out of ballots. Huge turnout! #IowaCaucus

— Jake Putala (@JakePutala) February 2, 2016

The view at Dubuque’s 19th precinct. We had to move to an auditorium to accommodate the large turnout. #IowaCaucus pic.twitter.com/QcWKY1ivAg

— Chris Lammer-Heindel (@lammerheindel) February 2, 2016

HUGE turnout in both Democratic and Republican caucuses tonight. @cspan channels are THE place to witness this process at work. #IowaCaucus

— Omar Moore (@popcornreel) February 2, 2016

Were this Colorado, high turnnout would mean something else, but it could mean something in Iowa that pundits didn’t expect.

This is nothing but my weird speculation, and I am the guy who apologized to Obama today. So consider the source.

The conventional wisdom is that high turnout favors Trump. That’s based on polling, of course, and turnout models. But turnout models have been wrong before.

[Tweet “Were this Colorado, high turnnout would mean something else”]

It’s also possible that a dark horse like Rand Paul or Ben Carson has supporters who didn’t fit the traditional “likely caucuser” models.

Paul appeals to libertarian-ish folks, especially the young who might have a short voter history. (Not that that would stop the Cruz campaign from citing them with a voting violation.) Eighteen to 24-year-olds might be off the pollsters' radars and turning out for Rand.

Ben Carson once did exceptionally well with conservative Christians. Again, it’s possible that hidden Christians are turning out for Carson the way the turned out for Santorum four years ago.

I have very few Iowa readers for some reason. Maybe it’s my opposition to ethanol subsidies and mandates. If you’re in Iowa and you’re a new caucaser, I’d love to hear your story in the comments. Please right because it will make us all smarter.

The Cruz campaign's epic #facepalm

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 04:23:26 +0000

This “VOTING VIOLATION” controversy says bad things about the Cruz campaign.

(BTW, Rubio’s campaign sent a similar, but less creepy, mailer, too. So far, I have not seen a large number of complaints about the Rubio mailer.)

And I’m not talking about the ethics of publicly shaming people who vote sporadically. I’m talking two gross electioneering violations from a campaign that markets itself as the most scientifically advanced in history. With the mailer Team Cruz showed a lack of strategic understanding of the science and compounded their ignorance by apparently making up numbers.

The Growing Controversy #

Late last week, voters in Iowa started complaining about a “VOTING VIOLATION” mailer they received from the Ted Cruz campaign. The mailer listed the names of the recipient and several of the recipient’s neighbors. Each voter listed also received a voting frequency percentage (usually 55 percent) and a letter grade (usually F).

Voters complained on social media and talk radio. The Iowa Secretary of State denounced the tactic and said the mailer was deceptive. Several voters who received the mailers say they intend to switch their support at the caucus to Trump or Rubio from Cruz.

The tactic shows every sign of being an epic failure in election history. In fact, if Cruz does not win Iowa, the mailer could make it into civics textbooks.

That Misapplied Science #

I actually like the idea of sending people their voting history and suggesting you’ll do it again after the next election. While it’s creepy, the practice is not illegal. But it isn’t necessarily effective.

In a 2006 study, researchers sent mailers to voters 11 days prior to Michigan’s state primary elections. The study tested four different treatments and had a very large control group who received no mailings related to the study.

Researchers found that turnout was 8.1 percentage points higher among voters who received an aggressive message, similar to the one the Cruz campaign sent in Iowa. An 8.1 point lift in turnout makes voter-shaming the most effective tactic ever tested to drive up voter turnout. The authors of the study noted:

It is important to underscore the magnitude of these effects. The 8.1 percentage-point effect is not only bigger than any mail effect gauged by a randomized experiment; it exceeds the effect of live phone calls (Arceneaux, Gerber, and Green 2006; Nickerson 2006b) and rivals the effect of face-toface contact with canvassers conducting get-out-thevote campaigns (Arceneaux 2005; Gerber and Green 2000; Gerber, Green, and Green 2003). Even allowing for the fact that our experiment focused on registered voters, rather than voting-eligible citizens, the effect of the Neighbors treatment is impressive. An 8.1 percentage-point increase in turnout among registered voters in a state where registered voters comprise 75% of voting-eligible citizens translates into a 6.1 percentage-point increase in the overall turnout rate. By comparison, policy interventions such as Election Day registration or vote-by-mail, which seek to raise turnout by lowering the costs of voting, are thought to have effects on the order of 3 percentage-points or less (Knack 2001).

And:

The remarkable effectiveness of the social pressure appeals contrasts with the relatively modest effects observed in previous studies of the effectiveness of direct mail voter mobilization campaigns.

So why wouldn’t Cruz use the tactic?

For a very simple reason:** the academic researchers didn’t care who people voted for–Ted Cruz does care. **

The Michigan study showed only that voter shaming (or social pressure) works to increase turnout. It does not show that it can increase turnout for a particular candidate in an election where voters have a choice of candidates with similar ideological profiles.

Further, the mailers in the study came from a non-partisan research group, not from a candidate on the ballot. If the Michigan recipients were angered by the mailers, they had no candidate to take their anger out on.

Cruz and Rubio clearly identified the source of their Iowa mailers as their own campaigns, so angry Iowa voters do have a target for their anger: they can caucus against the candidate who sent the mailer.

At least some Iowans say they intend to do just that.

In a general election, this tactic might work. In a race between Cruz and Clinton, it’s doubtful anger over a mail piece would drive a voter to switch parties. But in a primary, upset voters have a less-dramatic choice.

Those Phony Scores #

Compounding the error, it appears that the Cruz campaign did not use actual voting histories in tabulating voters' scores, as the mailer indicates. An investigation by Ryan Lizza posted on The New Yorker website indicates that the grades and voting percentages on the mailer were simply made up:

So was the Cruz campaign accurately portraying the voter histories of Iowans? Or did it simply make up the numbers?

It seems to have made them up. Dave Peterson, a political scientist at Iowa State University who is well-acquainted with the research on “social pressure” turnout techniques, received a mailer last week. The Cruz campaign pegged his voting percentage at fifty-five per cent, which seems to be the most common score that the campaign gives out. (All of the neighbors listed on Peterson’s mailer also received a score of fifty-five per cent.)

But Peterson says he’s voted in 3 of the last 4 elections, which should equate to 75 percent. And he’s even more consistent in voting in local elections.

Lizza did more checking on the numbers:

A source with access to the Iowa voter file told me that he checked several other names on Cruz mailers and that the voting histories of those individuals did not match the scores that the Cruz campaign assigned them in the mailer.

When confronted with evidence that the numbers on the voter-shaming mailers appeared to be fraudulent, the Cruz campaign refused to disclose its sources and methodology for producing the scores, according to Lizza.

[caption id=“attachment_18515” align=“aligncenter” width=“530”]

photo from The New Yorker[/caption]

Another apparent deception in the Cruz mailer was the letter grade. The mailer says that the data is publicly available information, but that’s not really true. The Iowa Secretary of State’s office does keep records of who voted in elections, but state does not assign letter grades. Even if the percentages were based on actual public records, the letter grades were invented by the campaign.

If it turns out the Cruz people really did just make up these voter grades, the backlash could hurt Cruz long after Iowa. It’s one thing to attack your opponents in a race–it’s another to spread lies about voters themselves.

At a minimum, expect heavy pressure on the Cruz campaign to disclose its grading methodology and which elections contributed to its scores. Or admit to making up the grades from thin air.

Finally, when you try to apply academic research to the real world, make sure you understand how the parameter changes. Changing the source of the mailer from a non-partisan research team to a candidate’s campaign, and inventing a letter grade without explaining the methodology, turns a potential tool into a blunt weapon.

And in this case it’s a weapon that’s more likely to hurt Cruz than to hurt his opponents.

NRO: Against Jefferson

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 05:45:50 +0000

“Aristocrats fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society.”

–Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825.

National Review has entered dangerous territory: they have inadvertently made the case for Trump.

An angry screed by Kevin Williamson titled “Our Post-Literate Politics” (later renamed to “What’s a Book?") makes the case that Trump supporters are illiterate, uneducated, dim-witted, racist, homophobes. To wit (via Breitbart.com’s John Nolte):

Thomas Aquinas cautioned against “homo unius libri,” a warning that would not get very far with the typical Trump voter stuck sniggering over “homo.” (They’d snigger over “snigger,” too, for similar reasons.)

And

Donald Trump is the face of that insalubrious relationship, a lifelong crony capitalist who brags about buying political favors. But his enthusiasts, devoid as they are of a literate politics capable of thinking about all three sides of a triangle at the same time[.]

The magazine’s aristocratic editors have examined the species homo trumpicus and found it unfit for self-governance. Until last fall, homo trumpicus was NR’s favorite fellow-traveller.

For those who don’t regularly read Hennessy’s View (and I seem to have a lot of new readers of late), I am not supporting Donald Trump. Also, I agree with the NR writers that Trump does not fit my definition of conservatism (which, like most conservatives, I cannot articulate in a way that you could a draw a picture from). Further, I’ll give you that Trump scares me a little. Finally on this point, there are at least three candidates I’d greatly prefer to Trump and a couple more I’d probably hold my nose and vote for before I’d touch the screen next to The Donald. (Or maybe he’ll be on the ballot as simply “TRUMP.") (And Jeb! is not one of them. I’ll take Trump over Jeb!)

While I revere William F. Buckley, my own vision of a conservative utopia has been out of phase with NR’s for some time, at least in a few ways. In 1993, for example, I wrote an essay opposing US intervention in the Balkans. I am proud that my essay was published alongside similar sentiments from Patrick J. Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly. (Maybe it’s a St. Louis thing. Buchanan cut his newspaper teeth at Globe-Democrat, and Schlafly is, of course, a St. Louisan.) I differed from my favorite magazine on the issue.

In 1994, a friend and I earned beer money by selling shirts and bumperstickers. Our best-seller said “He’s Rested, He’s Ready, He’s RIGHT! Buchanan ‘96.” (My personal favorite didn’t sell worth a damn: “Why did I get wet when Clinton soaked the rich?")

I should point out that I have differences with Buchanan (Israel) and Schlafly (convention of states), too. But my vision of conservative utopia is probably a lot closer to theirs. And while I’ve dutifully bucked up and supported whatever lame Establishment punching bag the GOP sends up every four years. like many others,** I’m getting pretty sick of supporting a party that prefers abstract principles and handouts to billionaires over sound policies that lift people out of poverty and give those well above poverty the confidence to jump employers, change careers, or hang out a shingle. **

My view is pretty simple and probably more libertarian than conservative. I believe that free men and women, decently educated, reasonably honest, occasionally sober, and mildly ambitious make for an exceptional nation. I believe that a government that provides the safety and security to let the men and women have their fun (without feeling the need to wear rearview sunglasses in case some crazed jihadi is sneaking up on them) is a government that engenders exceptionalism. (Unlike my definition of conservatism, I can point you to a picture of exceptionalism. It’s something like Burning Man surrounded on each end by a week or two of hard work.) And I believe that an agreed-upon and complete list of things government is allowed to do lets the people plan more than 3 minutes ahead, which is a prerequisite of exceptionalism, freedom, and fun.

And **all of my beliefs are built upon the idea that people, by their nature, can govern themselves. **One requirement of self-governance is choosing representatives, including presidents.

If I’m wrong on that–if people truly cannot government themselves and cannot form governments that function–then the whole concept of liberty and everything written on the subject from John Locke to Thomas Jefferson to William F. Buckley, was a lie, an error, a sham, a horrible mistake. On that point, Locke, Jefferson, and Buckley agree with me.

So yesterday National Review, in its screechy cat-fight of a hissy fit, determined that 41 percent of Republican voters (and 100 percent of Democrat voters) fail the self-governance test and need an aristocracy to rule them. Assuming half the voters are Democrats, that means NR has written off, not 47 percent, but 91 percent of American population. Nearly everybody but the National Review’s editorial is, by their reckoning, too ignorant and illiterate to own their own lives.

**And this is where the fun begins. **

National Review’s anti-Trump symposium warns that Trump is a modern day Hitler ready to seize autocratic power in America, and that Americans need an autocrat to rule them in their vast ignorance and bigotry.

Put syllogistically (a word that should satisfy Mr. Williamson and most of the NR symposium authors):

_If Donald Trump is an authoritarian with conservative-ish pretenses, and if the American electorate’s ignorance requires authoritarian rule, then Trump is the best authoritarian for the job. _

I utterly refute National Review’s pessimistic, aristocratic, and undemocratic conclusion. I reject the middle leg of their pro-Trump syllogism because I believe we are competent to run our lives and to decide on a working government.

And on that, Jefferson concurs:

“The people, being the only safe depository of power, should exercise in person every function which their qualifications enable them to exercise consistently with the order and security of society. We now find them equal to the election of those who shall be invested with their executive and legislative powers, and to act themselves in the judiciary as judges in questions of fact. The range of their powers ought to be enlarged.” –Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814.

Either we can govern ourselves, or we can’t. I think we can; NR thinks we can’t.

But I admit to taking great satisfaction in the pain and suffering Trump causes to snobbish blowhards like the one told his NR readers that 41 percent of Republicans can’t govern themselves.

As always, I’ll end with the words Dennis Miller gave us: that’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.

Do Republican elites know something they're not telling?

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:08:07 +0000

Reading two excellent articles by Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight (here and here), I remembered a thought that passed through my mind last Friday.

After reading some of National Review’s “Against Trump” issue, I wrote blog post. To me the NR issue showed the magazine is out of touch with voters. I’m not talking about traditional, reliable, motivated, and informed primary voters.** I’m talking about the broader pool of voters who vote in general elections every four, eight, or twelve years** and occasionally in local elections. (Yes, there are people like that.)

The bits I’ve read since then reinforce my perception that conservative pundits (count me in) often (always) forget that most Americans are not conservative pundits. Then there’s this gem from Rod Dreher on American Conservative, Trump & the Conservative Intelligentsia.

Moving back to Louisiana to live really did reveal to me the gap between the conservative punditocracy and those for whom they — for whom we — presume to speak. Ideas and reason matter far less to most people than they do to people like us (this is true of the left as well), not because most people are stupid, but because their mode of experiencing life is not nearly as abstract as ours.

[Why conservatives need to stop talking about abstract political principles and promote conservative policies that help real people.]

People who hang around with conservative activists have trouble seeing the world from any other perspective. And there are, at best, a few thousand conservative activists, pundits, writers, and radio/TV hosts in America. And 320 million “others.” You get the point.

So the easy answer to NR’s Trump issue is affinity bubbles. Now, what’s the not-so-easy answer.

Maybe Republican elites (and you have to include Ted Cruz’s campaign in that mix) know something they’re not saying. **Maybe National Review just wanted to be able to claim victory when Trump loses Iowa badly. **

It’s possible that Trump is polling in Iowa and somehow keeping it very quiet. Businesses are really, really good at stealth polling. But a lot of newspapers claim he is not polling at all. He’s flying blind.

The other campaigns and PACs are polling like their lives depend on it. Polling is one of the consultant class’s biggest money makers. Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Jeb!, Carly, and Christie have numbers that you and I do not see.

We also hear that** Trump has almost no ground organization in Iowa**. And public polls show that a lot of Trump’s support (up to 30 percent) comes from non-traditional caucusers. (But reports of no ground game could be hogwash, too.)

If you put it all together, it’s very possible that the Republican elites believe Trump will get trounced in Iowa.

That would explain why the GOP establishment has made Cruz, not Trump, their Party Enemy Number One. They could reason that Trump’s rise owes to his perceived invulnerability. If he stumbles in Iowa, the mask will slip and his supporters will scramble for another candidate.

The Establishment does not want Trump-defectors to find a home with Cruz, so they’re building the case that Cruz is worse than Trump. With Cruz struggling in New Hampshire, the winner of New Hampshire could quickly gain a lot of energy going into South Carolina.

In other words,** the GOP Establishment could be killing two insurgents with one Iowa surge.**

If the second scenario is the way it is, Rich Lowry and crew are busy planning their victory lap right now, and I should be writing my mea culpa. (Unless his blog counts.)

But, again, only time will tell.

How late-deciders are like fish

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:54:20 +0000

**Expectations matter most in how undecided voters decide. **

It’s important to understand how late-deciders tend to vote. This knowledge (especially in Iowa and New Hampshire) could decide the outcome.

Primary voters tend to decide whom to for at the last minute.

In 2008, 16 percent of voters said they made their choice on election day. Which means we have a long way to go to know how Iowa will turn out.

I read a report (summarized here) that showed late-deciders tend to break for the candidate they expect to win. (Which may explain why most campaigns release a shock poll about their candidate’s surge a day or two before the election.) There’s also a study of how fish choose leaders that supports this theory via Science Daily:

“Their consensus arises through a simple rule,” said David Sumpter of Uppsala University. “Some fish spot the best choice early on, although others may make a mistake and go the wrong way. The remaining fish assess how many have gone in particular directions. If the number going in one direction outweighs those going the other way, then the undecided fish follow in the direction of the majority.”

But it’s very difficult to know a particular voter’s expectations, and those expectations vary widely by the voter’s interest in politics.

Some late deciders are highly interested in the election while others are not. While less-interested people are more likely to stay home, many will vote. For interested voters, news and polls will provide a lot of information, so polls will make a difference. For the less interested, personal connections and conversations mean everything. Even conversations overheard at a store can make a difference.

Who Will Win Iowa? #

Looking at Iowa, it’s impossible to pick a winner. It’s very possible that more Iowans have made up their minds this year because of the incredible amount of press coverage, but the polls show that’s not the case. The latest Fox News poll finds:

A third of Republican caucus-goers say they may change their mind (33 percent). Even one in four Trump supporters says they may ultimately go with another candidate (25 percent).

That’s consistent with past elections. For instance, looking at CNN’s exit poll from the 2012 Iowa Caucus (which Santorum won) we find:

Santorum won the Iowa caucus in 2012 by 34 votes over Romney, and his support surged on the day of the caucus.

How did Santorum do it?

Organization.

Santorum’s supporters did a fantastic job of getting people to the caucus locations and of influencing fence-straddlers at the caucuses. My guess is that a bunch of that 35 percent who decided on the day of the caucus heard Santorum’s name many times shortly after they arrived.

Does that mean the candidate with the best organization will win Iowa?

Maybe.

Remember, Ron Paul’s campaign was famous for its grassroots organization, but that didn’t help them in the caucuses. At the same time, Romney had a decent organization, too, but country clubbers might have shown less enthusiasm than Santorum’s blue collar forces.

Cialdini’s 6 Principles of Persuasion #

So, besides organization and expectations, what else might influence a person to vote one way or the other this late in the game?

There are other factors to influence. According to researcher Robert Cialdini and his colleagues, there are six principles of persuasion: reciprocity, consistency, liking, authority, scarcity, and social proof.

Clearly, social proof is the big deal in primary elections and accounts for late deciders breaking for the expected winner. But don’t discount the others.

Liking is important. If a candidate’s supporters turn off a voter, their numbers might not matter. Undecided or weakly decided voters will also pay attention to how candidates' supporters treat supporters of rival candidates. So treating everyone at the cause with respect might win some converts.

Likewise, authority can play a deciding role in elections. Low-interest voters might be influenced by one political celebrity’s personal request than by 100 peers.

Consistency is very powerful but also tricky. For example, people who describe themselves as “very conservative” are very likely to support Cruz. But how people have voted before influences them as well.

Reciprocity can help. Supporters of a particular candidate who offer caucus-goers rides or explanations of the process will influence people who feel they must repay the favor.

Scarcity is a little tricky here, but it’s huge in getting voter to the polls or caucus. “This is your only chance to choose the next president.”

We Just Don’t Know #

Which is all a long way to get to this: we won’t know the winner until the votes are counted, and news reports of a candidate’s surge can be counteracted by what voters see on the ground on caucus day.

Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck Were 100% Right about Katrina Pierson

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 02:17:09 +0000

_UPDATE: Originally I mentioned “apparently fake twitter account.” I’ve learned (after lots of research) that I was mistaken. I’ve removed that statement. Please continue reading. My carelessness was completely my own. _

I agree with Ted Cruz. And welcome Big Government readers.

Senator Cruz said, “Katrina Pierson is an utterly fearless principled conservative.”

That was just two years ago. Katrina Pierson was challenging Pete Sessions for Congress.

I also agree with Ted’s dad, Rafael Cruz, who said of Katrina, “She’s a strict constitutionalist. She’s a strong conservative and she wants to do what’s right.”

I also agree with Glenn Beck who introduced his radio audience to Katrina this way:

Katrina Pierson is running against Congressman Pete Sessions here in Texas… To call Pete a massive disappointment is a massive understatement. And you should get to know Katrina. Ted Cruz, who doesn’t throw these things around lightly, called her an utterly fearless principled conservative, which I think is about the highest praise you could get from Ted Cruz. (Source: glennbeck.com)

I even agree with (in carefully measured doses) this Dave Weigel story in Slate from 2014:

Pierson’s claim on the Cruz brand is more intimate. Nanoseconds after she announced for Congress, she was endorsed by FreedomWorks, the D.C.-based Tea Party powerhouse. FreedomWorks has warred for its own Cruz pixie dust—when Sen. John Cornyn’s campaign hired the group’s old grassroots coordinator Brendan Steinhauser, FreedomWorks insisted that he “was not in charge of our political efforts in 2010 or 2012.”

Steinhauser strayed, at least in the view of FreedomWorks. Pierson did not. She’s a pure Tea Partier, one of the shrinking group of conservative activists who gained unimagined political stardom, compared to the average freshman congressman, thanks to media interest in the movement, especially from Fox News. She’s biracial, which she insists will drive the left batty when (never “if”) she wins. “You could call me a racist,” she says. “Good luck with that! You could say I’m out there pushing the war on women. Good luck with that, too.”

Dave Weigel covered the Tea Party movement for Washington Post and Slate since its earliest days. He knows who was there.

[Tweet “Senator Cruz said, “Katrina Pierson is an utterly fearless principled conservative.”"]

I Figured She Was a Prima Donna #

I’ve known Katrina Pierson since 2009, but I first met her in 2010. She and many Tea Partiers from Texas came to St. Louis for the September 12 event under the Arch. I knew Katrina was a star of the Texas tea parties, and I expected her to be a prima donna. But I quickly learned otherwise.

It was hot. I was playing host by escorting a group of VIPs on foot, about eight people in total. We had a few of blocks to go. The women were mostly in heels walking on rough pavement in downtown St. Louis.

A big, black SUV came along, recognized a few of the faces, and offered a ride. “I have room for six,” the driver said.

Some of us looked around. A few people simply jumped into the SUV. Katrina said, “It’s okay. I can walk.” So I walked with her. (I was a host.) I believe one other gentleman walked with us. Prima donnas don’t give up an SUV ride.

That simple act of humility when no one of consequence was a round to see it told me a lot about Katrina.

Conservatives Gone Wild #

Today, a conservative blogger pieced together snippets of some of Katrina’s past statements to build a case that Katrina is actually a radical leftist. In elections, even good people often lose their minds.

But Glenn Beck took to Facebook to pile on Katrina. Without bothering to check the validity or context of the piece, he labelled Pierson “dangerous.” And that’s a shame, because Glenn once had something to offer. Like when he gave Katrina a platform in her 2014 race against the “disappointing” Pete Sessions.

As blogger Dan Riehl points out on Twitter:

Come on foks, going after Katrina Pierson like she’s Huma Abedin is small minded and pointless. Ur venting anger not accomplishing anything

— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) January 24, 2016

Yep. Especially when Glenn Beck attacks her. Remember, Glenn is the same guy who, in 2009, said that he would have voted for Hillary Clinton over John McCain and that he expects Barack Obama will be better for the country than McCain would have been (video below).

Look, I get that elections make good people crazy. I’ll blame it on National Review. And I get that conservatives have problems with Trump. But let’s try to remember two things:

*1. There will be a tomorrow no matter how the Iowa caucuses shake out, and *2. If there is no tomorrow, Revelation tells us the good guys have won.

Katrina Pierson really is a pure tea partier, a fierce conservative, and a strict constitutionalist. She didn’t stop being those things when she became Trump’s spokesperson anymore than Beck stopped being a conservative when he declared a preference for Hillary and Obama over McCain.

Katrina is a friend and a soldier in the war on establishment values. She has lifted me up and pointed back toward the front in our war when I’ve stumbled and felt weak.

Find a way to elevate Cruz without destroying your sister-in-arms.

https://youtu.be/xMKYftaeIJ4

White Water/Black Ops

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:00:00 +0000

When I was a kid (thought I felt kind of old at the time) disaster movies were the thing.

Before Star Wars, the 1970s were about killer sharks, towering infernos, earthquakes, and capsized cruise ships.

Psychologists and sociologists attributed the genre’s popularity to the people’s need to assimilate nuclear holocaust.

I think the movies were just good, cathartic entertainment.

Nonnie Parry: [Deck behind the group is flooding rapidly] How long will we stay afloat?

James Martin: Long enough

Robin Shelby: The Andrea Doria stayed afloat 10 hours before she sank.

–The Poseidon Adventure

Doug Roberts: I don’t know. Maybe they just oughta leave it the way it is. Kind of a shrine to all the bullshit in the world.

– The Towering Inferno

And then there was the more personal and mysterious horror flick.

Wendy Torrance: Hey. Wasn’t it around here that the Donner Party got snowbound?

Jack Torrance: I think that was farther west in the Sierras.

Wendy Torrance: Oh.

Danny Torrance: What was the Donner Party?

Jack Torrance: They were a party of settlers in covered-wagon times. They got snowbound one winter in the mountains. They had to resort to cannibalism in order to stay alive.

Danny Torrance: You mean they ate each other up?

Jack Torrance: They had to, in order to survive.

Wendy Torrance: Jack…

Danny Torrance: Don’t worry, Mom. I know all about cannibalism. I saw it on TV.

Jack Torrance: See, it’s okay. He saw it on the television.

When the Presidential campaign began, pundits saw the stars lining up for Hillary Clinton. (I didn’t. But I’ve never been any good at seeing things in the stars.)

Hillary was running more or less unopposed for the Democrat nomination. She could pack in the cash and build an oppo file on the Republicans throughout 2015, receive her party’s coronation at the convention, then come out guns blazing in September when people start to pay attention.

Meanwhile, the Republicans would rip each other to shreds. Seventeen candidates would make fools of themselves trying to tear down the heir-apparent, Jeb Bush. In vain, because Jeb Bush was invincible with his family name and endorsements and war chest. And no Bush has ever beaten a Clinton.

That was the prevailing narrative in May 2015. My, how times have changed.

Democrats will now run to RealClearPolitics and say “but, but, but the polls!” Yeah. Whatever.

The SS Hillary is a ship taking on water beyond the capacity of the the drain pump to discharge overboard. The Andria Doria stayed afloat 10 days. I’m not sure the Hillary Clinton can survive 10 weeks.

Here’s what’s sinking the Hillary:

** Benghazi won’t go away ** Hillary introduced Bill Clinton’s unresolved sexual harassment charges, and the issue’s not helping ** Bernie Sanders only grows in popularity with the Democrats' socialist base ** Political correctness–a product of the Clinton era–is a dirty word for most Americans ** Joe Biden prefers himself or Sanders ** Elizabeth Warren lurks in the wings ** Jim Webb might run as a third-party moderate ** 150 FBI agents and DoJ investigators are preparing an indictment over Hillary’s email server ** Hillary’s health problems won’t go away ** Fewer people are willing to say they won’t vote for Trump under any circumstances

Are many of these stories the product of wishful thinking? Sure. But not all.

And any one of these stories could stop Hillary dead in her tracks. If she loses Iowa or New Hampshire, or both, her campaign could be over.

Two years ago, I predicted Hillary would not run. When she announced, I modified that to say she would not make it to the DNC convention.

Look how the parties have reversed. The Republicans are down to two candidates: Trump and Cruz. And they’re the only two who seem unwilling to attack each other (despite fraudulent attempts by the press to make people believe they are.)

And the Democrats are cannibalizing their own. Realizing that he has a chance at the nomination, Colonel Sanders is now battling Clinton in earnest, and Clinton is feebly fighting back.

The old days of the 1990s aren’t helping. In fact, they’re getting in the way. And her time at State seems more like time in in the state penitentiary. Her excuses seem weak. Her plans seemed warmed-over. And she seems tired.

I stand by my prediction. And I’m more confident every day. Hillary will be nothing more than an honored guest at her party’s convention.

Bill Cosby Should Ask for a Change of Venue to Cologne Germany

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:31:03 +0000

On New Year’s Eve, male Muslim refugees rampaged across Europe.

They didn’t use guns and bombs. They used their bodies. On women.

This created a political-correctness nightmare for Europe’s leaders. On the one hand, the victims were women, and no means no, and we must always believe a woman who accuses a man of sexual predation (unless the man is Bill Clinton in which case we destroy the woman).

On the other hand, the assailants . . . no, no–assailants is too strong. The overzealous revelers were Muslim men and refugees. And Muslim refugees are safe, vetted, peaceful human beings who only want to adopt the customs and mores of their new countries.

In Cologne, Germany, hundreds of Muslim men assaulted hundreds of German women, and the German women refused to do the right thing (right by the political elite) and chalk the whole thing up to New Year’s Eve frivolity. (What’s a little grope between revelers, huh?)

[Tweet “In Cologne, Germany, hundreds of Muslim men assaulted hundreds of German women”]

Instead these headstrong women (that’s still okay, isn’t it?) went to the authorities. And to the press! and told their stories of molestation. And they even went so far as to identify their attackers as “Middle Eastern or African.”

But it gets worse!

The police corroborated the women’s stories. Can you believe it? The police whose pensions depend on the favor of the Political Elite confirmed the victims–er–accusers' testimony.

What’s a Political Elite to do?

First, hold a press conference and boldly state some platitudes. “No woman should ever feel unsafe, anywhere.” “No means no.” “Women own their bodies.”

_Buuuttttt . . . . _

Maybe women should understand that Muslim men come from cultures that value . . . well, other things. It’s not really a matter of differences, so much, you see, as it is of degree. And these young–these fine young men–are our guests. And they’ve been through so much.

So I’ll tell you ladies, maybe you should think about how you might have, inadvertently, enticed these fine young men into getting a little too close to you and, well, you know, maybe these men–these fine young men–in all the bustle and jostle of a New Year’s party, they might have accidentally bumped into you with all the drinking and chaos that goes on at these things. (Raves, I think the kids call them these days. It even sounds bumpy.)

So here’s what we’ll do. From now on, you European women who are so well educated and so hip on sexual etiquette these days–so much more aware than our new guests from Syria–why don’t you try to stay, um, let’s call it “more than arm’s length” from our guests, especially when our guests have been out partying.

Oh, and I know the new fashion is tight workout gear . . . what they call “yoga” pants and sports bras and all that, and I know you ladies want to look cool and trendy and all, but maybe . . . maybe when you’re going out where you might be around our guests–such fine young men from very difficult upbringings–maybe you should dress a little less . . . provocatively, you know? More modest dress, like these guests are used to? See, women where they come from, in their culture, the women dress very modestly. When these men see the way German women dress, well, is it any wonder they get over-stimulated? I mean, it’s like the boys when I was in elementary school seeing their first National Geographic. Well, I’m older. You wouldn’t understand that.

But, anyway, let’s just call it all a big misunderstanding and try to help our guests assimilate by dressing a little more . . . you know . . . maybe wear a nice fashionable scarf on your head? Scarves were so elegant in the sixties. Think of Audrey Hepburn or Princess Grace. Especially Princess Grace because she did very well in a very different culture, and who doesn’t want to look like Princess Grace?

Oh, and one last thing. Maybe, if something like this happens again, which I doubt it will, but if it does, maybe you could try to describe the young men–these fine young men–without assuming a country of origin or their religion? I mean, can you really know they were Middle Eastern or African? I mean, you didn’t card them, I’m sure, and refugees don’t have cards, anyway, but you know what I mean. Sure, they could have looked darker complected than a typical German, but how do you know they weren’t Greek or Spanish? So let’s not jump to conclusions. I’ve been around very handsy Spanish men, myself, and I knew they were Spanish because they told me, but in a wild street party on New Year’s Eve, well, I doubt anyone would just come out and say “I’m from the Middle East and I’m going to grope you.” So don’t assume. It isn’t very nice. It’s not what a good host does, and we are, after all, their hosts.

And, finally, just to prove I’m not alone in saying we shouldn’t just immediately believe the worst and assume guilt, I’d like to introduce that American icon of comedy and education, Dr. Bill Cosby.

**Is it any wonder why Donald Trump’s war on political correctness is winning? **

Now check out Europe Is Enabling a Rape Culture

And a Swedish cover-up of Muslim rampage is breaking now

The Centre Cannot Hold

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 02:46:43 +0000

THE SECOND COMING
   --William Butler Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Republican Establishment fears the party is spinning apart.

You probably know that I believe in the cyclical history. So did Yeats.

Cycles of History #

In The Second Coming Yeats sees the old order in Europe dying as the gyre (2000 years) that began with Christ ends. The beast is Europe’s ruling class moving slowly as scavenger birds wait for the beast to drop.

America has a ruling class–a cabal of political, business, and media elite. On the surface, their factions war and clash, but when the lights and cameras and microphones power down, they plot together to keep the rabble in its place.

The rabble are awakened.

The End of the Old Establishment #

Maybe it was one too-many hot mic accidents. Maybe it was the hubris of power and the ascension of elites less skilled in masking their contempt of the rank and file.

In the end, the reason won’t matter much. The Establishment beast is old and weary. Its parasites look for new, healthier hosts.

[Tweet “America has a ruling class–a cabal of political, business, and media elite."]

The Democrat Establishment candidate has a socialist nipping at her cankles. The Republicans have no clear Establishment leading candidate, but a muddle of pretenders and wannabes sitting miles behind a populist and a conservative evangelist.

The centre is gone. Not only is there political center between the two major parties, there’s no firm center within the parties. The New York Times article linked above explains it all in two short paragraphs:

Rank-and-file conservatives, after decades of deferring to party elites, are trying to stage what is effectively a people’s coup by selecting a standard-bearer who is not the preferred candidate of wealthy donors and elected officials.

And many of those traditional power brokers, in turn, are deeply uncomfortable and even hostile to Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz: Between them, the leading candidates do not have the backing of a single senator or governor.

Yet this isn’t just about electoral politics. Look what’s happening in the finance world.

Wall Street had its worst first week of a year in history. China’s competence narrative is falling apart, and taking the narrative of the omnipotent Central Banker with it.

[UPDATE: Asian markets continue free-fall on Monday]

Wall Street and Central Bankers were key to the old Establishment order. The Establishment of both parties gave Wall Street a veto on their candidates long ago. Right now, the financial world is too distracted with its own problems to pay more than scant attention to the election. Besides, they have ways of making eventual winners see things their way, and they count on their financial threats to keep any new president in line.

The Trough of the Crisis #

The Fourth Turning, published in 1997, predicted that America would enter a Crisis period within the decade.

A spark will ignite a new mood. Today, the same spark would flame briefly but then extinguish, its last flicker merely confirming and deepening the Unraveling-era mind-set. This time, though, it will catalyze a Crisis. In retrospect, the spark might seem as ominous as a financial crash, as ordinary as a national election, or as trivial as a Tea Party. It could be a rapid succession of small events in which the ominous, the ordinary, and the trivial are commingled.

Recall that a Crisis catalyst involves scenarios distinctly imaginable eight or ten years in advance. Based on recent Unraveling-era trends, the following circa-2005 scenarios might seem plausible: *

Beset by a fiscal crisis, a state lays claim to its residents' federal tax monies. Declaring this an act of secession, the president obtains a federal injunction. The governor refuses to back down. Federal marshals enforce the court order. Similar tax rebellions spring up in other states. Treasury bill auctions are suspended. Militia violence breaks out. Cyberterrorists destroy IRS databases. U.S. special forces are put on alert. Demands issue for a new Constitutional Convention.
A global terrorist group blows up an aircraft and announces it possesses portable nuclear weapons. The United States and its allies launch a preemptive strike. The terrorists threaten to retaliate against an American city. Congress declares war and authorizes unlimited house-to-house searches. Opponents charge that the president concocted the emergency for political purposes. A nationwide strike is declared. Foreign capital flees the U.S.
An impasse over the federal budget reaches a stalemate. The president and Congress both refuse to back down, triggering a near-total government shutdown. The president declares emergency powers. Congress rescinds his authority. Dollar and bond prices plummet. The president threatens to stop Social Security checks. Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. Default looms. Wall Street panics.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announce the spread of a new communicable virus. The disease reaches densely populated areas, killing some. Congress enacts mandatory quarantine measures. The president orders the National Guard to throw prophylactic cordons around unsafe neighborhoods. Mayors resist. Urban gangs battle suburban militias. Calls mount for the president to declare martial law.
Growing anarchy throughout the former Soviet republics prompts Russia to conduct training exercises around its borders. Lithuania erupts in civil war. Negotiations break down. U.S. diplomats are captured and publicly taunted. The president airlifts troops to rescue them and orders ships into the Black Sea. Iran declares its alliance with Russia. Gold and oil prices soar. Congress debates restoring the draft.

Howe, Neil; Strauss, William (2009-01-16). The Fourth Turning (Kindle Locations 5645-5647). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Am I the only one who sees that, not one but ALL of those possible scenarios has played out or nearly played out since the financial crisis struck in 2007?

That Crisis era, they predicted, will last about 15 to 20 years, after which a new social order will emerge in America. From The Fourth Turning:

Before long, America’s old civic order will seem ruined beyond repair. People will feel like a magnet has passed over society’s disk drive, blanking out the social contract, wiping out old deals, clearing the books of vast unpayable promises to which people had once felt entitled. The economy could reach a trough that may look to be the start of a depression. With American weaknesses newly exposed, foreign dangers could erupt.

But before we get to the High, we will go through a climax according to The Fourth Turning:

Eventually, all of America’s lesser problems will combine into one giant problem. The very survival of the society will feel at stake, as leaders lead and people follow. Public issues will be newly simple, fitting within the contours of crisp yes-no choices. People will leave niches to join interlocking teams, each team dependent on (and trusting of) work done by other teams. People will share similar hopes and sacrifices—and a new sense of social equality. The splinterings, complexities, and cynicisms of the Unraveling will be but distant memories. The first glimpses of a new golden age will appear beyond: if only this one big problem can be fixed.

It’s been nine years since the Crisis began with the fall of Bear-Stearn. Eight years if you believe the Crisis started with Lehman Brothers.

The Climax #

Either way, we are inching closer to the climax. With Trump and Cruz running as much against the Republican Establishment as they are against the Democrats, the pieces are in place for the climax to emerge.

It’s very likely that the 2016 election will bring about the long term realignment of the social contract as Howe and Strauss predicted in The Fourth Turning:

Soon after the catalyst, a national election will produce a sweeping political realignment, as one faction or coalition capitalizes on a new public demand for decisive action. Republicans, Democrats, or perhaps a new party will decisively win the long partisan tug-of-war, ending the era of split government that had lasted through four decades of Awakening and Unraveling. The winners will now have the power to pursue the more potent, less incre-mentalist agenda about which they had long dreamed and against which their adversaries had darkly warned. This new regime will enthrone itself for the duration of the Crisis. Regardless of its ideology, that new leadership will assert public authority and demand private sacrifice. Where leaders had once been inclined to alleviate societal pressures, they will now aggravate them to command the nation’s attention. The regeneracy will be solidly under way.

When I read theories that attempt to explain Trump and Cruz, I’m surprised no one else stumbled onto this one.

Like it or not, we’re in the trough of the Crisis. And the worst is yet to come. Be ready to influence the new social contract. With or without a convention of states, America’s social contract has been digitized and opened for editing by anyone.

Party Like It's 1992

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:30:40 +0000

Five for five.

The first five people who told me they supported Trump in 2015 also supported Ross Perot in 1992.

I realize it’s a tiny sample size. Still, it’s pretty clear that Donald Trump is the reincarnation of H. Ross Perot. Conservatives–all conservatives and all center-right voters–need to come to terms with that fact. We must also deal with the realities of the 2016 election and choose a strategy.

The Search for the Missing White Voter #

While working on my story on Millennial voters, I came across this 2012 (updated in 2013) analysis by Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics.

Remember that Trende wrote this in 2013, long before Donald Trump emerged as a serious candidate for the Republican nomination.

Describing the demographics and psychographics of the 6.6 million white voters who didn’t show up to vote for Romney in 2012, Mr. Trende explains the high correlation between counties that voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and counties that saw an drop-off in white votes in 2012 (from 2008).

Perhaps most intriguingly, even after all of these controls are in place, the county’s vote for Ross Perot in 1992 comes back statistically significant, and suggests that a higher vote for Perot in a county did, in fact, correlate with a drop-off in voter turnout in 2012.

What does that tell us about these voters? As I noted, they tended to be downscale, blue-collar whites. They weren’t evangelicals; Ross Perot was pro-choice, in favor of gay rights, and in favor of some gun control. You probably didn’t know that, though, and neither did most voters, because that’s not what his campaign was about.

His campaign was focused on his fiercely populist stance on economics. He was a deficit hawk, favoring tax hikes on the rich to help balance the budget. He was staunchly opposed to illegal immigration****as well as to free trade (and especially the North American Free Trade Agreement). He advocated more spending on education, and even Medicare-for-all. Given the overall demographic and political orientation of these voters, one can see why they would stay home rather than vote for an urban liberal like President Obama or a severely pro-business venture capitalist like Mitt Romney.

When we look at Trump’s positions over the past 20 years, they line up very well with Perot’s in 1992.

The biggest difference between the two is that Perot ran as an independent while Trump has stated unequivocally that he will run as a Republican and accept the results of the process.

What Conservatives Need to Accept #

I realize that many people see Trump as a savior even though he is not a conservative. Conservatives who support Trump (or who refuse to reject Trump outright) must make the case that the most pressing need of the country right now is bold, unapologetic, patriotic action. These conservatives must believe that our pet positions on taxes, the role of government, and social issues need to take a back seat to the problems of illegal immigration, terrorism, and America’s place in the world. Conservatives can also argue that the Washington (and Jefferson City) establishment is so corrupt and so out of touch that the most pressing need in America is to blow up the political establishment.

I can accept that. I can’t make the case that Trump is a Conservative. He is probably right of center, so you can make the case that Trump is [lower case “c”] conservative. But he’s not a Conservative like Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley or Ted Cruz.

It would be helpful if conservatives who support Trump would accept that their man is not one of them ideologically and boldly assert why they support him anyway. And it would also help if Trump’s opponents would make the case against him with a little less screechiness.

As Trende established in 2013, the road to the White House is tricky for Republicans. The GOP candidate will have to attract those “downscale, blue-collar whites” in big numbers in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. They’ll need to activate all stripes of conservatives: fiscal, Constitutional, evangelical, foreign policy. They’ll need to be acceptable to libertarians. And they’ll need to get back to 10 percent of the black vote.

The Country Has Never Been This Polarized #

The Reagan coalition offers no instructions for Republicans in 2016. Not only have demographics changed, but history has moved on. There is no Cold War to win. The triad of fiscal conservatives, foreign policy hawks, and evangelical Christians has been further fragmented by strict Constitutionalists, non-interventionist libertarians, and socially progressive libertarians. The Left and the Right are more doctrinaire and puritanical in their beliefs than ever before. No candidate is “good enough” for most plugged-in voters. Instead, candidates are either perfect or perfectly unacceptable. The more these voters learn about candidates, the less likely they are to vote at all for a Republican. (I know, I’ve helped fuel this absolutism.) The greatest economics writer alive, Ben Hunt, demonstrates the problem with this chart from the Pew Research center:

Greater income and wealth inequality reverberates throughout a society in every possible way, but most obviously in polarization of electorate preferences and party structure. Below is a visual representation of increased polarization in the US electorate, courtesy of the Pew Research Center. Other Western nations are worse, many much worse, and no nation is immune.

Notice how steep the lines were in 1994 and even in 2004 compared to 2014. The middle is gone, and right-of-center is now binomial (two humps). We were not so divided in 1980. As Dr. Hunt explains:

There’s one inevitable consequence of significant political polarization: the center does not hold. Our expectation that The Central Tendency carries the day _will _fail, and this failure will occur at all levels of political organization, from your local school board to a congressional caucus to a national political party to the overall electorate. Political outcomes will always surprise in a polarized world, either surprisingly to the left or surprisingly to the right. And all too often, I might add, it’s a surprising outcome pushed by the illiberal left or the illiberal right.

Simply saying “Trump is not a conservative” doesn’t solve the problem of getting to 270 electoral votes. Neither does saying “I’m for Trump.”

To win the White House, conservatives might have no choice but to work hard for someone who shares few of their ideological goals. Or perhaps Ted Cruz can find a way to inspire the downscale, blue-collar whites who eluded Romney and George H. W. Bush without alienating the other required constituencies.

Finally, another strategy conservatives can consider is to remain an ideologically pure, righteous remnant. That is a strategy, and a noble one. But don’t confuse it with winning. And don’t be surprised when policies move further from our ideal.

Whatever the case, the time for choosing is at hand. Choose wisely.

It's Time to Choose

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:25:33 +0000

I am a mess.

I am a terrible father, a crappy husband (ask my ex-wives), and a difficult employee. I do a lot of things poorly. Most things, in fact. Especially the things I “have” to do. Authority irritates me.

While I’m terrible at following plans, I write a week’s worth of blogs on Saturday and Sunday mornings. The pattern keeps me sane. Or semi-sane. I supplement those when events warrant. Which isn’t very often.

And I’m irritated when it is.

I’m more irritated when I have to blog about being wrong. Or admitting I pre-judged something. So I’m writing now with a lot of irritation coursing through my Irish veins, along with some whiskey. (Excuse the typos.)

An email received tonight threw me for a loop.

Phyllis Schlafly has been one of my heroes since . . . I can remember. I disagree with Mrs. Schlafly on exactly one issue, which will remain between us. Like William F. Buckley, Phyllis is a conservative touchstone to whom we can turn with confidence that she will point us in the right direction.

As someone who’s doubted Donald Trump’s conservative bonafides, I was shocked to read this:

Phyllis Schlafly, an icon of the conservative movement who has been active for half a century, is warning the nation: Donald Trump is the last hope for America.

Donald Trump donated lots of money to the Clintons. He said nice things about Barack Obama. He promoted socialized medicine. He built his real estate business with crony capitalism. And Phyllis Schlafly is endorsing him?

I can’t question Mrs. Schlafly’s judgment. So I have to ponder the message.

Trump is the “last hope for America.”

Last hope. Last hope. Last hope.

The phrase ricochets around my brain like a ping pong ball shot into a Pringles can. “Last hope.”

**How screwed are we? **

My first real political moment was 1974 when Nixon resigned. Nixon was a rotten president who used the power of his office to destroy political opponents, take America off the gold standard, back out of Bretton Woods, and impose wage and price controls. The anti-conservative.

Yet Richard Nixon campaigned for Barry Goldwater at least as enthusiastically as Ronald Reagan did. As Patrick J. Buchanan recently wrote (and PJ was there):

Nixon pivoted swiftly to repair the damage, offered to introduce Goldwater to the convention, did so in a brilliant speech, then campaigned harder for Mr. Conservative than did Barry himself.

As a Gen X conservative, I like to throw Nixon under the bus. But Nixon and I had a remarkable correspondence in the late 1980s. The Dickster even sent me an autographed copy of In The Arena. He wasn’t all bad.

The true story of Nixon comes to mind as I read Mrs. Schlafly’s interview. I’m reminded of the other hero of Goldwater’s campaign: Ronald Reagan.

Most Americans were shocked to learn Reagan was a Republican in 1964. The insiders knew it, but the general population did not. **Reagan was a lifelong union man and a Roosevelt fan. And a Hollywood actor. **

Even Republican insiders wondered whether Reagan’s Goldwater speech was sincere or theatrics. (I heard from a woman who was at the 1976 convention in Kansas City that Reagan lost the delegate fight to Gerald Ford because** people doubted his party allegiance**. He’d been a Democrat for so long.)

After four years of Jimmy Carter’s ineptitude, conservatives from three factions took a gamble. The foreign policy hawks, the fiscal conservatives, and the moral majority said, “Reagan is close enough.” The three factions pointed their spears at the Democrats, united behind Reagan, won 49-state landslides, defeated the Soviet Union, ended the Cold War, reduced the influence of government, and proved that one man could handle the job of Leader of the Free World.

Tonight we face another seminal moment in history. For all intents and purposes, the Republican primary is down to two men: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is the Robert Taft of 2015. Cruz’s ideology is pure. He makes Reagan look like a squish. Cruz is brilliant. He sold our philosophy to the Supreme Court nine times. (Ted Olsen envies Cruz.)

**If I alone chose the next president, I would choose Ted Cruz. **

But I don’t choose alone. I choose along with 320 million other Americans. I hope they choose Cruz–in their homes, in their congressional districts, in their states.

The Republican primary system is messy and difficult to measure. In some states, a primary winner gets all the state’s delegates. In other states, delegates are apportioned according to the relative distribution of votes. And in some states, like Missouri, delegates are awarded by US Congressional district results. If Ted Cruz wins the primary in MO CD2, he gets MO CD2’s delegates.

The point is, Bill Hennessy doesn’t choose the GOP nominee for president. So I have to deal with the reality of politics.

And the reality is that Donald Trump connects with more voters than anyone alive right now. He does. Arguing otherwise is just stupid.

I have a lot of problems with Trump, not the least of which is that my wife and at least one of my sons hate him. Even writing this post risks a week of sleeping on the couch. But I type on. I type on.

Phyllis Schlafly speaks for many millions of Americans when she says:

“He [Trump] does look like he’s the last hope [for America],” Schlafly said. “We don’t hear anybody saying what he’s saying. In fact, most of the people who ought to be lining up with him are attacking him. They’re probably jealous of the amount of press coverage he gets. But the reason he gets so much press coverage is the grassroots are fed up with people who are running things, and they do want a change. They do want people to stand up for America. It really resonates when he says he wants to ‘Make America Great Again.’”

I hate to think America is down to its last hope. I have two boys in the US Navy. I want them standing as guardians of freedom, not as warriors in a last battle for a dying republic. So this is personal.

I’m not quite ready to declare my allegiance to Donald Trump. I am totally prepared to declare my alienation from the Republican establishment. And if Trump is the only man who can destroy that tumor on American greatness, I will become a Trump man.

If Trump’s good enough for Phyllis Schlafly, well, maybe Trump is good enough for me.

I think we should reflect on the Reagan of 1976.

https://youtu.be/n-p-Nuu8hYQ

In America, there’s always a second chance.

**Unless we’re down to our last hope. **

Choose wisely, voters. Choose wisely.

The GOP Establishment Is a Cancer on America

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:40:23 +0000

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, appearing Thursday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” said that “of course” he would back Trump, should he emerge triumphant at next year’s GOP convention in Cleveland. “We need to be unified, we need to win,” Bush said.

–The Washington Post, September 3, 2015

The Republican Establishment has exposed itself as a political disease willing to kill its host. Unless we seek treatment and remove the tumor first. Some ideas below.

Here are three symptoms of disease:

1. Uncontrollable Bleeding from Jeb Bush #

Jeb Bush is flirting with breaking his pledge to support the Republican nominee for president. And the only consequences he’s worried about are the consequences to Jeb Bush. America can go to hell as far as Jeb’s concerned.

Let that sink in. The man who demanded Trump sign a pledge to support the Republican nominee will break the very same pledge if Trump is the nominee. Unless breaking the pledge hurts Jeb.

Got that, Republicans? “If you nominate Trump, we’ll destroy our own party.” Ace of Spades points out the blatant hypocrisy:

Thus the double-standard so many complain about: The Establishment tells the grassroots not to make demands, and to remain loyal to the party no matter how little of its agenda is pressed for, while the Establishment and the pampered corporate wing feel pretty damn comfortable serving up ultimatums and splitting from the party if their agenda isn’t eagerly serviced.

For weeks, Jeb Bush has shouted, “Donald Trump is not a serious candidate.” Really, Jeb? If Trump is not serious with 30 percent support, what does that make you with 3 percent?

Readers know that I have issues with Trump, but The Donald is at least 10 times more serious a candidate than Jeb Bush.

[caption id=“attachment_17386” align=“alignnone” width=“613”]

Trump and Bush signed the same loyalty oath to the GOP. Now, Bush says he might break it.[/caption]

Jeb Bush has lost his mind.

2. The National Committee Suddenly Turned Dark #

In a similar way, the Republican National Committee held secret meetings a few weeks ago in which the committee reportedly worked up plans to steal the convention away from Trump should he win the most delegates.

Mitch McConnell was present at the meeting, but he said nothing. He’ll let the committee members do his dirty work.

The Republican National Committee has been radicalized for the establishment.

3. A Budget Deal to Eat Out Your Substance #

And last we come to the Paul Ryan budget–a bloated, politically correct travesty designed to win favor with King Obama and Princess Pelosi. [Update: The GOP Budget drove conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly to endorse Donald Trump. And I’m not far behind.]

Conservatives complain that the Congressional Republicans refuse to stand up to Obama. They’re wrong, of course. House and Senate Republicans will gladly fight the White House. They will risk a government shutdown. And they just proved it with this budget.

Establishment Republicans will shut down the government to protect their corporate overlords. They just won’t risk any political capital for their hoi polloi constituents.

Corporatists wanted increased immigration and a lift on oil export ban. They got both.

Obama threatened to veto the oil export ban lift, but your friendly neighborhood Republican leaders stood up to the White House. If they hadn’t, their sponsors might skip a $25,000 super PAC contribution or two, and no Establishment power-freak would risk that.

In the end, the Democrats got just about everything they wanted in the budget, as shown in this tweet:

Rep Israel on omnibus: We ended up with most of the good stuff in and most of the bad stuff out. And that’s a victory.

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) December 18, 2015

The GOP also funded Planned Parenthood, stripped funding for the border fence, and fully funded Obamacare.

And every Missouri Republican voted for the budget or the rule or both. Every single one of them.

What To Do About It #

Unlike the GOP candidates for president, none of us signed a loyalty pledge. So let’s begin by refusing to support or vote for any member of Congress who voted for the Omnibus Budget. (You can see how they voted here.)

That means actively supporting a third-party candidate in the general election election next year if the incumbent wins the primary. Are you willing to do that?

It also means using leverage and making your leverage known.

In Navy bootcamp, our company commanders (now called Recruit Division Commanders) used leverage well. They put the burden on the recruits themselves. If one recruit screwed up, the whole company (or division) was punished.

The system worked. Fellow recruits could punish screw-ups in ways RDCs could not. And recruits had more eyes and ears looking for potential screw-ups than the RDCs had. Thus, many screw-ups were prevented.

One way for grassroots conservatives to apply leverage is to make a formal pledge and stick to it. Last year, I pledged to cast zero Republican votes in any race if Jeb Bush is the nominee.

My lone act of defiance means nothing. But one thousand people in Ann Wagner’s district would. Ten thousand such pledges would cost several Republicans elections.

Loyalty Is Killing Us #

Any conservative loyal to the GOP is disloyal to conservatism because the GOP is disloyal to conservatism. The GOP is loyal only to its sponsors: Wall Street, huge multi-national corporations, and large individual donors. Their sponsors have loyalty only to their own wealth. They are not ideological, but they pay for a lot of phony research designed to stimulate ideological passions.

For instance, three corporations–General Electric, Philips, and Sylvania– stimulated the passions of environmentalists by sponsoring pseudo-science claiming compact fluorescent bulbs are better for the environment than incandescent bulbs. In fact, CFLs do up to 26 percent more damage to the environment (and to people) than incandescents, but CFLS were more profitable for GE. Environmentalists were stimulated by research to work against the planet to support GE’s stockholders. Since GE does not pay federal taxes, profits are wonderful things.

So, I’ll renew my pledge:** if Jeb Bush is the GOP nominee, I will cast no Republican votes in November 2016**. None. My little act of defiance may not do much, but I won’t be feeding the Republican tumor.

You can have your say in the comments.

Dr. Strangedebate (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the GOP)

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 06:33:36 +0000

“I’ll build a wall . . . and I’ll make Donald Trump pay for it.” — Ted Cruz

Line of the night in the last GOP Presidential debate of the year of our Lord two thousand and fifteen.

This was the most telling debate of all. And it shouldn’t have happened.

The more you know about anything, the less you like it. That’s a scientific fact.

That’s why the “love of your life” when you were dating is the “lump on the couch” 20 years later.

That’s why the Keurig coffee maker you “had to have” last Christmas isn’t your first love this Christmas.

The more we know, the less we like.

Grassroots people want more debates among their candidates. And more debates kill their candidates’ chances.

The Democrats air their few debates on Fridays and Saturdays because they know no one will watch them. They don’t want to be seen.

Democrats know how the brain works. Republicans don’t.

Donald Trump understands this. He actually says very little.

Don’t believe me? Try this.

[yop_poll id=“5”]

[yop_poll id=“7”]

[yop_poll id=“8”]

[yop_poll id=“9”]

More information about something only increases the likelihood you won’t like something about it. That’s why presidents usually leave office less popular than they entered office.

One hundred debates will expose something you don’t like about your favorite candidate.

I’m predicting that candy is more popular than moist, salty, peppermint candy because the people who like moist, salty, peppermint candy must be a subset of people who like candy.

The more information you have, the more likely you object to something. It’s pure logic.

These debates are not helping the GOP.

But anyone on the stage tonight would do more to advance the interests of Americans and Western Civilization than any Democrat would. And for that I love the GOP.

The Week

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 12:52:50 +0000

Ben Carson #

The press can’t find people who will corroborate Ben Carson’s low opinion of himself as a young man. And somehow we’re supposed to believe that reflect poorly on Dr. Carson. It reflects poorly on journalism, for sure, but it actually shows that people who knew Dr. Carson won’t speak ill of him. Nice problem to have.

Weather #

Was the weather wonderful this weekend, or what? I hope you got out, even if just to do some yard work. The week ahead looks delightful, too.

GOP Debate #

Fox Business News hosts this week’s Republican debate. Which Donald Trump will show up? The undercard is at 6PM CST with the main event at 8PM CST. Only eight participants made the prime time fight: Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Fiorina, Kasich, and Paul.

Economy #

Last week’s labor report showed that the largest growing job in America is giving up finding a job. Meanwhile, the CEO of the world’s largest shipping company, Maersk, says the global economy is far worse than central bankers claim, based on major slowdowns in shipping, rail, and truck transportation. International trade organization OECD confirms Maersk’s concerns.

St. Louis Blues #

The Blues look dangerous. Rookie defenseman Colton Parayko has five goals, all game-winners. Parayko plays fearlessly at both ends of the ice, attacking the offensive corners and net like a winger while clearing his own crease like Noel Piccard. Watch this kid. Next game is Tuesday at 6:00.

I am honored to question the GOP candidates for you and Heritage

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:05:25 +0000

This is pretty cool and a little unnerving.

Heritage Action has extended the honor to be one of three Heritage Action Sentinels to question Republican Presidential candidates on Friday, September 17 in Greenville, South Carolina. So far, 12 candidates have confirmed, including Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio. (Maybe Trump will make fun of my tie.)

I have no idea why Heritage would pick me for this privilege. I just hope I don’t screw it up. To that end, your prayers will be appreciated. (I’m sure many people have already muttered under their breaths, “Please, God, don’t let him screw this up.” I thank you.) I promise not to ramble about national service, okay?

Please check this blog or www.heritageaction.com for details on C-SPAN’s schedule for the event’s airing. (As of this writing, it is not scheduled for live broadcast.)

And, now, please find out why pursuit of happiness is essential to liberty.

Results of the Cabinet Matching Game

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:42:37 +0000

A couple weeks ago, I published a simple game for political nerds. Assuming the next president must build a cabinet from current candidates for the Republican nomination for president, how would you assign candidates to cabinet positions.

This was meant to be a fun exercise for people who spend too much time thinking about politics. Like the leaders-eat-last poll, this required hide, often dissatisfying choices. As a result, only six people completed the exercise which took up to a half hour.

Here’s the cabinet you put together, using only the top position for candidate:

** Carly Fiorina: Secretary of Commerce ** Ben Carson: Secretary of Health and Human Services ** Jeb Bush: (4-way tie) Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of State, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Energy ** Ted Cruz: Attorney General ** Rand Paul: Secretary of Treasury ** Marco Rubio: Secretary of Energy ** Scott Walker: Secretary of Labor ** Chris Christie: Secretary of Veterans Affairs ** Mike Huckabee: Secretary of Agriculture ** Donald Trump: Secretary of Treasury ** John Kasich: Secretary of Interior ** George Pataki: Secretary of Trasnportation ** Jim Gilmore: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ** Bobby Jindal: Secretary of Education ** Lindsey Graham: Secretary of Defense ** Rick Perry: Secretary of Homeland Security

You might also be interested in the results of my poll on Leaders Eat Last.

Complete results available here.

Tea Partiers in St. Louis See Things a Bit Differently

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:55:00 +0000

There’s a huge, important fiinding in a new poll—one I believe will affect a lot of elections nationally and in Missouri in 2016. In fact, 2016 will come down to one word.

Write down what you think that word is before reading on.

STLTPC vs. USA on President #

First, let’s look at some polls.

St. Louis Tea Party members see the GOP Presidential race a little differently than the country at large.

The latest Fox News poll found that, among Americans who identify as Tea Partiers, Trump leads the field with 33 percent, followed by Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, and Dr. Ben Carson.

Meanwhile, a poll of 122 members of St. Louis Tea Party Coaltion showed Cruz leading Walker and Trump, with Carson far behind:``

STLTPC vs. USA on Issues #

St. Louis Tea Party members are closer to national averages when it comes to top issues. While St. Louis Tea Party did not ask about immigration in the top concerns, STLTPCers aligned closely with Fox responsents on order of issues:

Are you as surprised as I am? See the disconnect here?

When I think of Trump issues, I think of immigration. I know The Donald talks about other stuff, too, but what got him on the news were his position and comments on illegal immigration, right?

So why is immigration so low on the list of issues? You’d link the the top candidate’s top issue would be voters’ top issue.

Actually, voters nationally are less concerned about issues than they are about something else when it comes to candidates. One characteristic trumps all others in Fox News poll:

LEADERSHIP #

The word of the day is “leadership.” Is that what you wrote down?

Fox News found that even winning is less important than leadership to Republican voters:

Winning isn’t everything – or at least electability isn’t foremost in the minds of GOP primary voters right now. When asked what they want in their party’s nominee, they say being a strong leader (29 percent) matters more than having true conservative values (20 percent), beating the Democrat (13 percent), having the right experience (13 percent) and shaking things up in Washington (13 percent).

That makes complete sense. Republican voters view Barack Obama as a week leader. And they viewed Romney as a weak leader. Missourians have seen eight years of amoeba-like weakness from Governor Jay Nixon.

We are sick of weak leaders, and we’re willing to trade off on issues and ideology to get a leader we want to follow. Trump is leading the race and pulling away from the pack because he acts like a leader—the kind of leader Republicans want.

Candidates, Don’t Get Carried Away, Please #

Let me repeat: Trump acts like a leader.

A few weeks ago, I complained about candidates describing themselves according to the buzzwords from the lastest polls. To quote myself:

Last year at a St. Louis County Republican picnic, I heard about 30 candidates line up, one after another, and announce “I am a Constitutional Conservative.”

Every one of them said it. I heard “constitutional conservative” so many times, I was tempted to grab the microphone and tell the crowd, “I am an unconstitutional giraffe” for variety’s sake.

Turns out, some Republican pollster had just conducted a survey of likely primary voters that found “constitutional conservative” was a phrase Republican voters liked.

Leadership is like pornography: we know it when we see it. (We’ll also pay a premium for quality stuff. Of course, when you find a great leader online, you don’t have keep one finger on the browser kill switch.) Let others describe your leadership. Let your actions prove them right.

Part of Trump’s appeal is he acts the way a lot of Republics expect leaders to act. And that trumps the issues and even electability.

Do I think Republicans would prefer to lose with a strong leader than win with a weak one? No, I don’t. The opposite, in fact. I bet most Republicans believe that leadership is indispensible to victory. If the Republican nominee doesn’t spew leadership out of every pore, we’ll spend the last two months of 2016 asking ourselves why conservatives stayed home on election day. And the answer will be—leadership.

Finally . . . #

Missourians, too, will rally around leadership in 2016. We, too, know that candidates' resumes on issues mean little if the candidate cum office-holder lacks the leadership character to make things happen.

Whether that means Missourians (beyond Tea Partiers) abandon Cruz for Trump, I don’t know. But I’ll bet that 2016 exit polling shows that the candidate who scored higher in leadership won the race right down the line.

BONUS: #

In Case You’re Wondering Who’s Debating

The first GOP Presidential Debate is Thursday. Here’s who’s in, out, and on the bubble according to Business Insider:

IN #

Donald Trump, real-estate magnate: 22.5% average as of Monday
Jeb Bush, former Florida governor: 12.7%
Scott Walker, Wisconsin governor: 12%
Ted Cruz, US senator from Texas: 6.7
Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon: 6.2%
Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor: 6%
Marco Rubio, US senator from Florida: 5.2%
Rand Paul, US senator from Kentucky: 5%

ON THE BUBBLE #

John Kasich, Ohio governor: 3.8%
Chris Christie, New Jersey governor: 3.2%
Rick Perry, former Texas governor: 2.2%

OUT #

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor: 1.5%.
Rick Santorum, former US senator from Pennsylvania: 1.5%.
Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett Packard CEO: 1.2%.
Lindsey Graham, US senator from South Carolina: 0.7%
George Pataki, former New York governor: N/A

Analysis of Donald Trump Poll

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:55:34 +0000

Last week’s poll asked for your degree of support for Donald Trump’s candidacy. This poll received far less attention than the Missouri GOP Governor poll of the previous week, as only 60 people responded.

On the plus side, there was no detectable cheating on the Trump poll.

One Word: Polarization #

[caption id=“attachment_16313” align=“aligncenter” width=“600”]

Histogram of Trump Poll[/caption]

Respondents had choices from 0 to 5 to indicate their degree of support for Trump, with 0 = No Support and 5 = Total Support. Votes of 0, 1, or 2 are considered to Oppose Trump, 3, 4, or 5 Support Trump.

Key Findings #

** 70 percent of all votes fell into the extreme buckets:

** 37 percent show No support for Trump ** 33 percent show Total support for Trump

** 50 percent of votes fell into the bottom half of support, 50 percent in the top half of support ** Voters who do not support Trump (0, 1, or 2) show more conviction than voters who do support Trump (3, 4, or 5)

** Of those who do not support Trump, 73 percent chose the most extreme position (0) ** Among Trump supporters, 67 percent chose the most extreme position (5)

** 52 percent all voters came from Missouri,amuch higher percentage than in the Governor poll (weird). Trump is NOT popular in Missouri:

** 42 percent of Missourians show No support for Trump ** 16 percent of Missourians show Total support for Trump ** 61 percent of Missourians oppose Trump to some degree ** 39 percent of Missourians support Trump to some degree

Again, here’s the link to my raw data if you’d like to investigate further.

Conclusion #

This is not a scientific poll, but it does have some value. Those who chose Total Support (16 percent of Missourians, 33 percent overall) will likely support Trump no matter what. Were The Donald to launch in Independent campaign, he’ll take a lot of Republican voters with him, a la 1992.

Trump has earned a high level of passion from his supporters. In other words, his support might be an inch wide, but it’s a mile deep. If Trump is not the GOP nominee, his supporters might defect by not voting at all in November 2016.

Combining Trump’s weird support with Hillary’s losing support among Democrats every day (I can’t believe I’m about to write these words), the stars could be aligning for (gag) President Bernie Sanders. Yes, Trump could help elect America’s first openly socialist president.

Disclaimer #

As with everything I do, the margin of error in this post is 99%.

New Poll

This week’s poll is all about National Service.

Poll: What Do You Think About Service?

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:59:50 +0000

Last week, we posted a 5-part series on national service. This week, we’d like to see what you think.

Be heard

The poll closes Saturday, August 1 at Midnight. Please vote only once.

Last Week’s Poll: Trump #

Here’s my analysis of last week’s poll on Donald Trump.

Analysis of 2016 GOP Governor Poll

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 20:40:46 +0000

Last week, I launched an online poll of declared and likely candidates for governor.

This was not a controlled survey, so be careful what you read into it. Instead of using the poll as a measure of breadth, I recommend looking at from a few other angles.

Suspicious Voting #

Yes, there was a lot of suspicious voting. At least one candidate received his or her strongest support from a single data center in India. Another candidate received over 50 votes from a cluster of IP addresses. That may or may not be cheating, but it’s suspicious.

Because this is a Missouri race, here’s the results filtered for votes from Missouri only:

I tried to prevent multiple votes through a variety of controls on IP address, cookies, and super cookies. But motivated people can get around all of those. (About 8,000 attempts to cast multiple votes were thwarted.)

Of 1,602 votes, I tossed out about 400 for suspicious patterns. Only 703 votes were verified from Missouri.

Geographic Distribution #

I also looked at geographic distribution of votes to see which candidates have made inroads into the widest geographic swath. I filtered for Missouri zip codes.

This zip code data might the most valuable to candidates. I was not surprised to see Brunner and Hanaway represented in many zip codes. Two surprises were Asbury, whose geographic breadth of support is impressive, and Kinder, who might have been held down by his late announcement.

What this poll might demonstrate best is campaign sophistication and organization of social media. Randy Asbury wins this hands-down. Asbury used campaign websites, Twitter, and Facebook to encourage voting in the poll. Additionally, whether designed or not, his Tweets were timed for maximize impact and clickability. All other candidates have work to do if they’re to match Asbury’s lead in social media organization.

Thoughts #

** John Brunner and Eric Greitens might have been handicapped a bit because they are still in exploratory phase. That limited their ability to get out the vote, or so I assume. ** I expected Catherine Hanaway to perform better. Her campaign has been active the longest and has plenty of money. While Hennessy’s View might not be daily reading of her crew, I would have expected better organization through social media. ** I’m got going to name the candidate who received a lot of suspicious votes, because I have no way of knowing whether the campaign itself conducted the operation.

** As a marketing strategist, I get a thrill seeing responses to polls like these. The top line numbers are pretty much meaningless, especially a year out. But analytics they provide could be valuable.

If you’d like to delve into the raw data, I’ve made it available via Google Drive.

This week’s poll asks your degree of support for Donald Trump.

Approaching Excellence

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:34:54 +0000

Could it be?

Am I reading this right?

Has anyone ever surprised you with a wish? A wish that defied logic?

Yesterday, a friend wrote of his concerns about Eric Greitens, the Navy SEAL, humanitarian, Rhodes Scholar, charity founder, and former boxer who’s considering a run for Missouri Governor.

His concern began: “Most all GOP candidates proudly trumpet their positions . . . “

He was right, of course. Almost.

Almost all politicians trumpet positions—or, at least, platitudes that sound like positions. And not just Missouri Republicans, either. Democrats do it, too. And Libertarians and Green Party. They all shout quotes Jefferson never said. They all call themselves names that poll well.

Poll Positions

Last year at a St. Louis County Republican picnic, I heard about 30 candidates line up, one after another, and announce “I am a Constitutional Conservative.”

Every one of them said it. I heard “constitutional conservative” so many times, I was tempted to grab the microphone and tell the crowd, “I am a unconstitutional giraffe” just for variety’s sake.

Turns out, some Republican pollster had just conducted a survey of likely primary voters that found “constitutional conservative” was a phrase Republican voters liked.

So much for independent, serious thought.

Despite the fact that slugger Barry Bonds liked to tee off on inside fastballs, Hall of Famer Bob Gibson said he’d pitch Bonds nothing but inside fastballs. “I like chocolate ice cream,” Gibby told Bob Costas, “but I don’t want fifty gallons of it dumped on my head.”

I’ll bet the people who sat through that barrage of constitutional conservatism answered the next poll differently.

My friend was right, as I said. Most politicians all trumpet the same notes. But is that really what we want in our next governor?

**Ordinary Politicians **

If you expect Eric Greitens to be like all other Missouri Republican politicians, I’m afraid you’ll be sorely disappointed. Eric Greitens is anything but another typical politician. And if Missouri voters want more of the same, Greitens will struggle.

Ordinary politicians don’t know Seneca from Cato.

Ordinary politicians never made it through BUD/S.

Ordinary politicians never worked with Mother Teresa or with homeless, addicted teens in Bolivia.

Ordinary politicians don’t turn down eight-figure jobs in finance to sleep on air mattresses while starting a charity for veterans.

Ordinary politicians don’t write 60,000 words worth of letters to one friend to help that friend through crisis.

Ordinary politicians don’t start their day with pull-ups wearing a weight vest to increase the difficulty.

If you thought Eric Greitens would follow the Missouri GOP playbook for statewide candidates, you don’t know anything about Eric Greitens.

Some Won’t Want to Hear

Eric Greitens is a candidate unlike any other. I’m not saying he is (or will be) the best. I’m saying he is cut from a different cloth. Or, more accurately, he cut himself from a different cloth.

Where ordinary politicians promise less work, Eric Greitens talks of a higher purpose.

Where ordinary politicians promise less pain, Eric Greitens admits suffering is part of life.

Where ordinary politicians trumpet their own greatness, Eric Greitens speaks of your untapped potential.

Where ordinary politicians tell us to blame others, Eric Greitens reminds us to look in the mirror.

Where ordinary politicians ask us to empower them, Eric Greitens admonishes us to strengthen ourselves.

Where ordinary politicians caution against risk, Eric Greitens leads us toward the road less travelled.

And while most GOP candidates mindlessly parrot stock phrases that poll well, Eric Greitens inspires with ageless wisdom of great philosophers.

Of course, Greitens will follow some of the formulas of our political process. He must. His positions will emerge on issues that a governor must execute.

But, for God’s sake, people, it’s April 2015, sixteen months until the primary. Ronald Reagan didn’t announce his candidacy for president until November 1979—two months before the Iowa caucuses.

Before you worry about Eric Greitens’ position on your pet issue, why not take some time to learn Greitens’ philosophy of life? Why not read Resilience to discover the thinking that makes Greitens who he is? And why not challenge ordinary politicians to document their fundamental beliefs the way Greitens has?

Issues and positions are transient, squishy things. What seems a life-or-death matter today becomes trivia the morning 19 men fly passenger planes into buildings. If a politician’s positions emerge from “truths” arrived at in yesterday’s opinion poll, the politician will surrender those positions at the first shift in sentiment.

What makes Eric Greitens different from all other Missouri Republicans is not his positions, but his mental foundation and the strength of the timbers that support his beliefs.

Approaching Excellence

I don’t mean to belittle anyone’s convictions or the issues and policies that grow from their convictions. But I do expect serious people to think more deeply about the men and women they support and elect than whether a candidate “has said what I want him to say?”

Anyone can read from an index card words we want to hear; leaders say from their hearts what needs to be said. More importantly, true leaders do what must be done.

Besides, if you don’t know a candidate’s character and heart, his positions are meaningless. If the candidate lacks the character and drive to execute his positions, it makes no difference what those positions are. The world won’t change.

If you want Missouri and her people to flourish in ways we never have, don’t vote for a politician who does what all politicians do.

If you want to live in a society that dances at the outer edges of excellence, as Eric Greitens might describe it, you will have to put aside childish wants and elect leaders who live at the outer edges of excellence themselves.

Ordinary is not what Eric Greitens promises. But what’s wrong with excellence?

Thoughts on Boston Marathon Bombing

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:01:25 +0000

. . . What Your Definition of Terrorism Is #

I heard a lot of people giving their opinions of what constitutes “terrorism.” Here’s the United States Code:

Definitions … the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

Let’s stick with that one. To be terrorism, all of these five elements must be present. You can use it as a checklist:

	Premeditated
	Politically Motivated
	Violent
	Perpetrated against noncombatant targets
	By subnational groups or clandestine agents

Two bombs don’t make it terrorism, and no bombs don’t mean it’s not.

The Real Tragedy Was Apparently in Hollywood #

With everybody focusing on the victims in Boston, few took time to pray for the other victims. I’m speaking, of course, of the B-List celebrities compelled to inform the world via Twitter how the events in Boston ruined their days.

It’s nice of the pretty people to acknowledge terrible events. It would be nicer, though, if they could do so without begging for sympathy over how bad they feel.

I’m not talking about all celebrities. Some, like Ben Affleck, focused on the people of Boston, mentioning himself only in the context of conveying love to the people back home.

It’s difficult to know what to say, but “this really screwed up my day” just doesn’t feel right.

I See Good People. They’re Everywhere #

As always, the positive stories trump the negative ones. I don’t know how many people were involved in perpetrating this evil, but already 11 12 acts of selfless heroics have hit the news. Hundreds of Bostonians opened their homes to anyone who needs them, for instance.

People are good and can be trusted to do the right things when called upon. Some cannot, but they are few.

Seek out the stories of good. Read five positive stories for every negative you read.

Motives Matter #

Motives matter, as does logic.

Someone name Chance Tate tweeted

I am so ashamed that “Saudi” and “Muslim” are trending. You didn’t see “white” or “Christian” trending, after sandy hook.

The comment is logically flawed.

Recent history shows that Islam is a motive in many terrorist attacks, but no one claims that Adam Lanza’s motive was to kill the enemies of Christianity. Or whiteness. Lanza’s motive was apparently bat-shit craziness. So was Loughner’s. And James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado.

Motives matter, and the COEXIST bumper sticker on his Prius doesn’t absolve Mr. Tate of the need to think beyond his own prejudices. It’s people like him who encourage terrorists to kill and kill again.

In Search of Loyalty

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:08:25 +0000

Long

To what and whom do we owe loyalty, and how should we express it?

Generational historians William Strauss and Neil Howe describe a generation of “nomads” in their prophetic book The Fourth Turning.

“The 13th Generation (Nomad, born 1961-1981) survived a hurried childhood of divorce, latchkeys, open classrooms, devil-child movies, and a shift from G to R ratings. They came of age curtailing the earlier rise in youth crime and fall in test scores—yet heard themselves denounced as so wild and stupid as to put The Nation at Risk. As young adults, maneuvering through a sexual battlescape of AIDS and blighted courtship rituals, they date and marry cautiously.”

Howe, Neil; Strauss, William (2009-01-16). The Fourth Turning (Kindle Locations 2810-2812). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

While Strauss and Howe avoid the word “disloyal,” their description hints at a generation of individuals loyal almost exclusively to themselves.

“In jobs, they embrace risk and prefer free agency over loyal corporatism. From grunge to hip-hop, their splintery culture reveals a hardened edge. Politically, they lean toward pragmatism and nonaffiliation and would rather volunteer than vote. Widely criticized as Xers or slackers, they inhabit a Reality Bites economy of declining young-adult living standards [emphasis added].”

I am among the oldest of the current generation of “nomads” in America: Generation X. I bear many tell-tale signs of the generation sandwiched between the idealism of our Boomer brothers and sisters and the “get along” camaraderie of our Millennial children. I have seen loyalty from both sides, now, and the idea still confused me.

I think I recognize disloyalty when I see it, but I lack a ready touchstone for its opposite. Worse, I’m not sure that disloyalty is always wrong or loyalty always right. I stammer over cases where loyalties lie in opposition: a friend to principle; an allegiance to an organization. Politics compounds my confusion.

I believe that government which governs least governs best, that local government is a better guardian of our rights than distant government, and that government has no legitimate powers but for those expressly and narrowly delegated by the people.

Nothing new there. Problem is, others who would stand and lend full-throated, passionate support for the principles expressed in the last paragraph will disagree with me completely on any number of specific cases. When they do, they’re not being disengenuous, I don’t believe; they’re being loyal to the competing principle of pragmatism.

A development tax credit is one example. Credits involve providing private business with taxpayer funding to encourage economic development. Pragmatically, tax credits sound great. In practice, they destroy economies and communities while failing to return the promised benefit for the taxpayers' dollars. Tax credits boil the blood of small government people like me. Loyalty to my principles means fierce opposition to tax credits, always and everywhere (more or less).

Supporting credits are many politicians to whom I feel a very strong personal loyalty. They have defended me, my friends, and our cause with little hope of a political ROI for themselves. In some cases, their support for me risked years of bridge-building to particular communities of voters. In other words, they’ve helped me when I could do nothing for them.

So when personal loyalties conflict with principles, which should win? Before you answer, consider this.

To the Generation X nomads, loyalty may be of little value. We’re fierce individualists. But somewhere in our species and in our culture lies an appreciation for loyalty, not to principles, but to people. In fact, I think the concept of loyalty applies first to people, then to ideas. Loyalty buttresses trust, and without trust, no two people can work effectively for a higher purpose.

Loyalty to people, then, must be a noble principle itself. So how do we resolve the conflict between loyalty to people and loyalty to principle?

I think people can reach different answers. Xers might say that principles trump people because, without firm loyalty to principles, no one will ever know where we stand. Besides, people can forgive, but principles can’t. And true friends would never let you abandon your principles for them.

Millennials, and their GI Generation ancestors, would probably answer the opposite. When the chips are down, you need human allies, because principles can’t really protect you. Plus, loyalty to people lets you continue to champion your principles, but once you’ve cast aside friends over principle, there’s no going back.

So how do we choose between two candidates, one whose political principles mirror our own but has shown no personal loyalty, and another who sometimes strays from our strict political principles but has been a fierce and public defender?

I have played this moral dilemma both ways at different times, to be honest. Sometimes, I’ve risked friendships to advance a higher principle. Other times, I’ve let the principle of personal loyalty triumph. Neither choice felt completely right or completely wrong. I felt dissatisfied with both. I still do.

The best answer I can find, for now, provides no more satisfaction. I will try to be loyal to people and true to principle by broadening the field of principles involved. And I’ll try to be understanding of those who disagree. I’ll try to be honest with those who undoubtedly feel betrayed when people choose between competing loyalties.

The specific cases that inspired this post involve various primaries in Missouri. In several of the races, the candidates who have been great champions of causes important to me and to the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition are running against candidates whose approach to government more closely resembles our own.

Friends have taken strong positions on some of these races. Some demand fidelity to the most philosophically perfect candidate. Others demand loyalty to those who’ve stood by us. All the candidates are capable of winning the general election, so electability is no answer. I can’t just say, “I’ll vote Smitherton, since Applebaum doesn’t have a chance in November.” And none of the candidates is so far out of sync or so unscrupulous as to be disqualified.

I have weighed the possibility that past support for me and my friends resulted from a cold political calculation. I believe political calculation was involved sometimes, but in other cases, only a handful knew.

Still, I struggle between loyalty to ideological purity and loyalty to people who’ve proven loyal to me.

Why am I telling you this? Because I’d like to hear your thoughts about loyalty, people, and principles. Specifically, do you consider loyalty to people a principle?

 * [Do you consider yourself a loyal person?](https://jimmersgirl.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/do-you-consider-yourself-a-loyal-person/) (jimmersgirl.wordpress.com)
* [A Question Of Loyalty](https://johnscottstories.com/2012/01/23/a-question-of-loyalty/) (johnscottstories.com)

How Government Growth Creates Scrooges

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:45:00 +0000

Scrooge’s nephew left the office and let in two men in the process. They came to ask for a donation for London’s poor.

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

–_Dickens, Charles (2004-08-11). A Christmas Carol (pp. 5-6). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition. _

Liberals, of course, consider Scrooge the quintessential Republican. Scrooge cared only for himself. He was a miser. His miserliness made him miserable, bent, and twisted.

Of course, this liberal view of Scrooge lacks consideration. It misses the fundamental flaw in 19th century English government meddling.

Is Scrooge’s attitude so different from most American’s? Do we really take it upon ourselves to help those in need? Are we, as individuals or groups, trying to build a better society?

Or do we say, “let the government take care of it?”

Government largesse only encourages misers like Scrooge to remain miserly. The debtors’ prisons and Union workhouses lent Scrooge an easy out. “That’s what government’s for.”

The traditional American view of the good society differs wildly from Scrooges; the welfare state’s view does not.

When it comes to certain topics—sex, drugs, profanity, modest dress—we often hear, “you can’t legislate morality.” Why do we never hear that about charity? Isn’t welfare simply government’s attempt to force a moral viewpoint on society?

And doesn’t it fail as surely as attempts to dictate skirt-lengths or song lyrics?

Good societies result from good people. All legislation is moral, but legislation can’t change men’s hearts.

The After Party is St. Louis Tea Party’s attempt to repair the fabric of society—a fabric left to rot as we turned to government for solutions to problems that can and should be handled by local communities, charitable organizations, and states.

That’s not to say that government, at every level, must withdraw from charitable programs. Rather, the Constitution provides no authority to Washington. And local programs tend to trump distant ones precisely because the benefactor and beneficiary live, work, and worship together.

While the Tea Party is not a charity, it does have the tools to make stronger, healthier human bonds. These bonds give us all resources for handling tough times.

More importantly, these bonds encourage us to look at each other as human beings. And we’re more likely to help fellow human beings than we are to give up another tax dollar to a bureaucracy that loses and wastes more money than returns to the needy.

By the way, the two gentlemen soliciting donations said something you’ll never hear from a Washington bureaucrat. Did you catch it?

The GOP is to Public Relations What Evel Knievel Was to Motorcycle Safety

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:44:00 +0000

I live in a very hilly area. Yet I’m still alive. Explain that.

Maybe that’s why I’m a lower-case “r” republican and not an upper-case one.

Republicans seem to feel every hill is worth dying on.

What else could explain the House’s rejection of a silly payroll tax cut extension followed by a doubly-damaging capitulation?

By “silly,” I mean ill-advised, inconsequential, irrational, and fiscally irresponsible. The Senate’s two-month extension of the Social Security tax cut represents the worst of Washington.

And the GOP House just signed off on it, caving to pressure from the White House and media.

In the chess match of public relations, the extension was golden. The press trumpeted it as a victory for the little guy that only the most cynical, hateful bastards on earth could oppose.

The GOP could have eked out a tiny PR win by denouncing the Senate’s cynicism in passing a meaningless and destructive bill by lying to people about its benefits. Then quietly pass the stupid thing, and leave on Christmas break.

Instead, the House GOP stepped up to the microphone and announced, “Well, we are cynical, hateful bastards, and we’d be happy to oppose it!”

Having taken the black eye for opposing a tax cut for the little guy, the GOP could have shown some muscle by sticking it out. They could have said, “The Constitution places power to tax and spend with the House, Mr. President. You might be willing to compromise your principles, but we are not.”

Sure, the press would call them cynical, hateful bastards. But they’d at least be resolute, firm,and committed.

But they caved. The pressure got to be too much. Or Christmas spirit overwhelmed them.

One way or another, the House Republicans took a black eye and got nothing for it.

Yes, the Tea Party’s core principles are Constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. This extension fails the middle one.

But we have a much longer vision than two months. Our goal is to stop and reverse the illicit growth of government power, growth that requires fiscal irresponsibility,and power that consumes human freedom.

Our mission requires more than one election cycle. Dying on on this particular hill didn’t advance our fight—it set us back.

Moral of the story: win every battle you fight, but don’t fight any battle unless it’s a strategic necessity.

How to Kill the Tea Party

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 03:10:00 +0000

If the Tea Party—or ACORN or the Democratic National Committee or anyone or anything else, for that matter—stays in a perpetual state of heightened negative emotions nothing positive gets accomplished.

The gazelle that flees imaginary lions soon dies of exhaustion. As positive emotions researcher Barbara Frederickson puts it:

when extreme, prolonged, or contextually inappropriate, negative emotions can trigger a wide array of problems for individuals and for society.

Phobias develop out of unchecked fear.

Continuous negative emotions can lead to unhealthy stress levels and compromise the immune system in humans, according to psychologist Ann O’Leary in Psychological Bulletin (1990).

Too much negativity turns off society, too.

When man or beast trumpets his distress signal out of context or after danger has passed, the rest of the pack eventual turns against the noisemaker. We call such creatures “alarmists,” and it’s not a compliment. The boy who cried wolf wasn’t just ignored; he was despised.

The Power and the Glory

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:30:27 +0000

_**“For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeteers, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting."*

Gen. George C. Patton**_

In 2008, the world hailed Barack Obama. Even staunch conservatives voted for him. I know some. They deluded themselves, of course, but they voted for Barack Obama.

Today, his supporters politely heckled him in a back yard in Ohio.

The Tea Party has effectively seized the Republican Party. Glory is not yet ours. We need to find 38,000 new voters in the 3rd District alone.

And even then, glory is fleeting. Eyes will be on us. Not just the angry eyes of our enemies, but the hopeful eyes of the unemployed. The praying eyes of the disillusioned. The proud eyes of our believers.

Glory flees regardless of what we do, but we can move from triumph to triumph, seizing new glory and releasing the old.

We can also squeeze glory and feel it slide between our fingers and float away. That’s what Obama did. And Clinton in his first term.

All glory is fleeting. Letting go leaves your hands free to grab the next triumph.

Learn to let go and keep your eyes open.

The next chance to shine is every day between now and November 2. Come to 4512 Hampton Avenue, Monday through Saturday after 10 am.

Take Your Bill and Shove It, Mr. President

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:46:54 +0000

Missouri voters roundly rejected ObamaCare, all of its works, and all of its empty promises.

By an overwhelming, unmistakable 71 percent, we said to the Obama Regime, “Take this bill and shove it.”

The overwhelming passage was a slap in the face to the Missouri Hospital Association and to BJC President Steven Lipstein who spent nearly $500,000 trying to convince their employees that the hospital chain profits trump the Constitution. Pathetic worms.

To those who worked tirelessly, like Caroline Mueller, Ben Evans, Annette Read, Margaret Walker, Robin Weymire, Patrick Touhey, and dozens of others, we all owe a big thanks.

Thanks also to those who sweated through the hottest day of the year to man the polls yesterday in support of Prop C and conservative candidates.

Thanks to those who banged doors, hung signs, and walked miles for issues and candidates, including my sister, Mary, who’s been a few thousand homes in recent weeks.

Thanks to Ed Martin for letting my dad, a WWII and Korean War veteran, lead the Pledge of Allegiance at last night’s celebration.

Thanks to all of the candidates who stepped into the ring. Yes, people get emotional in campaigns. Yes, people violate Reagan’s 11th commandment. In the end, though, we must honor those who do take the plunge and stand for office. Someone has to—otherwise Basil Marceau would be governor of Tennessee. Or (yikes) Missouri.

On to November. If we want to repeal ObamaCare, we need to expel from every rubber stamp who voted for it, every rubber stamp’s sister who supports it, and every corporation that profits from it.

Let them all earn a living for a change.

Geek out on this

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 15 May 2010 05:10:25 +0000

You’ll be glad you did.

https://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf

This eighteen minute presentation synthesizes almost everything I believe about leadership and inspiration.

We own Why

We believe that God’s law trumps Man’s, and that the Constitution trumps Congress. And the President. And the courts. We believe that each one of us has the will and the capacity to dream our own dreams, live our own lives, and die our own noble deaths without government assistance or government contraints. We believe that our destiny is just that: ours.

And “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

We could use a man like John Fitzgerald Kennedy today. John Kennedy, who spoke of our “belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God,” would surely be proud that a Boston tradition of rebellion against despotism lives on today all across our country.

So ask yourself why you do what you do. Why do you believe what you believe. And tell the world why you do and believe as you do. The sound of freedom is irresistible: spread it far and wide.

Iraq Strategy: Vindicated

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:11:58 +0000

Last week, a colleague commented that he only put credence into international polls. As if the poll gods were listening, today ABC News released the most affirming poll for President Bush’s Iraq strategy ever conducted.

It must have pained the ABC News editors to write such a glowing headline:

Poll: Broad Optimism in Iraq

So pained, in fact, that they felt compelled to immediately qualify that statement:

But Also Deep Divisions Among Groups

And the story, on the front page of ABCNews.com, begins by exposing the MSM liberal bias:

Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high.

“Suprising,” indeed, if you’ve spent the past two years intentionally ignoring the good news in Iraq while willfully embellishing the bad and spinning everything in between.

The story is so full of suprises that the text reads like ABC has just discovered quantum mechanics:

Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

Surprisingly, given the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi civilians, more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good – up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it’s 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent – including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike – want Iraq to remain a unified country.

This was the classic “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago” poll. The answer among Iraqis is a resounding, “YES!”

Unlike the news filtered daily through the eyes of anti-American news editors, the Iraqis themselves, through this poll, had a chance to speak loudly and clearly to the world: Thank you, President Bush.

Expect most of the MSM–those who didn’t cough up a nickel for the survey–to ignore this. (For that matter, Time.com has nothing on the poll, and they helped pay for it.) The AP’s headline finds only negatives: “Most Iraqis Oppose US Troops, Poll Says.” This close to Christmas, the last thing the media want is good news for the President. But this poll can’t be ignored. The White House will trumpet it. The blogosphere will dissect it. Americans will heed it.

The final analysis, though, is too obvious to miss: President Bush’s Iraq policy is vindicated by the very people it sought to liberate. The Iraqi people are better off now than they were four years ago.

Others Posting on Iraq Vindication: K Lopez on The Corner Captain’s Quarters Keith D. Milby blog Kilo of Spark It Up! Media Lies tells the truth!

Christianity Headlines

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:23:29 +0000

Here’s what’s making news around the Christian world

* Chinese become Christians faster than you can say "In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancto" ([OrthodoxyToday](https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/index.php?p=1041))
* [Emily at AfterAbortion ](https://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/08/diarist-at-daily-kos-publishes-this.html)reports that Daily Kos is making anti-life hay because some pro-violence anti-abortionists protested outside an abortion clinic. When will the pro-life side realize that prayer trumps murder?

Updates coming . . .

Man, Curb Your Wife

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:57:08 +0000

There’s not much to say. Judges have determined, in logical order, the following:

A. Michael Schiavo is Terri Schiavo’s husband; therefore, B. Michael Schiavo is Terri’s legal guardian; therefore, C. Michael Schiavo’s desires trump laws of the state and of morality.

Florida law does not permit the execution of a person in Terri Schiavo’s condition. The judges (like Glenn Reynolds and James Joyner and others) are too cowardly to come out and say, “Look, people, the mentally ill make us kind of sick. Like Dwight Yoakam said in Sling Blade, ‘You know _re_tards and midgets make we physically ill, Linda. I ain’t sayin’ it’s right; it’s just the way I am.'” So the judges return to an earlier day when men were expected to discipline their wives.

Terri Schiavo had the poor judgement to lose signficant mental capacity. Obviously, that pissed off her husband. He’s simply exercising his rights as master of the house.

Why didn’t I see this before?

Seriously, this is a sad day for justice in America. The 14th Amendment no longer applies to the mentally ill.

Michelle Malkin, as usual, has more, including a link that diminishes hopes for an appeal.

Beth offers more convincing evidence that Terri could be fed orally, inceasing the possibility of federal murder charges against Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo should Terri die. Beth, the fountain of information that she is, also informs us that the Florida Senate is only three votes from saving Terri’s life:

We just need THREE state Senators to change their minds and vote with us to save Terri Schiavo

World Magazine: Blogstorm (Corrected Links)

bill@billhennessy.com (Bill Hennessy) — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:49:00 +0000

World Magazine visits the McCain-Feingold vs. Blogs story and quotes . . . me?

World Magazine | World News | Christian Views

Still, many conservatives are setting aside their dislike of liberal inconsistencies in hopes of allying against potential regulation. “Currently, the limits would hurt conservatives more than it would hurt liberals,” said conservative blogger Bill Hennessy, noting that more conservative blogs exist. “Ultimately, though, the pain is already even; stifling political speech hurts everyone.” Mr. Hennessy told WORLD that his hope lies not with the FEC leaving the internet alone but with an eventual Supreme Court ruling “that the First Amendment trumps McCain-Feingold.”

Having my name appear in the same article as Michelle Malkin’s and Ed Morrissey’s is an honor.

If you think blogs should be protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, please sign this online petition.

In a related story, Joe Gandelman examines the influence and popularity of blogs on Dean’s World.