Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump’s huge home run speech

It’s not the best address to Congress ever, but going in Trump had the lowest expectations ever, which is why it’s a huge home run.

Trump the bozo was gone and tonight we saw Trump the President of the United States.

I describe the speech as Reaganesque. Yes, Reagan did it better, in some ways a lot better, and yes copying Reagan is not original, but Trump demonstrated gravitas and was better at the optimism stuff than he has ever been.

Trump spend a lot of time on immigration. Trump has not abandoned us.

Trump also made the case for nationalism and for putting Americans first.

I don’t understand what Trump really plans for Obamacare. There’s nothing here that wasn’t in his campaign speeches, but he said it in a more presidential manner.

Amazingly, even CNN is saying the speech was presidential, and not “dark” and “chaotic” and whatever other words they normally use to attack Trump.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 28, 2017 at 10:14 pm

Posted in Politics

35 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. NeoGaf was both offended by the speech and scared by it. They feel like this speech will appeal to middle of the road whites and they are “shook” as they like to say.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 28, 2017 at 10:18 pm

    • Cheer up.

      gothamette

      February 28, 2017 at 11:24 pm

      • Lion-
        This might be fake news. I apologize. I’ll look into it. We want to do a better job than the NY Times and admit when we make honest mistakes.

        gothamette

        February 28, 2017 at 11:48 pm

      • That’s seriously happy making news, purest karma. Good find Gothamette.

        roli

        March 1, 2017 at 5:09 am

      • @roli, Unfortunately it may be fake news. Unlike the MSM I care about spreading misinformation. I saw something about it on Conservative Treehouse, and checked around. I saw no confirmation online but did see the tweet and went with it. Then I checked out Reddit and someone pointed out that a tweet is confirmation of nothing and it might be fake news. Went back to the Treehouse and saw that their “story” also had no confirmation, just a picture of someone from the back, which is proof of nothing.

        So it might not be true. I hope it is, though. But we need to be relentlessly accurate. We are not The Washington Post. We have standards.

        gothamette

        March 1, 2017 at 10:40 am

      • Conservative treehouse is generally garbage. I don’t believe anything I see there. Learned that reading their coverage of Trayvon Martin

        Magnavox

        March 1, 2017 at 12:30 pm

      • Really? I didn’t read them then regularly, because they did the subject 24/7, but my impression was that they were pretty on it. What did they say that was factually wrong?

        I began checking it on and off during the Trump campaign. They were the first on the train and were steadfast throughout, but I’ve learned to take them w/a grain of salt.

        Again, sorry for the fake news.

        gothamette

        March 1, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      • Ouch. Meant to write, “subject 24/7, but my impression was that they were pretty factual on it. What did they say that was factually wrong?”

        gothamette

        March 1, 2017 at 4:42 pm

  2. “tonight we saw Trump the President of the United States.”

    Correction, you saw the God Emperor.

    jjbees

    February 28, 2017 at 10:19 pm

    • Not the God Emperor. Just an average successful guy trying to do what is right for his country. Lots of people would do what he is doing. I even know a few who would do a better job. While I feel bad that lots of people with hate in their heart say bad and slanderously untrue things about him, on the other hand, he has got lots of money and a nice family, so things balance out. Stop this “God Emperor” stuff right now. please.

      howitzer daniel

      February 28, 2017 at 11:39 pm

      • ” Just an average successful guy trying to do what is right for his country. Lots of people would do what he is doing. I even know a few who would do a better job.”

        OK, I agree w/you about the God Emperor stuff but don’t fall into the same trap of exaggerating. You do not know anyone who could have done what Trump did. If nothing else, the energy it took to crisscross this MASSIVE country and give speech after speech, would have been beyond the capacities of most people.

        Someone did a graphic of Trump’s campaign stops in MI, PA, and WI, compared with Hillary’s, and it was dizzying. Actually, I surprised at how many campaign stops the sick old lady did – but he did many more than she. She would have beaten any other Republican. She really didn’t run such a terrible campaign. He ran a great one.

        I’ve faulted Trump a lot. He still has yet to be tested in a real crisis. But the man has an amazing energy level. I get tired thinking about it.

        gothamette

        March 1, 2017 at 10:54 am

      • With the thoughts you'd be thinkin

        March 1, 2017 at 12:42 pm

      • gothamette – actually, I know two celebrities (one dead, one alive – neither of whom would remember me well -particularly the one who passed away, for obvious reasons – but I am not a celebrity and definitely am not rich or powerful, and no celebrity remembers everyone that knows him) – who could have done what Trump did, given either (a) the head start of being a billionaire or even just (b) the average head start that the other 16 Republicans had (in other words, taking Santorum as the average of the 16, if those guys had had just the breaks in life that Santorum had, and no more, they would be where Trump is now, or doing even better.) I also know two or three non-celebrities with Trump-level resources of energy. I know a lot of people, gothamette, and I meant what I said. Thanks, though, for paying attention to what I wrote! I appreciate constructive criticism from someone who has carefully read what I said, and you had no way of knowing that, actually, I was not bloviating!

        howitzer daniel

        March 2, 2017 at 12:12 am

      • @howitzer daniel —

        Not convincing. Europe has numerous countries and most of them have had nationalist movements for decades. Even in countries with electorates that are much whiter. In all those places, none of the nationalist candidates ever managed to pull off a win.

        Perhaps you could argue that there is Orban in Hungary but he sort of evolved into a nationalist while in office.

        Remember that Trump was attacked by the entire Republican establishment. The leaders of the party of the last several decades, the both presidents Bush, and nominees McCain and Romney, all attacked him hard. Romney’s savaging was especially memorable, and he was sort of the default leader of the party at the time.

        The ‘Hitler’ rhetorical weapon and the ‘racist’ rhetorical weapon, the two worst weapons in American politics were used until they became dull from overuse and Trump battled on.

        There were no big terrorists attacks in the 2nd half of the year.
        The economy was solid. Unemployment was actually very low.
        Demographics were becoming less favorable.
        Hillary was actually pretty popular before Trump went to work on her.
        The first woman president! The victory of history!
        Almost the whole of the media was against Trump. Indeed much of conservative media was against him.

        Even in October tons of establishmentarians were pushing him to drop out.

        The question isn’t simply whether a Republican could win saying harmless platitudes and being photogenic. Could someone remake the entire platform and overcome total opposition from both parties?

        Dan

        March 2, 2017 at 11:28 am

      • Dan – thanks for reading my comment. I will throw the question back at you – say you are a guy like Bannon or Miller and you want to find a guy to do all those things that you say are so hard to do. First you look to the billionaires – a newer version of Ross Perot, but not messed up in the head (which is what they did, and they found Trump – actually, he found them, but this is a question about hypotheticals, not a lesson in the facts of recent history). Say there are no billionaires like him for guys like Bannon or Miller to find (back to my hypothetical – in the real world, of course, not a single one of the people in Trump’s financial echelon would have done as well) you go to the centimillionaires or, like some guys you probably have never heard of did in the 70s, you go to the herd of celebrities (which is where they found Reagan). Do you really think there are no centimillionaires or mere highly popular celebrities reading Ann Coulter’s tweets every day and reading Steve Sailer’s citizenship rhetoric every night, and spending a couple hours a month on the phone with a lawyer who is a Scalia fan? (That short description of Trump’s recent political education ends the question part of my comment). Now, in the real world, Trump was looking for this, so he is not, unlike the last several presidents who were pretty much manipulated by the people who encouraged them to run, a puppet in any sense of the word. (Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon were not puppets. All the rest from the lifetime of anyone younger than 70 were.) Good for him. But being a billionaire who does not want to be a puppet is not that unusual. America is not about to run out of people with potential as great as Trump’s (and don’t forget, if poor little Hillary’s people were not so incredibly stupid as to wait until Trump had won the Republican nomination to release all their negative trove – because they stupidly thought they could easily have beaten him and not as easily have beaten Rubio or Cruz or even Kasich (who would have been the Republican Carter, but worse) – then Trump would not have won. He was lucky in the extreme ineptness of the Hillary machine.

        howitzer daniel

        March 2, 2017 at 11:27 pm

  3. Why didn’t you add your comments onto the previous thread? People will now skip all the comments on it.

    ttgy

    February 28, 2017 at 10:20 pm

  4. I’d invested all my play money today. I think I’m gonna be good tommorow. Trump is a miracle, and I don’t say this lightly.

    Yakov

    February 28, 2017 at 10:27 pm

    • Nice overnight trade of 2% profit. Thank you, President Trump! You are the best! America loves you! (and Russia too).

      Yakov

      March 1, 2017 at 1:47 pm

  5. I think the Dems not applauding a patriotic speech will play poorly.

    David Pinsen

    February 28, 2017 at 10:54 pm

    • I doubt it. Plenty of stupid liberals, blacks, ‘spanics, gay freaks, college morons, etc… will see that as “truth against power” shite. And remember, the NYT is down, but they’re not out.

      Vincent

      February 28, 2017 at 11:19 pm

  6. Even Van Jones appears to have thought Trump was presidential.

    Observer

    February 28, 2017 at 10:55 pm

    • That may be. However, I can’t stand the repetition of this fact. It doesn’t work for conservatives, as is implied. What it does is serve to cement Van Jone’s validation as important in the political sphere. The effect is slight either way, but I believe the effect, nevertheless, is counterproductive. Minority communists, however celebrated by the opposing team, should not be validated.

      Mike

      March 1, 2017 at 12:42 pm

  7. Have to say I’m shocked at how positively the media is reacting to Trump’s speech. NeoGaf is double triggered, first by the speech and 2nd by the media praise.

    Lefties on Twitter clearly concerned about the speech. One Lefty pointed out that what Trump did was double down on the anti immigrant stuff, but in a more measured and Presidential tone. That is a winning combination.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 28, 2017 at 11:10 pm

  8. Comment from NeoGaf explains the importance of Trump’s speech:

    “It was certainly a successful speech for his “I like white nationalism, but not quite ready to be an unapologetic Nazi” voter subgroup. Friends and acquaintances that had previously been almost immediately humbled and embarrassed for their Trump vote are now bending over backwards to grade him on a curve over how “presidential” this address was.”

    This is exactly what we needed.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 28, 2017 at 11:28 pm

    • Trump is a master of the push pull technique.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      March 1, 2017 at 12:37 am

  9. The speech was beautifully executed. And let’s face it, he is not above wielding emotional manipulation to great effect. I’m not saying it wasn’t genuine — it obviously is and this is a major part of his appeal — but it’s a skill that he uses better than past (recent) Republicans, and even the Dems (whose cynicism imbues it with a high degree of toxicity).

    SWPL2

    March 1, 2017 at 9:40 am

    • I didn’t watch the speech, but I heard parts of it on the radio and was impressed by how well-spoken Trump was. That goes double, actually, because the liberal station I was listening to was highlighting the parts they thought showed him at his worst.

      When he wants to be, when he practices and doesn’t speak off the cuff, Trump can possess great dignity and presence. He was better than Obama, who spoke with a sing-songy rhythm and what came off as forced earnestness when he wanted to make a point.

      Richard

      March 1, 2017 at 10:46 am

  10. For Democrats it’s mourning in America.

    Mark Caplan

    March 1, 2017 at 11:01 am

  11. After the train wreck of a news conference, this speech gave Trump a chance to show that he could play the role of president, at least for an hour or so.

    There were a couple of times in the speech when Democrats booed or catcalled. Trump did not get distracted by this and stayed on his speech. Normally this would have gotten a reaction from Trump that would have pulled him off message. He must have been coached to just ignore this.

    Trump should get credit for also denounced the wave of anti-semantic and anti-immigrant threats and violence.

    A lot of pundits describe this as a more optimistic speech. I just didn’t really see that. Trump turned down the political rhetoric a bit to make the speech seem more presidential, but it was filled with his dark vision of America as a desolate, crime ridden waste land.

    The speech was riddled with incorrect and highly misleading claims, but everyone seems to be so use to Trump’s lies that these hardly need mentioning any more.

    One example: Yes there are 94 million Americans who are out of the work force, but this counts every American 16 years of age and older who does not have a job as out of the labor force. Forty percent of the 94 million are over 65+ and probably retired. Twelve percent are 19 or younger and mostly in school. Many people are in school now until age 22 or 23. This number also includes non-working mothers. The labor participation rate has come down from around 67% in the 1990s to 63% now. This decrease is in large part caused by retirement of the baby boom generation. The labor force participation rate was 59% in the 1950s. What is wrong with 63% labor force participation rate? Does Trump want more children working instead of going to school? Does Trump want to force baby boomers to keep working instead of retiring? Does Trump want to force mothers to work even if they want to take care of their families and can afford to do so?

    Trump and other Republicans have been using this 94 million Americans not work statistic as if it is some problem, but what is the problem?

    Mike CA

    March 1, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    • “Trump should get credit for also denounced the wave of anti-semantic and anti-immigrant threats and violence.”

      There is no such “wave.” That is a hysterical exaggeration. There are a handful of isolated incidents, some of them fake.

      “After the train wreck of a news conference”

      That was the greatest press conference ever, and treated the press with the disdain and contempt they have earned. It was a long time coming, and we finally had a Republican with the cojones to do what needed doing.

      “it was filled with his dark vision of America as a desolate, crime ridden waste land.”

      You’re ridiculous.

      peterike

      March 1, 2017 at 2:54 pm

    • Waning interest in your shilling, MikeCA. Your handlers aren’t getting their money’s worth. Time to pack it up, big guy.

      JohnnySixpack

      March 1, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    • Trump’s press conferences are magnificent. And they’re really starting to affect the average liberal because they see the success he is having in delegtimizing his enemies (and America’s enemies) in the lugenpresse. They are scared. Good.

      Andrew E.

      March 1, 2017 at 7:06 pm

  12. Good article on Vox about how hard it is now for Democrats to lie to white voters and pretend that they don’t hate them: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14776216/democratic-response-trump-spanish

    Article by the same author about how Trump is continuing to advance his plans for the the destruction of the entirety of the immigrant community, not just illegal immigrants: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/merit-based-immigration

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 1, 2017 at 3:32 pm

  13. It’s interesting that Gallup and Ras have been converging over the last week. I had previously accused Gallup of being rigged while NeoGaf was saying the same for Ras. Today Gallup has Trump at 43 amongst adults and Ras has Trump at 50 amongst likely 2018 voters. Before the 2014 midterms, Gallup had Obama at 41 amongst Adults and Ras had Obama at 46 amongst 2014 likely voters, so this isn’t just a case of Ras being biased towards Republicans, it seems Gallup has an issue with systematically underestimating Presidential approval in some cases.

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 1, 2017 at 5:45 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: