- Who says we can’t ask questions
- Actually no one has ever accused us of being unquestioning or uncritical
From Paul Mirengoff at Power Line (excerpts)
WHY THE ACOSTA NOMINATION IS VERY BAD NEWS FOR CONSERVATIVES
When the left sinks a Trump appointee, or the appointee sinks himself, the left doesn’t necessarily win. The left wins only if the replacement is more appealing to it than the original guy.
Unfortunately, Alex Acosta, the replacement for Andrew Puzder at the Department of Labor, is vastly more appealing to the left than Puzder was. The Acosta selection represents a win for the left and a defeat for conservatives.
At first blush, this might seem an odd assertion. Acosta was a law clerk for the excellent Justice (then Judge) Alito. He was associated with two great conservative organizations — the Federalist Society and the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He has the endorsement of Sen. Cruz, with whom he attended Harvard law School.
At the same time, though, Acosta has been praised by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka and by several large unions. Of Acosta’s selection, Trumka gushed, “In one day, we’ve gone from a fast-food CEO who routinely violates labor law to a public servant with experience enforcing it.”
I put more weight in the reaction of the unionists than I do in Acosta’s conservative connections. Their enthusiasm is based on what Acosta did as a member of the National Labor Relations Board in the early 2000s. This seems more relevant than a clerkship years earlier, a friendship formed in law school, and organization memberships.
But the most relevant consideration is Acosta’s record in the Justice Department under President Bush, first as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division and then as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. Sources say his record is not conservative.
They say that during his time at DOJ, Acosta’s priority wasn’t the advancement of the administration’s policy goals. Rather, it was to stay on the good side of left-wing civil rights groups. . . .
Happy spin anyone? Commenting on Mirengoffs article are these two writers:
“FG · Brown University
Trumka’s statement of appoval may signal something that ought to make Democrats uneasy: Trump making tighter alliances with private sector unions. Earlier this week there was the photo op of Trump shaking hands with a bunch of hard-hatted miners at the White House. Before that there was his big meeting with union leaders that produced moderate praise from them. Trump may be trying to separate the private sector unions from the Democrats, or the union leaders may be giving a signal to the Democrats that the party should listen to them more. It will be interesting to see what develops between Trump and the unions.
“DS” · Northwestern University
You may have hit upon the answer. Union rank-and-file have a vested interest in border security, the rhetoric of their leaders to the contrary. This may indeed be part of a strategy to gain the support of the union membership and stop all of those union dues flowing to Democrats and their PACs. If Trump can divert even 25% of the millions of private-sector union dues that has been automatically flowing to Democrats, states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan might remain Red for the Senatorial races in 2018.
Cynical us kinda think less grand strategy and more somebody asked for nominations
From Front Page:
THE MCMASTER PICK: SCORE ONE FOR THE SWAMP?
NSA pick McMaster told the National Defense University that “the Islamic State is not Islamic.”
Could this be another troubling pick for Trump by the chief vetting officer, “Inspector Clouseau”?:
“If McMaster genuinely holds the view that the Islamic State is not Islamic, then he is a disastrous pick as National Security Adviser, and will continue the willful ignorance of the Obama administration, hamstringing efforts to understand, and counter effectively, the motives and goals of the enemy.”
DLH
