Grading President Trump's First Fifty Days

Ever since FDR’s famous (or infamous) “First Hundred Days”, filled with the rapid implementation of dozens of new government programs in response to the Great Depression, the first three months in office for a new president has been seen as critical for setting the tone of the rest of his tenure. The Daily Signal has a good recap of the major actions President Trump has taken so far here, as well as comparing them to his promises on the campaign trail.

Overall, if I were a Trump voter who agreed with every one of his campaign promises, I would be enormously pleased with the record so far. As it is, I am, quite frankly, surprised that Trump has shown as much commitment as he has to fulfilling campaign pledges. As I said many times during the campaign, one of my major issues with Trump was that he simply hadn’t given voters any reason to believe that he would actually follow through on many of his more conservative proposals—securing the border, for instance, or pushing to defund Planned Parenthood—based on his history.

But in areas of policy, Trump has actually stayed remarkably consistent. And, he has actually surrounded himself with many good people—Jeff Sessions and Betsy DeVos, to name two—despite the mocking of that particular claim by myself and others during the campaign.

Of course, he’s had some missteps and done things I disagree with, some quite strongly—embracing Obamacare Lite being only the latest example. And his Twitter feed is another matter entirely.

But on the substance, I would have to give Trump a solid B for his first fifty days in office. May his presidency have many more such days, without the missteps (both overblown and real) which have plagued the administration thus far.

Cory Booker Will Testify Against Jeff Sessions In An "Unprecedented" Move. I Wonder Why.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) has announced that he will testify against Jeff Sessions’ nomination as Attorney General. Per CNN, this will be the first time in history that a sitting U.S. Senator will openly campaign against another senator for a Cabinet position in such a manner.

Booker’s reasoning is really not very hard to figure out. Before the new president is even inaugurated, he hopes to begin positioning himself for 2020, establishing credibility with base Democratic voters for opposing Trump early on—and reminding those already pining for a third Obama term that there is another young, African American, first-term senator ready to fight for liberal causes.

This on the heels of a New York Times story speculating about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s own plans for 2020. Trump won’t be inaugurated for another ten days, and already the sharks have begun to circle.

The question is how much blood will actually be in the water in four years. Democrats have almost uniformly convinced themselves that Trump’s victory was a fluke, and that anyone not named Hillary Clinton should be able to beat him in a landslide. Both Booker and Cuomo are, therefore, laying the groundwork early, catering to every Democratic interest group they can think of. Both likely figure that if they can just sew up the nomination, the presidency will be theirs.

But if so, both underestimate Donald Trump at their peril. I say this as someone who opposed Trump throughout the primary and general election, but I will never completely discount him again, no matter how heavily the odds are stacked against him. After all, who could have expected, on that Saturday after the Access Hollywood tape was leaked, and party loyalists were abandoning him in droves, that he would go on to win the presidency a month later?

It is pure stupidity to attempt to predict the results of the 2020 election from four years out, especially after 2016. Trump could lose in a landslide. He could win in a landslide. But the point is that Cory Booker is playing a dangerous game if he thinks that orchestrating a Ted Kennedy-style smear campaign against Trump’s Cabinet nominees will give him the inside track to the White House. Will liberals in New York and Los Angeles love him for it? For sure. Will blue-collar workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Probably not so much.

Trump's Cabinet: The Christmas Gift That Keeps On Giving

Trump’s Cabinet is almost complete, with only the nominations for Secretaries of Agriculture and Veteran’s Affairs, as of this writing, left to announce. And what a Cabinet it’s shaping up to be.

My original intention was to write something every time Trump announced a new Cabinet nomination, discussing the good and the bad, but this quickly became unrealistic for one primary reason—there are just so many good choices that people would quickly get tired of me repeating lines about how great they all were. And I would get tired of repeating them. But now, near the end of the process, seems an opportune time to say: This is one great Cabinet.

Jeff Sessions at the Justice Department. Rick Perry at Energy. Mike Pompeo at the CIA. Nikki Haley at the U.N., and Betsy DeVos at Education. Mick Mulvaney as OMB head. This is the sort of Cabinet I would have expected from a Cruz or Rubio administration, but I never dared hope for even one of these picks from Donald Trump, the man who says Planned Parenthood does “wonderful things” and that “[he] alone can fix” America’s problems. (Well, Jeff Sessions was likely to get his choice of top jobs after his hearty support in the primary. But certainly not Perry, he who said Trump was a “cancer on conservatism”, or Haley, who implicitly criticized Trump in her State of the Union response and endorsed two of his primary opponents.)

To be sure, most of these appointments are going to be a double-edged sword for conservatives. With the exception of DeVos and Perry, many of Trump’s appointees will be leaving current elected offices, so while the Justice Department gains a leader dedicated to proper enforcement of the law, the Senate will lose a powerful voice for oversight and against the expansion of government. The U.S. will gain a strong, unapologetic voice on the world stage, but South Carolina will lose a talented, reforming governor. And the OMB will gain a dedicated fiscal hawk, but the U.S. House will lose one of the fiercest defenders of fiscal sanity and crusaders against wasteful spending. Not every new vacancy will be filled by someone as dedicated to conservative, constitutional ideals as their predecessor.

And not every Trump pick is equally good. Wilbur Ross as Commerce Secretary is troubling, and while Rex Tillerson may be a good man at heart, he should be opposed to lead the State Department. I haven’t failed to notice that the announcements of many of Trump’s worse picks have been paired with, or closely followed by, better ones (Tillerson for State and Perry for Energy were announced at about the same time, for example). It remains to be seen which members of the Cabinet Trump will value and listen to the most.

But overall, the incoming Cabinet will be much stronger in constitutional principle than anything I dared dream during the campaign, or on November 8^th. Well done, Mr. President-elect. And a very Merry Christmas to the Constitution.

If Trump Wants My Vote In 2020, He's Off To A Good Start

Coming on the heels of announcements regarding his picks for Attorney General, CIA director, and National Security Adviser (my analysis of these picks can be found here and here), Trump announced just before Thanksgiving that Nikki Haley would serve as UN ambassador—a post that would be considered Cabinet level in the Trump administration—while Betsy DeVos, a school choice and charter-school activist and former head of the Michigan Republican Party, would be Secretary of Education.

In short, I’m enthusiastic about both. Nikki Haley in particular, after two terms as governor of South Carolina, needs almost no introduction to conservatives across the country (although her Wikipedia page offers a good overview, if necessary). She’s been considered a rising star in the party for years, ever since her initial gubernatorial victory in 2010, and her criticisms of Trump throughout the campaign make it clear that she’s no blind Trump loyalist, one of the few solid arguments against the nominations of people like Jeff Sessions.

As a governor and former state legislator, she has little in the way of extensive foreign policy experience, something Senate Democrats will undoubtedly use against her come confirmation time. But she has led several important trade missions, has extensive knowledge of foreign policy concerns, and has proven herself to be both a quick study and a strong-willed individual who will stand up against America’s enemies at the United Nations—and is extremely likeable to boot. She should be easily confirmed.

DeVos I was unfamiliar with before word started leaking several days ago that Trump was considering her for Education Secretary, but as the reports on her nomination make clear, she has been a strong proponent for charter schools and school choice measures for years. About the only valid argument against her nomination from the Right is her past support for Common Core—although she has also declared that she now opposes it, and for now all we can do is wait to see what, if anything, new comes up in confirmation hearings to prove that isn’t so.

The other open question about DeVos is how committed she will be to ending the federal Department of Education, a long-held conservative dream that Trump occasionally spoke about on the campaign trail, but on which he has been silent since the election. That, presumably, is something else that will come up during her confirmation hearing if not before. In the meantime, the other points on her resume look strong, and prominent #NeverTrumper Bill Kristol didn’t hesitate to praise her selection.

Don’t get me wrong—Trump has said several things since the election to make me proud I voted for Evan McMullin, most recently his softening on climate change and the Paris climate agreement at a meeting with the New York Times. But as troubling as those statements are, they are, as of yet, only words. The only concrete actions Trump has yet taken have been his Cabinet choices, and so far they have been almost uniformly stellar.

He proved two weeks ago he didn’t need my vote to win, but it seems like he’s working hard to earn it for 2020.

The Man Who Broke The KKK In Alabama Is Now A Racist?

Since last week, when Jeff Sessions’ nomination for Attorney General was first officially announced, seemingly the only consistent arguments against him have been cries of racism. I addressed those claims briefly here, but now seems an appropriate time to dig more fully into the charges.

The evidence being presented of Sessions as a racist? That he allegedly made a demeaning remark about an African-American associate—which Sessions fiercely denied at the time, and does to this day—and that he has criticized the Voting Rights Act as "intrusive".

Incidentally, the Supreme Court would later implicitly side with Sessions on his assessment of the VRA when the justices struck down Section 4(b) of the law, rendering Section 5 inoperable. Those were the sections that allowed “preclearance”, giving the federal government power to review the voting laws of certain states in which Congress felt there was a significant history of racism. That issue, overall, is a discussion for another time, but by 2013, when Shelby Conty v. Holder was decided, the law was essentially punishing the citizens of several states for crimes committed by the fathers and grandfathers. (It should also be pointed out that the Court's sole black justice sided with the majority in that case.)

But back to Jeff Sessions. Among the evidence, by contrast that Sessions is not a racist: While a U.S. Attorney, he sought the death penalty for a KKK member convicted of murder. He assisted in the desegregation of Alabama schools. And in the Senate, he pushed legislation honoring Rosa Parks, and voted in favor of Eric Holder as Attorney General, a stance that seems odd in light of his other principled stands, but which make sense in context—Sessions has been generally deferential to presidential appointments, a reaction to his own unfair judicial confirmation hearing from decades ago. (The Weekly Standard has a much more thorough and well-researched breakdown of Sessions’ civil rights passed, at the above link.)

The more thoughtful critics—and there are a few—will instead accuse him of merely being a cronyist pick, reaping the rewards of being an early and enthusiastic Trump backer. But Sessions has served for years on the Senate Judiciary Committee; as Alabama Attorney General before that; and before that, nominated as both a U.S. Attorney and, later, federal judge, by Ronald Reagan. He is known in the Senate for both his principled stands and friendly relationships with members of both parties. His experience and knowledge of the issues he will face is unquestionable.

In the end, the argument that Jeff Sessions is a racist is being advanced by many of the same people who claim Barry Goldwater was a racist—despite the fact that Goldwater helped to found the Arizona state chapter of the NAACP. Ultimately, it boils down to a simple conceit, something of an open secret—many liberals, and liberal journalists in particular, believe that Southern white males must be at least a little racist at heart. A Republican who supports voter ID, whose given name is (as they keep pointing out) Jefferson Beauregard? That confirms it, evidence be damned, and the irony of judging based on names and heritage is lost on them.

May the rest of Trump's appointees be just as qualified, principled, and of strong moral character as Jeff Sessions.

Jeff Sessions for AG; Mike Pompeo for CIA Director; Mike Flynn for National Security Advisor

As I said yesterday, there are hopeful signs for conservatives coming from the Trump transition team, but we need hard actions to begin to feel more confident in a Trump administration. And today, we got that with three major administration announcements.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions will serve as Attorney General, Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo will be CIA director, and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn will be Trump’s National Security Advisor.

Sessions and Pompeo are both solid picks who should comfort #NeverTrump Republicans still concerned about the incoming Trump administration. Both have strong conservative voting records in Congress—Sessions has an 80% lifetime score from Heritage Action, while Pompeo has an 83% lifetime score—and moreover have a long history of aggressively promoting conservative positions on many of the issues over which they will now have direct jurisdiction in their new roles. Sessions has been a vocal critic of the Obama Justice Department in the Senate, defending voter ID laws and pushing for tougher border security when Trump was still singing the praises of Hillary Clinton and amnesty alike. Pompeo has likewise been a vocal critic of foes such as Iran, as well as the current administration’s attempted negotiations.

And I talk about both as if their Senate confirmation is all but sealed, because essentially it is. Both are members of Congress and are unquestionably qualified for the positions, which by itself will likely broad bipartisan consensus based on the principle of member courtesy. If a member is nominated for a post, be it a Cabinet pick or in the federal judiciary, they are almost always confirmed by an overwhelming margin.

Sessions especially is well-known and liked by members on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats may try to raise the questionable statements he has made in the past with regard to race, the Voting Rights Act, and the NAACP, but it will likely get little traction. Some of those statements are somewhat troubling, but were made decades ago and have been in the public record for just as long. Others are nonissues being whipped up by an angry and hurting Democratic base, itching for a fight. They are unlikely to get it with either Sessions or Pompeo.

And those Democrats who would vote against either are weakened by the fact that only 51 votes are required to confirm Cabinet-level appointees. A change from the historic 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster, a change made several years ago by one Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats, who forgot that no majority lasts forever. Expect a sudden outcry from the Left about the tyranny of the majority.

Michael Flynn’s position requires no Senate confirmation, and his appointment is less of a shining moment for conservatives. He has taken a much-needed hard stand against Islamic terrorism, to be sure, but he has also voiced praise and admiration for Vladimir Putin and Russia on several occasions, and his new position will be sure to reinforce the president-elect’s own tendencies in that regard. Regardless, his appointment to some high level office in the Trump administration was widely expected.

So overall, two pieces of good news, along with a split opinion. Not a bad way to start Cabinet announcements.