Washington D.C. moonbats are riding for a fall

I'm watching the ongoing reaction of the moonbats to President-elect Trump's victory with growing bemusement.  I can't believe that they're so naive as to be riding for a fall . . . but that appears to be precisely what they're doing.  Let me cite just three examples.


1.  Mr. Trump tweeted this morning about the Chinese seizure of a US hydrographic survey drone.  In his tweet, he used the word 'unpresidented' - but swiftly changed it to the correct spelling.  He was promptly mocked and ridiculed for his 'spelling mistake' . . . but doesn't everybody have problems with autocorrect?  Isn't it entirely likely that he didn't, in fact, misspell it, but simply spoke his tweet into his cellphone's microphone, only to have it 'corrected' by software?  The rapid correction of the tweet suggests that, but such a simple explanation appears to have completely escaped his critics.  No, he can't spell!  This is disaster!  He's provoking China and opening himself to ridicule at the same time!

Some people should get a life.  A single misspelling isn't the end of the world.  Besides, when you look at the lack of strong leadership from President Obama over our relationship with China - during the past eight years, not just concerning this drone - perhaps 'unpresidented' wasn't such a bad choice of words after all.


2.  Headline in the Washington Post:  'Trump needs to get over his victory'.  Here's an excerpt.

President-elect Donald Trump needs to heal, not revel. That is, he must work on healing the divided country he is about to lead, not continue to revel in his victory with a round of thank-you rallies.

. . .

Crybaby, the Trump supporters will tweet. He won, get over it. But the president-elect is the one who seems to be having a hard time getting over it, or rising above, or inhabiting the responsibility — the majesty — of his new role.

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won,” a newly sworn-in President Obama said eight years ago. So I accept: Trump won, Hillary Clinton lost. That has consequences for personnel and policy.

But the manner of winning and the scope of victory also have consequences ... Even by Trump math, he will preside over a deeply divided country. Half its citizens, or more, are worried about what a Trump presidency augurs. They doubt that he has the temperament or experience for the job. It is Trump’s responsibility to reassure and reach out to them. It is his duty to consider — not summarily reject — evidence that Russia may have intervened on his behalf.

This is the sixth presidential transition I have witnessed, beginning with Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the mood of the city is like no other. “Anxious” does not begin to convey the profound sense of worry.

There's more at the link.

Personally, I don't see any need for Mr. Trump to 'get over his victory'.  If he did precisely what the author of that article wants, and pulled in his horns, and 'made nice' with the establishment, that same establishment would take that as a sign of weakness and criticize him all the more.  There is no truth in the establishment.  It sees only its own need and desire for power, and is flailing around in panic at the thought that its hold on power may be weakened by a Trump presidency.  It will do literally anything to stop that.  The article above is just one example of its propaganda campaign.

Mr. Trump won.  His supporters are, rightfully, very happy about that.  I was not and am not a Trump disciple, yet I see nothing wrong with them joining him in celebrating that victory.  It's their right.  Are we to believe that if the election had gone the other way, Hillary's supporters would not be celebrating just as hard - if not harder - and rubbing the noses of the rest of the country in her election?  Of course they would!

Sour grapes don't become the news media . . . but it seems that's their predominant diet these days.


3.  The Department of Energy is riding for a fall.  The Trump transition team asked a number of pointed questions, including the names of those who'd taken part in international climate talks, and the programs that DoE regards as essential to meet President Obama's Climate Action Plan.  In its response - delivered via the press rather than directly, which was not a good start to its relationship with its future Chief Executive - the DoE said:  "We will be forthcoming with all publically-available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team."  (Bold text is in the original.)

First off, who does this spokesman think he is?  He's talking to the future President!  Mr. Trump has the right to ask any questions he wishes of any executive department, because he's going to be heading all of them!  Once he takes office, he will doubtless ask the same questions again - and any refusal to provide the answers he requires, in full and without dissembling, will be nothing less than insubordination and disobedience.  Those actions have consequences, and I trust they will be forthcoming at once and in full measure.  (There's also the point that if you behave as if you have something to hide, you probably do . . . which will elicit further questions and investigations, to find out what it is.)

Second, this is playing into the hands of a future Trump administration.  If the DoE fails to provide the names it's been asked for, there's no reason for the next administration to approve or fund any trips by any DoE staffers to any international climate talks, because obviously none of those staffers had any role important enough to warrant identifying them.  Similarly, if the DoE fails to provide a list of programs it considers "essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan", then the Trump administration will be fully justified in discontinuing, modifying, reorienting, or otherwise adapting any programs it pleases, without any fear that they may or may not impact the former President's policies and plans.  After all, it's just been told - and saying nothing is, in fact, saying a great deal under these circumstances - that there are no such programs!

Bureaucratic resistance to a President who's run a multi-billion-dollar business is stupidity personified.  Mr. Trump is noted for his frequent use (on TV) of the phrase "You're fired!"  Civil service bureaucrats have erected complex procedures to protect their work from political interference, and to safeguard their own positions during any clash with a political administration.  However, that won't prevent Mr. Trump from simply not funding vital programs, or reassigning work to more compliant bureaucrats, or sidelining those whose obstructionism causes difficulties for his administration.  Congress can vote all the funds it wants for a given program, but if he fails to spend them, that program is going nowhere:  and Congress is the legislative, not the executive branch, so it can't arrogate to itself executive privileges and legislate how he must do his job.  That would be unconstitutional.

There are many ways of skinning a cat, and Mr. Trump probably knows quite a few of them.  I wouldn't be surprised if the team he's assembling knows a lot more.  What's more, I'm sure his transition team knows full well how their counterparts in a Clinton administration would have been treated if the election had had a different outcome.  They're going to expect and require to be treated with the same respect and co-operation.  If they don't receive it . . . well, two can play at that game.  Elections do, indeed, have consequences.  I suspect the DoE - and other Washington departments - are going to be reminded of that, come January 20th.

Peter