President Trump version 1 seemed to have cared a lot about what the press was saying. But after losing 2020 Trump might have secretly read "In Trump We Trust!" or even Adios again, and finally realized he actually had to do what he had said he was going to do. So far I am amazed & pleased how much he is doing at least with long list of EOs.
I am an Ann Coulter groupie since late 1990s . I voted for DJT in ‘16 (with reservations) because Ann convinced me he would stop illegal immigration, build a wall, deport criminal illegals, and stop all immigration from Muslim terror-sponsoring countries. Lower taxes? Who cares..abortion? I’m a 100% NO here, but we don’t have time right now to fight about Democrats murdering their own babies… God will handle them someday…War for some country who most Americans could not find on a map? NO..
EVERYTHING that makes the United States is riding on Trump’s ability to deport 20 million illegal invaders. If we don’t do this, nothing else will matter in 5 years…
I remember President Trump's juvenile response to Coulter's valid criticism of his failure to address illegal immigration. Trump called her a "whacky nut job." Always Trumpers laughably claimed the woman who wrote "E Pluribus Awesome: In Trump We Trust," suffered from TDS.
Hopefully, this time around Trump will get more done on the immigration issue.
In fairness to the WSJ, it has criticized both Dems and Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility. Eliminating taxes on Social Security, overtime, and tips might play well with the money-for-nothing crowd, but it will worsen the fiscal situation. Here's the progress President Trump made on reducing the deficit when the unemployment rate hit 3.5% pre-pandemic thanks to Trump's supply side policies---> <--
Trump said he'd balance the budget but that it might take two terms. After I bag Sasquatch while hunting, I'll believe that.
Excellent points- I think the train left the station on fiscal responsibility in 2001. It was like they proved they could quit drinking under Gingrich and then when 9/11 happened decided to go on a 25-year bipartisan bender (that continues). I am not even hearing anything about workable approaches to any of these things. Trotting out the chart showing how much the government was funded by tariffs is insane. Yes, the government in 1908 was almost totally funded by tariffs. It was 100 times smaller and there was no income tax. It is completely unworkable to eliminate the taxation on tips. Everyone will be paid in tips if that was the case. But one could allow people a deduction tied to ordinary income. Say tip income that is equal or less than an amount up to 5% (pick a number) of gross non tip wages maybe deducted. It would force people to be paid a proportionate amount in regular wages in order to not have to pay taxes on tips. So if someone made $40,000 in wages, they could deduct $2000 in tips. But I don't even hear anything like this.
the 'problem' with your point of view is that it comes from the point of view that all money belongs to the government and whatever they decide to tax below 100% is acceptable because government needs its money.
The point of tariff and no income tax was to keep government spending within the bounds of what could be raised to fund it.
No I understand that and I don't believe that but I do believe if one wants Social Security and Medicare and everything else, one is going to have to pay for it one way or the other (or borrow until you are Argentina). And clearly none of that is going away and Trump has no intention of eliminating 75% of the federal government and all those programs he promised to keep (and make even better) and returning us to government that could just rely on tariffs to fund a small peacetime military, a few other modest endeavors, and no social programs.
Anyone who utters the term 'supply side' should at least have passing familiarity with what that means.
In the heat of the 70s inflationary period, when the WSJ editorial page was at the forefront of economic debate, a prominent Keynesian economist (Herb Stein, I believe) tried to smear the Journal's preference for classical economics by saying that support for those ideas consisted of "perhaps two" people to whom he referred as "supply side fiscalists" (Jude Wanniski, the Journal's associate editor of the editorial page, and Art Laffer, Wanniski's mentor).
WSJ editorial page editor Robert Bartley wrote in his book that 'Wanniski audaciously appropriated the smear and changed the name; Supply Side Economics it was.'
Reagan, of course, knew all about classical economics, having learned his at Eureka College before the Keynesian onslaught, and so when Wanniski and Laffer started bringing their ideas to him during the campaign, they were surprised to learn that Reagan already knew the stuff.
The Laffer Curve is described as being concerned with gov't revenue; at 0% tax the gov't receives 0 income and at 100% it receives 0 income. However, a more accurate / honest description is that the curve concerns itself with production, given that Laffer was a fan of JB Say, author of Say's Law, which states that 'all production is consumed.'
Keynesians (demand siders) concerned themselves with how to stimulate demand, which is to say how could GOVERNMENT stimulate demand (how, after all, could individuals be encouraged to demand things they could not afford or things that had not yet been produced?).
Private sector production was never their concern. As far as monetary policy was concerned, Keynes' only remarks were to the effect of inflation is good because people will spend their money -- stimulating demand -- before it loses value.
How COULD government stimulate demand? By spending.
Given that Supply Side Economics is most closely aligned (maligned?) with the Reagan era, it is necessary to mention that the Reagan policy mix consisted of loose fiscal policy (lower taxes) AND tight monetary policy, which was gauged by a price rule (vs gold), advocated most notably by Robert Mundell and quickly agreed with by Laffer, Wanniski, Bartley and the rest of the upstart supply siders whose op eds filled the Journal's editorial pages.
The monetarists of the day -- led by Friedman -- had their shot in the early days of the Reagan Administration, but their attempts to hit monetary quantity targets met with failure because how can you target short term interest rates at the same time as targeting long term interest rates?
Not to mention the implosion of the Keynesian universe with the collapse of the Phillips Curve, which posited that the cure for inflation is a bit more unemployment and vice versa. The Carter years provided high inflation AND high unemployment.
The market started to notice that Volker seemed to be basing monetary policy on the price of gold......which began to decline from its then-record level of $850 an ounce. A price rule was being put into place.
Bartley wrote in his book about a prominent bank economist who said, "I used to be a monetarist."
The original intent of the Reaganites was to implement Kemp-Roth immediately, but Democrat and squishy Republican worries about the deficit that they insisted would result from the tax reduction pushed back the full implementation of Kemp Roth until Nov of 82. So, during the period between Reagan's inauguration and the arrival of the tax cuts -- a period in which Volker delivered all of the monetary tightness which was not offset by fiscal looseness -- the economy suffered through the recession of 81-82.
Bartley wrote in his book, "as 1982 drew to a merciful close, both sides of the Michael 1 prescription [the aforementioned policy mix combination of low taxes and tight money] were finally coming into place. The Seven Fat Years started in November."
With this brief history in mind, one cannot in any way even suggest that Trump's first term had anything to do with supply side economics. The tax cuts did indeed increase revenue (as predicted), as they did with the Bush II tax cuts, but government spending also went through the roof, absorbing all the increased revenue while also running up gigantic deficits / stimulating demand.
There is much blame to go around for $2500 gold, trillion dollar deficits and a $35 trillion national debt, but none of it can be laid at the feet of supply side economics.
I have more than a "passing familiarity" with the phrase "supply side economics" as well as the other topics to which you alluded. I used it in the contemporary sense that reducing tax RATES can/might have, net, a beneficial impact on the economy. It was President Kennedy who asserted "a rising tide lifts all boats" as he supported stimulating the economy via lower tax rates. It was it was candidate George H.W. Bush who called Reagan's proposals "voodoo economics."
Why no mention of the increase in the national debt under Reagan?
Those advocating for tax cuts who use the phrase often claim the cuts will "pay for themselves." They often do not.
Admittedly, there could have been some policy other than reducing tax rates. e.g. reducing regulation, that explained the unemployment rate hitting 3.5% pre-pandemic under Trump, a rate many economists thought could not be achieved without inflation taking off.
Regarding Keynesian economics, it should surprise no one familiar with Public Choice theory why neither Republicans nor Democrats ever get around to running surpluses to reduce the previously accumulated debt.
WSJ conservatism was enacted by, and is associted with, the George W Bush administration. How did that work out?
School choice is losing issue. People pay high house prices and property taxes and commute long distances so their kids can attend a safe and "good" school. Their house values largely depend on the quality of their schools. And the WSJ and libertarian Republicans want to flood their schools with not safe and not good students. It is crazy.
Oh!!!!!! This comment just totally changed my perspective. I get it now. Wow. Needless to say, I feel really stupid right now. I cant believe I didn't see this.
Could someone please tell the WSJ we have more important things to worry about than Warren Buffett screwing Lupe the maid out of a raise. Here is a breakdown of how much each individual cost the government based on race during the course of a lifetime the government nets 220,000 dollars from the average white person a Latino person costs 588,000 a black costs a staggering 751,000$ . The numbers for Illegals is almost certainly far worse they are almost all none white . Take a wild guess who having most of the kids. These numbers are from the IRS & the census bureau. Hardly right wing fanatics
I was not a fan of Trumps brashness …voted for him 3 times. You don’t reach Billionaire status unless you learn from your mistakes. I think he is new and improved.
But unlike Trump's first term when just like now, both the Senate and House were under GOP control, he has to get something accomplished in law on immigration and what specifically are the rules. For example, a useful clause in such a law might be that voting at the local, state and federal level can only be done by US citizens. Another clause might be that only US Citizens can participate in US government programs like federal housing, public education, college tuition benefits, compensation, etc. Let's have legal immigration be the norm, not caravans marching through Mexico right through to our borders.
Now that the Biden Presidency is in the rear view mirror, I am wondering if I somehow missed the entire campaign in 2020. I don't recall Biden establishing open borders as a campaign theme. Yet, from his actions from the morning of Jan 20, 2021 to this past Monday morning at 11:59, , it clearly was his administrations top priority. So much so that they denied it was happening for three years while they were airlifting these people all over the country late at night, then finally admitted it in year 4. Maybe if candidates would campaign on their actual priorities we'd be electing Presidents who reflect the will of the majority of citizens.
I doubt imprisonment of the employers was contemplated, but I do curtailing employment of illegal immigrants was the overall goal of many of the forms new employees must complete when starting a new job. One problem with enforcement by employers is the idea that they would know someone's immigration status in the hiring process. I think many current rules are designed to not disclose that. For example, even with enrolling a child in a public school in my state - no questions are asked at all about citizenship or status of the child or the parents. I think the same things happen in the workplace. It's like no one wants to ask for fear of an honest answer.
Believe it or not Biden raised his hand at the debates when asked if illegals should get free healthcare. He also said to expect a border "surge" once he was President.
Even pledging free healthcare doesn't indicate that the plan was to just look the other way as millions of people were given access and then facilitating those people to go anywhere they wanted with support from the government. I appreciate your comment, but I don't remember Biden saying this - although he certainly could have. It certainly was not given the priority by the candidates or the media coverage that befitted the importance of this policy to his administration.
Supporting open borders is now the most unpopular political stance in America. Good!
I smiled when I heard that Vivek Ramaswarmy was fired on his day off. If a person hates America (as he let us know on Twitter last month), that person damn well shouldn't be representing us in our government! Pushing H-1B visas is as much a problem as illegal immigration. It is anti-American to import cheaper (not better) foreign labor and steal jobs for American citizens.
Mass deportation of illegal immigrants will be the single largest display of morality that I have seen in my lifetime. God bless America!
The lead evangelical Bible thumper and phony, Ralph Reed, was quoted in Sunday's New York Times as an elder statesman giving advice to the new Trump administration.
Ralph's advice?
What one would expect from a living Trojan Horse:
Abandon all talk ot restricting immigration and deporting illegals.
You see, Reed says such talk alienates "moderates" and will undermine Trump.
Amen as usual. First, the Journal is lazily living in the past. I loved Ronald Reagan. I organized a Republican Primary in my third-grade class so I could vote for him (beat Bush 9-2). The teachers thought holding only a D primary was good enough. That was 45 years ago. WWII ended 80 years ago. It is the lazy R version of the D's calling everyone Hitler to invoke WWII and Reagan. Putin can't even take Ukraine, he is not going unleash 50 divisions through the Fulda Gap back in time to 1979 and occupy Western Europe. Also, Reagan got hoodwinked on amnesty. Second, as Ann often reminds and I concur, Republicans did not lose because they didn't suck up to illegals enough, they lost because they sucked up too much. People think GWB had such low approval when he left office because of the war but it was really because of "VP Lindsay Graham" and the gang of 14 pushing amnesty on his behalf. Third, while school choice is appealing, let's be honest, its biggest proponents are rich people who want their property taxes back so don't have to spend as much on junior's private school. It doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, it just doesn't have the appeal and sort of fits into to the failed "this is how we'll get more black votes" gameplan developed when Jack Kemp was still alive (perhaps as far back when he was playing football!). Finally, ditto on "free" trade. It would be great if it existed but what we have today is trade designed to rebuild countries decimated in WWII. Great, it worked, now they are screwing us so let's hit them up with some tariffs to level the playing field and bring them to the table.
President Trump version 1 seemed to have cared a lot about what the press was saying. But after losing 2020 Trump might have secretly read "In Trump We Trust!" or even Adios again, and finally realized he actually had to do what he had said he was going to do. So far I am amazed & pleased how much he is doing at least with long list of EOs.
Great work as always, Ann! Keep crushing it! Never stop talking about immigration.
I am an Ann Coulter groupie since late 1990s . I voted for DJT in ‘16 (with reservations) because Ann convinced me he would stop illegal immigration, build a wall, deport criminal illegals, and stop all immigration from Muslim terror-sponsoring countries. Lower taxes? Who cares..abortion? I’m a 100% NO here, but we don’t have time right now to fight about Democrats murdering their own babies… God will handle them someday…War for some country who most Americans could not find on a map? NO..
EVERYTHING that makes the United States is riding on Trump’s ability to deport 20 million illegal invaders. If we don’t do this, nothing else will matter in 5 years…
you misspelled 60 million (or more)
We have to make sure the administration doesn't back off and only deport criminals leaving over 90% here. A big challenge. We must keep the heat on.
I remember President Trump's juvenile response to Coulter's valid criticism of his failure to address illegal immigration. Trump called her a "whacky nut job." Always Trumpers laughably claimed the woman who wrote "E Pluribus Awesome: In Trump We Trust," suffered from TDS.
Hopefully, this time around Trump will get more done on the immigration issue.
In fairness to the WSJ, it has criticized both Dems and Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility. Eliminating taxes on Social Security, overtime, and tips might play well with the money-for-nothing crowd, but it will worsen the fiscal situation. Here's the progress President Trump made on reducing the deficit when the unemployment rate hit 3.5% pre-pandemic thanks to Trump's supply side policies---> <--
Trump said he'd balance the budget but that it might take two terms. After I bag Sasquatch while hunting, I'll believe that.
Excellent points- I think the train left the station on fiscal responsibility in 2001. It was like they proved they could quit drinking under Gingrich and then when 9/11 happened decided to go on a 25-year bipartisan bender (that continues). I am not even hearing anything about workable approaches to any of these things. Trotting out the chart showing how much the government was funded by tariffs is insane. Yes, the government in 1908 was almost totally funded by tariffs. It was 100 times smaller and there was no income tax. It is completely unworkable to eliminate the taxation on tips. Everyone will be paid in tips if that was the case. But one could allow people a deduction tied to ordinary income. Say tip income that is equal or less than an amount up to 5% (pick a number) of gross non tip wages maybe deducted. It would force people to be paid a proportionate amount in regular wages in order to not have to pay taxes on tips. So if someone made $40,000 in wages, they could deduct $2000 in tips. But I don't even hear anything like this.
the 'problem' with your point of view is that it comes from the point of view that all money belongs to the government and whatever they decide to tax below 100% is acceptable because government needs its money.
The point of tariff and no income tax was to keep government spending within the bounds of what could be raised to fund it.
No I understand that and I don't believe that but I do believe if one wants Social Security and Medicare and everything else, one is going to have to pay for it one way or the other (or borrow until you are Argentina). And clearly none of that is going away and Trump has no intention of eliminating 75% of the federal government and all those programs he promised to keep (and make even better) and returning us to government that could just rely on tariffs to fund a small peacetime military, a few other modest endeavors, and no social programs.
"thanks to Trump's supply side policies"
Anyone who utters the term 'supply side' should at least have passing familiarity with what that means.
In the heat of the 70s inflationary period, when the WSJ editorial page was at the forefront of economic debate, a prominent Keynesian economist (Herb Stein, I believe) tried to smear the Journal's preference for classical economics by saying that support for those ideas consisted of "perhaps two" people to whom he referred as "supply side fiscalists" (Jude Wanniski, the Journal's associate editor of the editorial page, and Art Laffer, Wanniski's mentor).
WSJ editorial page editor Robert Bartley wrote in his book that 'Wanniski audaciously appropriated the smear and changed the name; Supply Side Economics it was.'
Reagan, of course, knew all about classical economics, having learned his at Eureka College before the Keynesian onslaught, and so when Wanniski and Laffer started bringing their ideas to him during the campaign, they were surprised to learn that Reagan already knew the stuff.
The Laffer Curve is described as being concerned with gov't revenue; at 0% tax the gov't receives 0 income and at 100% it receives 0 income. However, a more accurate / honest description is that the curve concerns itself with production, given that Laffer was a fan of JB Say, author of Say's Law, which states that 'all production is consumed.'
Keynesians (demand siders) concerned themselves with how to stimulate demand, which is to say how could GOVERNMENT stimulate demand (how, after all, could individuals be encouraged to demand things they could not afford or things that had not yet been produced?).
Private sector production was never their concern. As far as monetary policy was concerned, Keynes' only remarks were to the effect of inflation is good because people will spend their money -- stimulating demand -- before it loses value.
How COULD government stimulate demand? By spending.
Given that Supply Side Economics is most closely aligned (maligned?) with the Reagan era, it is necessary to mention that the Reagan policy mix consisted of loose fiscal policy (lower taxes) AND tight monetary policy, which was gauged by a price rule (vs gold), advocated most notably by Robert Mundell and quickly agreed with by Laffer, Wanniski, Bartley and the rest of the upstart supply siders whose op eds filled the Journal's editorial pages.
The monetarists of the day -- led by Friedman -- had their shot in the early days of the Reagan Administration, but their attempts to hit monetary quantity targets met with failure because how can you target short term interest rates at the same time as targeting long term interest rates?
Not to mention the implosion of the Keynesian universe with the collapse of the Phillips Curve, which posited that the cure for inflation is a bit more unemployment and vice versa. The Carter years provided high inflation AND high unemployment.
The market started to notice that Volker seemed to be basing monetary policy on the price of gold......which began to decline from its then-record level of $850 an ounce. A price rule was being put into place.
Bartley wrote in his book about a prominent bank economist who said, "I used to be a monetarist."
The original intent of the Reaganites was to implement Kemp-Roth immediately, but Democrat and squishy Republican worries about the deficit that they insisted would result from the tax reduction pushed back the full implementation of Kemp Roth until Nov of 82. So, during the period between Reagan's inauguration and the arrival of the tax cuts -- a period in which Volker delivered all of the monetary tightness which was not offset by fiscal looseness -- the economy suffered through the recession of 81-82.
Bartley wrote in his book, "as 1982 drew to a merciful close, both sides of the Michael 1 prescription [the aforementioned policy mix combination of low taxes and tight money] were finally coming into place. The Seven Fat Years started in November."
With this brief history in mind, one cannot in any way even suggest that Trump's first term had anything to do with supply side economics. The tax cuts did indeed increase revenue (as predicted), as they did with the Bush II tax cuts, but government spending also went through the roof, absorbing all the increased revenue while also running up gigantic deficits / stimulating demand.
There is much blame to go around for $2500 gold, trillion dollar deficits and a $35 trillion national debt, but none of it can be laid at the feet of supply side economics.
That is all.
Thank you for your detailed response.
I have more than a "passing familiarity" with the phrase "supply side economics" as well as the other topics to which you alluded. I used it in the contemporary sense that reducing tax RATES can/might have, net, a beneficial impact on the economy. It was President Kennedy who asserted "a rising tide lifts all boats" as he supported stimulating the economy via lower tax rates. It was it was candidate George H.W. Bush who called Reagan's proposals "voodoo economics."
Why no mention of the increase in the national debt under Reagan?
Those advocating for tax cuts who use the phrase often claim the cuts will "pay for themselves." They often do not.
Admittedly, there could have been some policy other than reducing tax rates. e.g. reducing regulation, that explained the unemployment rate hitting 3.5% pre-pandemic under Trump, a rate many economists thought could not be achieved without inflation taking off.
Regarding Keynesian economics, it should surprise no one familiar with Public Choice theory why neither Republicans nor Democrats ever get around to running surpluses to reduce the previously accumulated debt.
WSJ conservatism was enacted by, and is associted with, the George W Bush administration. How did that work out?
School choice is losing issue. People pay high house prices and property taxes and commute long distances so their kids can attend a safe and "good" school. Their house values largely depend on the quality of their schools. And the WSJ and libertarian Republicans want to flood their schools with not safe and not good students. It is crazy.
Oh!!!!!! This comment just totally changed my perspective. I get it now. Wow. Needless to say, I feel really stupid right now. I cant believe I didn't see this.
Could someone please tell the WSJ we have more important things to worry about than Warren Buffett screwing Lupe the maid out of a raise. Here is a breakdown of how much each individual cost the government based on race during the course of a lifetime the government nets 220,000 dollars from the average white person a Latino person costs 588,000 a black costs a staggering 751,000$ . The numbers for Illegals is almost certainly far worse they are almost all none white . Take a wild guess who having most of the kids. These numbers are from the IRS & the census bureau. Hardly right wing fanatics
I was not a fan of Trumps brashness …voted for him 3 times. You don’t reach Billionaire status unless you learn from your mistakes. I think he is new and improved.
The breathtaking Ann Coulter on The Mark Simone Show - (1-22-2025)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lkkodgRbalw
Glad you wrote about the WSJ today. I am a longtime subscriber but have been consistently disappointed in the publication for a while now.
BTW, DeSantis has been really strong on actually doing something about illegal immigration in Florida.
I haven't read the Journal in probably 20 years, but through the 90s I read it (more accurately, I read the op ed pages) every day.
Robert Bartley's writing -- Peggy Noonan referred to it as "elegant" -- was a joy to read.
But unlike Trump's first term when just like now, both the Senate and House were under GOP control, he has to get something accomplished in law on immigration and what specifically are the rules. For example, a useful clause in such a law might be that voting at the local, state and federal level can only be done by US citizens. Another clause might be that only US Citizens can participate in US government programs like federal housing, public education, college tuition benefits, compensation, etc. Let's have legal immigration be the norm, not caravans marching through Mexico right through to our borders.
Now that the Biden Presidency is in the rear view mirror, I am wondering if I somehow missed the entire campaign in 2020. I don't recall Biden establishing open borders as a campaign theme. Yet, from his actions from the morning of Jan 20, 2021 to this past Monday morning at 11:59, , it clearly was his administrations top priority. So much so that they denied it was happening for three years while they were airlifting these people all over the country late at night, then finally admitted it in year 4. Maybe if candidates would campaign on their actual priorities we'd be electing Presidents who reflect the will of the majority of citizens.
one rule that might work would be to charge, try and imprison anyone caught employing illegal aliens.
I doubt imprisonment of the employers was contemplated, but I do curtailing employment of illegal immigrants was the overall goal of many of the forms new employees must complete when starting a new job. One problem with enforcement by employers is the idea that they would know someone's immigration status in the hiring process. I think many current rules are designed to not disclose that. For example, even with enrolling a child in a public school in my state - no questions are asked at all about citizenship or status of the child or the parents. I think the same things happen in the workplace. It's like no one wants to ask for fear of an honest answer.
Believe it or not Biden raised his hand at the debates when asked if illegals should get free healthcare. He also said to expect a border "surge" once he was President.
Even pledging free healthcare doesn't indicate that the plan was to just look the other way as millions of people were given access and then facilitating those people to go anywhere they wanted with support from the government. I appreciate your comment, but I don't remember Biden saying this - although he certainly could have. It certainly was not given the priority by the candidates or the media coverage that befitted the importance of this policy to his administration.
You're certainly correct that the press did not make a big deal about it. They wanted him elected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwLYMPLYbo
Supporting open borders is now the most unpopular political stance in America. Good!
I smiled when I heard that Vivek Ramaswarmy was fired on his day off. If a person hates America (as he let us know on Twitter last month), that person damn well shouldn't be representing us in our government! Pushing H-1B visas is as much a problem as illegal immigration. It is anti-American to import cheaper (not better) foreign labor and steal jobs for American citizens.
Mass deportation of illegal immigrants will be the single largest display of morality that I have seen in my lifetime. God bless America!
I'm glad abortion wasn't legal in 1952, or I might not have been around for President Trump's first or second term.
#BlindSinceBirth
That's hilarious. Ann, I'm jonesing here for another book. Whatcha got in the hopper?
The lead evangelical Bible thumper and phony, Ralph Reed, was quoted in Sunday's New York Times as an elder statesman giving advice to the new Trump administration.
Ralph's advice?
What one would expect from a living Trojan Horse:
Abandon all talk ot restricting immigration and deporting illegals.
You see, Reed says such talk alienates "moderates" and will undermine Trump.
Amen as usual. First, the Journal is lazily living in the past. I loved Ronald Reagan. I organized a Republican Primary in my third-grade class so I could vote for him (beat Bush 9-2). The teachers thought holding only a D primary was good enough. That was 45 years ago. WWII ended 80 years ago. It is the lazy R version of the D's calling everyone Hitler to invoke WWII and Reagan. Putin can't even take Ukraine, he is not going unleash 50 divisions through the Fulda Gap back in time to 1979 and occupy Western Europe. Also, Reagan got hoodwinked on amnesty. Second, as Ann often reminds and I concur, Republicans did not lose because they didn't suck up to illegals enough, they lost because they sucked up too much. People think GWB had such low approval when he left office because of the war but it was really because of "VP Lindsay Graham" and the gang of 14 pushing amnesty on his behalf. Third, while school choice is appealing, let's be honest, its biggest proponents are rich people who want their property taxes back so don't have to spend as much on junior's private school. It doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, it just doesn't have the appeal and sort of fits into to the failed "this is how we'll get more black votes" gameplan developed when Jack Kemp was still alive (perhaps as far back when he was playing football!). Finally, ditto on "free" trade. It would be great if it existed but what we have today is trade designed to rebuild countries decimated in WWII. Great, it worked, now they are screwing us so let's hit them up with some tariffs to level the playing field and bring them to the table.