Sit down and STFU!

From Camped on the Right:

VP Joe Biden to Democrats: “It is Over”

Yesterday, January 6th, 2017, during a joint special session of Congress to certify the results of the Electoral College, the presiding official, (VP Joe Biden), was interrupted several times by House Democrats, and, at the end, by a few disgruntled snowflakes in the gallery.  In the video below, you will see Mr. Biden say, (to the laughter of attendees), It is Over, a distinct admission Democrats and their fawning Liberal Media should take to heart:

For those of you who would care to watch either the full version of the session, or a few brief one’s, I’ve provided these links:

Full video link  (34:00)

HIGHLIGHTS: 2017 Joint Session of Congress Vote Authenticates Donald Trump 45th President  (15:49)

Shorter Version of “It is Over”  (1:14)

The bottom line, President Elect Donald J. Trump received 304 electoral votes while Hillary Clinton ended up with 227 despite the out-of-order objections from the floor.  Not one “objector” could find one Democrat Senator to sign their petitions, which would have led to an actual discussion/debate.

Since November 8th, the Democrats, (in concert with the Main Stream Liberal Media, and with Hillary Clinton’s blessings), have mounted every “objection” in their playbooks to convince their constituents that the legitimacy of this election is in question.

From the immediate rioting in the streets, (rumored to be Soros-sponsored), to the embarrassing Jill Stein recounts, (that revealed wide-spread voter fraud on the part of the Democrat’s votes), and this last gasp of “Russian hacking/interference”, the Democratic Party has continuously rejected the results of a free and fair election—where no voting machines were compromised, and no voters were disenfranchised or prevented from going to the polls— yet, “the peaceful transition of power” has become a mockery of our Republic.

Prior to the election Mrs. Clinton said this:

“Failure to accept the election results is a direct threat to our democracy—Peaceful transfer of power is a must” ~ Hillary Rodham Clinton

After the election, in her concession speach, Mrs. Clinton said this:

“But I still believe in America, and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power.” ~ Hillary Rodham Clinton

Also, the day after the election, President Obama said this in the Rose Garden:

“The presidency, the vice presidency is bigger than any of us,” Obama said Wednesday. “We’re actually all on one team. We’re not Democrats first. We’re not Republicans first. We’re patriots first. We all want what’s best for this country.”

“We are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country” ~ President Barack Obama

It is NOW time for all Americans to heed these words from Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.  They must not ring hollow, or be taken as rhetorical political speech-making.  Every Presidential candidate and eventual winner, (or loser), has respected the peaceful transition of power as paramount to our Democratic Republic.  Enough is enough!

It’s Over!

I don’t recall Republicans acting this way when Democrats won the election. The last time anything similar happened was 2004, when the thankfully-now-retired Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) protested the acceptance of Ohio’s electoral votes.

Sore losers.

The December employment figures

As president, Trump will get sneak peek at jobs report

by Patrick Gillespie | January 5, 2017: 4:27 PM ET

President Obama has the privilege of getting a sneak preview of the U.S. jobs report every month, before it is released to the public.

On Thursday night, the president will get his last early peek. Starting next month, President-elect Donald Trump will start receiving the news the night before.

The monthly jobs report is considered one of the most important measures of the health of the economy. The critical information is kept under a tight seal, until it is released on the first Friday of every month.

It is hugely influential, in terms of its potential to affect the performance of the global financial markets.

The White House’s Council of Economic Advisers briefs the president on the jobs numbers the night before they are released. It’s standard procedure.

Well, of course: that’s so the President and his political team get a chance to figure out how to spin the numbers to their advantage.

I have stated previously that I find the U-6 numbers far more important than the ‘official’ U-3 figure. The pre-release economists’ guesstimates for November were for 181,000 new jobs, and U-3 unemployment unchanged at 4.9%. They got the new jobs number very close, at 178,000, but U-3 dropped to 4.6%. Why? Because 226,000 people dropped out of the workforce! U-3 is based on the number of people employed, plus the number of people out of work and actively searching for work. With 45,000 more people dropping out of the workforce than new jobs created, then yes, U-3 is going to drop.

U-6 is defined as “Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force,” with Marginally Attached being defined as “those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.” In other words, U-6 gives us a more complete picture of what the unemployment situation really is, and it would seem, from Heather Long’s article, that the public see the U-6 number as more realistic.

We noted, soon after the November unemployment figures were released, that it has only been since October of 2014 that the U-6 number was double, or more, of U-3. The worst month of the recession for unemployment, October of 2008, had U-3 at 10.0%, but U-6 stood at 17.1%, a horrible figure, but not close to double U-3. In the 25 months since October of 2014, U-6 has doubled U-3 eight times.

So, what will the official numbers show this morning? Will the economists’ guesstimates be close, or way off? Will the labor force grow, or will we see more and more people dropping out? The Wall Street Journal stated that:

Employers have added an average of 180,000 jobs a month through November, and economists expect to keep that pace through December. It would mark the lowest rate of job creation since 2012. In 2014 and 2015, employment had expanded at the fastest rate since 1999.


Economists expect the unemployment rate to tick up to 4.7% from 4.6% in November. Still, the expected rate would be the lowest level of unemployment to end a year since 2006. The historically low unemployment rate represents a tighter labor market and helps explain why employers have been slower to add jobs in the past year.

From The Wall Street Journal:

How Low Can the Unemployment Rate Go?

Already at a nine-year low, the 4.6% unemployment rate might head lower still

By Steven Russolillo | January 5, 2017 2:41 p.m. ET

One key question for the U.S. labor market this year: How low can the unemployment rate actually go?

The Labor Department defines unemployment as pertaining to anyone without a job who is actively looking for work. Not without its flaws, the unemployment rate essentially boils down the job market into a single number. At 4.6%, it is already at a nine-year low as the final monthly report of 2016 is set to come out Friday.

But the lower the unemployment rate gets, the further it goes into unfamiliar territory. The Labor Department’s monthly statistics, which date back to 1948, show that the unemployment rate has been at 4.6% or lower just one-quarter of the time. And the majority of those readings came in the 1940s, ‘50s and ‘60s.

If current labor trends persist, it is likely headed lower. The economy added 180,000 jobs a month, on average, in 2016, down from 229,000 in the prior year. Assuming the economy adds around 200,000 jobs a month in 2017 and the labor-force participation rate stays relatively constant, the unemployment rate would fall to 3.9% by the end of the year, according to a model maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

A little bit further down was what I saw as the money paragraph:

Of course, the headline unemployment rate alone doesn’t tell the full story. The economy is in a much different state now than it was in the late 1990s. Wage growth has only recently started to improve. Overall participation in the labor force is still historically low. And full-time jobs aren’t as plentiful as they used to be. New research shows a majority of jobs created from 2005 through 2015 were considered “alternative work”—either temporary or contract employment, according to economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University.

The truth is simple: the official U-3 unemployment numbers are so divorced from reality as to be worthless, if not completely bogus. The U-6 numbers tell the tale.


Update: U-3 came in at 4.7%, matching projections; U-6 dropped to 9.2%, just under doubling U-3. New jobs = 156,000, which is below projections.

Ford: bringing back American jobs, had outsourced fewer all along

Heather Long tweeted:

And now the story:

GM, Chrysler have more workers in Mexico than Ford

by Heather Long | @byHeatherLong | January 5, 2017: 11:55 AM ET

President-elect Donald Trump has a huge problem with American jobs going to Mexico, especially when it comes to car manufacturing.

His favorite target: Ford. Trump repeatedly slammed Ford (F) on the campaign trail for its “horrible” decision to invest billions in Mexico.

He has rarely mentioned its two other large competitors: GM and Chrysler. But among America’s “Big 3” auto companies, Ford actually has the fewest number of workers in Mexico.

Ford employs 8,800 people in Mexico, according to the company and data from the Mexican government.

Fiat Chrysler has 12,800 workers and GM (GM) has 15,000 in Mexico.

This week, Ford announced it had canceled plans to build a $1.6 billion new factory in Mexico and would instead create 700 new jobs in Michigan. CEO Mark Fields called it a “vote of confidence” in Trump’s economic vision for America.

There’s more at the link, and Miss Long acknowledged that General Motors might be the incoming President’s next target.

To me, Ford was simply the easiest target of opportunity, since it was the company which had announced the now-canceled plans to build a $1.6 billion plant south of the border. But if Mr Trump was aware of the statistics before he went after Ford, he might have thought that it was easier to go after the automaker with fewer employees in Mexico.

As for me, I note that it was Ford, alone among the ‘Big Three’ American automakers, who did not take the government bailout. As a result, though I am certainly not wealthy and do not buy new vehicles very often, I will only buy Fords.

Hold them accountable!

From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Newall: Between the porn and the PCP, plenty of signs parolee was headed for trouble

by Mike Newall, Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist | @MikeNewall | Updated: January 3, 2017 — 6:54 PM EST

The cocaine abuse and the porn addiction could have been enough to get Byron Allen pulled off the street. Then there were the drug-and-alcohol sessions that he missed and the therapy for his rage and sexual compulsion that he blew off.

And what to make of that unnerving time in life skills class when he unexpectedly stripped off his shirt.

Most recently, it was PCP – a positive test for the mind-altering drug, the same substance the 37-year-old Southwest Philadelphia man was on in 2002 when he pointed a sawed-off shotgun at police and got sent to prison in the first place.

But by September, Byron Allen was on parole. He’d been out a year, and nothing – not the troubling sexual behavior he first displayed in prison, which had caused officials to treat him as a sexual predator, nor the porn obsession and erratic behavior witnessed by parole staff shortly after his release, nor the consecutive positive results for cocaine around May and June, nor the skipped required treatments – made parole supervisors deem this man a threat.

The PCP left them with a decision to make. But agency supervisors did what they had done for months in the face of Allen’s increasingly troubling behavior: They let him walk free.

And a young Kensington woman nearly paid for it with her life.

There’s a lot more at the original. But when Mr Newall says, “a young Kensington woman nearly paid for it with her life,” that’s too mild a lead in: the esteemed Mr Allen has been charged with one murder, and is under investigation for two more, and is suspected in at least four sexual assaults. He had been sentenced to nine-to-nineteen years in the state penitentiary following a carjacking and gun battle with police in 2002, but was released in 2015; he should have still been in prison!

Mr Newall’s article continues to note the multiple failures of law enforcement in Mr Allen’s case, of a parole officer’s recommendation that Mr Allen be locked up being ignored by his supervisors, of recommendations to get him off the streets after his first failed drug test not being made, of attempts to lock him up after missing drug abuse treatments not being made. Mr Newall noted that “Parole policies do not mandate that drug violations alone require automatic re-incarceration,” which should obviously be changed.

Think about Mr Allen’s record.  He was convicted of robbery in 1996, and went to prison.  In 2002, already a convicted felon who was barred from possessing a firearm, he fired at three men with a shotgun while high on PCP, and, fleeing from that, engaged in a gun battle with police.  Now, he was missing drug treatment sessions.  Anyone with any common sense would have known that a man who had been willing to break the law by obtaining a weapon as a convicted felon, and who had used that weapon while high on drugs, wasn’t exactly a responsible citizen when he was caught high on drugs again.  No matter how much the law attempts to make it senseless to do the kinds of things Mr Allen was wont to do, when you have a man who’s f(ornicated) up on drugs, you cannot expect rational behavior from him.

But, the parole office did nothing.

Mr Newall noted the case of murdered police officer Moses Walker Jr in 2012, by a parolee released just ten days earlier, but that’s hardly the only example. Philadelphia Police Officer Charles Cassidy was killed in 2007, by a man who the police already knew was a drug criminal, who was living with his mother, a correctional officer who had a gun; he was free on bail, awaiting trial. The killers of officer Stephen Liczbinski and John Pawlowski should have been in jail at the time of the murders.

Of course, the individuals who took the decisions that left dangerous criminals out on the streets won’t be fired. The officials whose inaction led to the deaths of innocent people won’t be subject to lawsuits for their dereliction of duty. They are all protected, by law, from the consequences of their actions.

The best way to change the stupidity of officials who allow these cretins out is to make them accountable, to make them subject to being fired for such mistakes, to leave them open to being sued into penury for dereliction of duty that leaves citizens assaulted or injured or killed. Such decisions should be subject to charges of criminal negligence, leaving such officials in danger of going to prison themselves if they release violent, drug-addled felons back into society even a minute before their maximum sentences are completed.

The problems of treating criminals too leniently are not new; they’ve been plaguing Philadelphia for decades now. It’s time to hold officials accountable for their failures.

A strengthening of Western Civilization? In France? Sacré bleu!

From The Wall Street Journal:

François Fillon, Embracing His Catholicism, Challenges France’s Secular Tradition

Presidential contender taps conservative voters newly motivated by Christian heritage, spurred by social issues such as opposition to gay marriage and rising nationalism after Islamist terror attacks

By Stacy Meichtry and Francis X. Rocca | Updated January 3, 2017 2:37 p.m. ET

When French presidential contender François Fillon marked the Feast of the Assumption last summer, he attended Mass at Solesmes Abbey, a Benedictine monastery known for defying the anticlerical purges of the French Revolution. The trip, coming just weeks after the slaying of a Catholic priest in a terror attack, didn’t go unnoticed.

“He doesn’t hide the fact that he’s Catholic,” said Christophe Billan, head of Sens Commun, a grass-roots movement comprising thousands of French Catholics.

In France, the strict separation between personal faith and public life, known as laïcité, is a pillar of national identity. However, a confluence of events—from the legalization of gay marriage to the more recent string of Islamist terror attacks—has many conservative voters looking to the country’s Christian heritage as a bulwark.

Mr. Fillon’s candidacy is seizing on that impulse. In publicly embracing his faith, the 62-year-old is tapping a wellspring of Catholic voters who have begun coalescing into a potentially decisive voting bloc.

His performance during the country’s first-ever conservative primaries provided the clearest sign yet of the revived Catholic vote. After lagging behind rivals for weeks, Mr. Fillon spent the homestretch of the race debating opponent Alain Juppé over which of them stood closer to the teachings of Pope Francis—a development Le Monde described as “unprecedented.”

More than two-thirds of the people who voted in the primaries described themselves as Catholic in exit polls, and they helped hand Mr. Fillon a commanding victory. Pollster OpinionWay said 83% of Catholics who regularly attend Mass voted for Mr. Fillon and 68% of nonpracticing Catholics also backed him.

There’s a lot more at the original, but this is important: this is the kind of thing which will draw votes from the National Front party’s leader, Marine LePen; polls indicate that the probable second round contest will be between M Fillon and Mme LePen.

This can only be a good thing. If that is how the election plays out, France’s next President will either be a strongly conservative economic thinker, or a nationalist leader who will shake the foundations of the European Union with a possible French withdrawal from the euro and the European Union. Either candidate would stem the tide of Islamic immigration, though they’d go about it different ways.

Unemployment in France rose to 10.0% in the third quarter of 2016; like the United States, France only counts those people who are either working or actively looking for work in calculating the unemployment statistics, and there are roughly 1.5 million Frenchmen who would like to work but have given up looking for jobs. Allowing migration of people with few, if any, job and social skills which would enable them to get jobs, when France is already plagued with high unemployment, is sheer madness.

France, Germany and the Netherlands will all have national elections in 2017, and those elections will determine whether the European Union survives. We have already noted that the European Union is probably an unworkable idea, though maintaining the euro currency could still work. A more conservative Europe, with a greater appreciation for its Christian roots, can only strengthen European culture and Western civilization against the enemies who would subvert it.

Ford cancels Mexico plant; Ford stock jumps The incoming President is doing what he said he would do, even before he takes office

Darn it! I wish that I’d had more money to buy Ford when the stock was below $2.00!

Ford cancels Mexico plant. Will create 700 U.S. jobs in ‘vote of confidence’ in Trump

Ford is canceling plans to build a new plant in Mexico. It will invest $700 million in Michigan instead, creating 700 new U.S. jobs.

by Heather Long and Poppy Harlow | January 3, 2017: 11:18 AM ET

Ford (F) CEO Mark Fields said the investment is a “vote of confidence” in the pro-business environment president-elect Donald Trump is creating. However, he stressed Ford did not do any sort of special deal with Trump.

“We didn’t cut a deal with Trump. We did it for our business,” Fields told CNN’s Poppy Harlow in an exclusive interview Tuesday. He said Ford did speak with Trump and vice-president elect Mike Pence this morning.

The $700 million investment will go to the Flat Rock, Michigan plant to produce more electric and self-driving cars. Ford believes electric vehicles will outsell gasoline-powered vehicles within the next 15 years.

“I am thrilled that we have been able to secure additional UAW-Ford jobs for American workers,” said Jimmy Settles, United Auto Workers vice president.

Ford is planning to roll out seven new electric vehicles in the next five years, including a Mustang Hybrid.

There’s more at the original, and I would guess that the original will be updated.

In the video, Poppy Harlow points out that the incoming President “calls out”has pushed different companies — Ford, Carrier, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin — and those companies have pulled back from outsourcing plans, and there was some concern among some that this was a form of “crony capitalism,” and that these things led some to believe that there was some sort of deal-making involved. Mr Fields responded that there was no deal involved in this decision.

Miss Harlow continued on the crony capitalism theme, but I have to wonder: just how much are voters going to care about crony capitalism as long as it yields more jobs for American workers.

The video is below the fold, since I don’t want an autolaunch video on the main page. Continue reading ‘Ford cancels Mexico plant; Ford stock jumps The incoming President is doing what he said he would do, even before he takes office’ »

The Kill Zone

From CNN:

762 murders. 12 months. 1 American city.

By Amanda Wills, Sergio Hernandez and Marlena Baldacci, CNN | Updated 1:50 PM ET, Monday, January 2, 2017

Chicago MurdersThere was more than a 50% increase in murders in just one year. Chicago hit 500 homicides before the end of the summer in 2016. In 2015, the city had less than 500 homicides total.

Five police districts on the south and west sides of the city accounted for nearly two-thirds of the increase in murders, according to Chicago police.

The day-to-day breakdown of those figures is alarming. For example, there were 12 murders on Father’s Day weekend alone. The youngest victim was just 16.

And crime didn’t subside over the holidays. On Christmas weekend, 12 people were killed, and police investigated 27 shootings.

There’s a lot more at the original, including, as you’d suspect, an excuse given as to why the Windy City’s strict gun control laws have not stopped the carnage.

Me? I want to look at it from a different angle. In the entire war in Iraq, the United States lost 4,512 men and women killed; in the entire war in Afghanistan, which began in 2001, the same year as the statistics in the CNN graphic, we have lost 2,392 Americans killed. Added together, that was 6,904 Americans killed in those two wars.

From 2001 through 2016, there were 8,212 people murdered in Chicago.

Think about that: the great American city of Chicago has been deadlier than those two wars.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats on ‘Diversity’

The Wall Street Journal had a story this morning, New Congress Reflects Both Diversity of America and Difference Between Parties, which included numbers but missed the point.

The House of Representatives that takes the oath of office on Tuesday will include its first Indian-American woman. The Senate will have a record number of women, including its first Latina.

The new Congress reflects the diversity of America, but also the sharply different makeups of the two political parties. White men will account for 87% of House Republicans, the same as last session, but only 41% of House Democrats, a 2% drop from the prior Congress, according to figures compiled by the Cook Political Report.

The racial composition of each party’s congressional wing mirrors the voters who elected it: Some 87% of President-elect Donald Trump’s votes this year came from whites, compared with only 55% of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s votes.

The article continues, telling us about Latinas and Indian-Americans and women, but these three paragraphs seemed the most important to me:

New Republicans in Congress include several military veterans, including retired Marine Lt. Gen. Jack Bergman, of Michigan, and Brian Mast, a combat veteran from Florida. Mr. Mast lost both legs while serving in Afghanistan in 2010, when an improvised explosive device detonated beneath his feet.

The soon-to-be Florida lawmaker is of Mexican descent, but that isn’t a feature of his background that he used to connect with Hispanics during his campaign.

“If you’re picking any demographic that you want to see multiply, it would be the demographic of veterans,” he said. “When we’re on the battlefield we’re not looking at color or gender. I think that’s what you want in Congress.”

Mr Mast is of Mexican descent, but apparently that part didn’t matter to him, or at least not to his campaign. He campaigned as an American soldier, who served in combat in Afghanistan, losing both legs to an IED, but I could not find anything, anywhere on his campaign website, playing for votes by telling potential Hispanic voters that he was Hispanic himself. He campaigned for American political office as an American, period.

That is the kind of diversity the Republican Party needs. We may come from many different backgrounds, but, to me, either you are an American, or you are not.

€urosclerosis: Will the populist surge in Europe spell the end for the common currency?

From The Wall Street Journal:

Europe’s Fate in 2017: Caught Between Low Rates and Populist Politics

Europe seems on course for modest growth in 2017—unless Brexit proves to be the start of something bigger

By Mike Bird | January 1, 2017 9:00 a.m. ET

For Europe in 2017, the big question is whether fragile economic growth and unprecedented central-bank stimulus will be overtaken by populist politics.

European equities could have a strong year if the antieuro populist candidates that have gained traction over 2016 fail to win elections, as polling suggests. But if populist candidates triumph in coming votes, the prospect of a eurozone breakup could return to markets.

Meanwhile, the world’s two most important central banks—the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank—continue to diverge in policy, putting downward pressure on the value of the euro. The Fed expects to lift interest rates three times in 2017; the ECB is still engaging in its massive quantitative-easing program.

The euro in December reached its lowest level against the dollar since early 2003, falling to just $1.0352. It has weakened 3.1% against the greenback this year and is down 8.8% from its peak in May. It ended the year at $1.0520.

“A weaker euro is in the interest of the euro-area economy, and pressing down on shorter-dated yields is a good way to [keep the euro weak] at a time when the Fed is moving in the other direction,” said Chris Scicluna, head of economic research at Daiwa Capital Markets Europe.

There’s much more at the original. The big money is worried about the potential for the euroskeptics winning national elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands this year. The Journal used language very similar to that which was used before November 8th in the United States, stating that “polling suggests French far-right candidate Marine Le Pen wouldn’t beat center-right candidate François Fillon in the second round of the presidential vote,” similar enough that I had to laugh. It wasn’t that long ago that Her Majesty’s subjects would never vote for the Brexit, never vote to leave the European Union, but then it happened. Hillary Clinton was going to utterly stomp Donald Trump, who had no plausible path to reach 270 electoral votes. Mme LePen, charactarized by the liberal magazine The Atlantic as “The Devil’s Daughter,” might be behind in the polls, but she has a legitimate chance to win, and the more that the Islamists use terrorism, the greater her chances will become. The Christmas market attack in Berlin cannot help very pro-refugee Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany, and Geert Wilders, whom that same magazine, The Atlantic, used as the subject of an article describing his platform as ‘hate speech,’ and his party are now leading the polls in the Netherlands.

EU flag after BrexitWe have said before that the European Union itself is probably an unworkable idea, based on the far greater cultural and language differences among the EU nations than are seen in the United States. The common currency ought to be workable, based on simple expediency and the lack of any particular cultural difficulties, but the economic problems of the PIGS — Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain — have created eurozone problems as well, as Greece, most notably, has had to be bailed out by the wealthier nations, after decades of living beyond the means supported by its production. Being a eurozone country, Greece didn’t control its own currency, which gave it much less flexibility to deal with its problems, and there has been talk of expelling Greece from the eurozone, though that has subsided a bit since 2015.

The future of the European Union and the common currency ought to be different, but they are not. Mme LePen is a euroskeptic, wanting to return France to the franc, and such a departure would make it difficult for the euro itself to survive. However, France’s debts are denominated in euros, so leaving could cause real problems in debts owed to the European Central Bank, as well as other foreign creditors. That uncomfortable fact will probably keep the investors on the bullish side of the eurozone and, let’s face it, it is the investor class for whom The Wall Street Journal is written.

Oh, wahhh! The media are upset that Donald Trump ditched the press pool again

I did not vote for Donald Trump, but so far, he’s impressing me. From CNN:

Trump ditches press pool to play golf

By Eugene Scott and Kevin Liptak, CNN | Updated 3:07 PM ET, Sat December 31, 2016

(CNN) President-elect Donald Trump ditched his press pool Saturday to play golf, the latest example of his break with precedent regarding the media covering him and his transition.

“He made a last-minute trip to Jupiter. We weren’t aware and appreciate everyone’s understanding. We are in the home stretch of this transition period and don’t anticipate any additional situations like this between now and inauguration,” Trump spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham told reporters. “We’ve really made an effort to provide as much access and comfort as possible over the past two weeks and are proud of the way we have all worked together.”

A club member tweeted a picture of the President-elect with himself at Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, which alerted reporters to the President-elect’s visit. The Jupiter club is about a half hour away from his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, where he is staying. .  .  .  .

Trump has abandoned his press pool several times since his election victory in early November. After ditching the press twice in a week, the White House Correspondents Association called the practice “unacceptable.”

There’s more at the original.

I found out about this when I flipped over to CNN about half an hour ago, and saw the host with two talking heads, CNN commentator Ben Ferguson and Lauren Duca. Miss Duca was doing her assigned part, to whine about the next President ditching the media, while Mr Ferguson was pointing out that the transition has stated that no journalists would be banned by the incoming administration. It was kind of laughable, as these both-sides confrontations on the news networks frequently are. I don’t have a lot of confidence that the Trump Administration will be able to keep the promise not to ban any journalists, but its humorous to see Miss Duca, the weekend editor at Teen Vogue of all things, whining about the media getting ditched. So, the next President ditched the press to go play golf? Why do we need the press covering that? How is our democracy and our government endangered if a man who isn’t even President yet goes to play golf without reporters tagging along?

The media have an elevated perception of their importance. It would appear that the next President — who has made a lot of fame and fortune in the media — doesn’t share their view, and neither do I.