Newspaper ‘analysis’ of Trump speech reads more like a review

Trump addresses Congress. (Via CNN)

Trump addresses Congress. (Via CNN)

At least this time the Las Vegas newspaper’s online version of the front page article by former columnist Debra Saunders carried the “analysis” tag in the headline, even though it was more of a “review” than an analysis.

It has a nice beat, Mr. Clark, and it’s easy to dance to. I give it a 95.

It was less about what Donald Trump said Tuesday night before Congress and more about how he said it.

With words in the print version headline such as “precise,” “discipline” and “poise,” you’d expect it to have an accompanying blurb getting the speech a four-star rating.

“Without any question, it’s the best speech he’s ever given,” a Reagan speech writer gushed to the White House correspondent.

The reviewer concludes: “Trump spoke with precision that is not easily misconstrued. For Trump’s base and independents, Trump offered something new. He showed discipline. He didn’t fall into the usual rabbit holes against his perceived enemies that have made some of his speeches feel voyeuristic to watch.”

Now, if you want to know what Trump said and what an analyst thinks about what he said instead of how he said it, you can read Dan Mitchell’s piece at his International Liberty blog. Mitchell is a libertarian-leaning economist and a fellow at the Cato Institute.

Dan Mitchell

Dan Mitchell

He has praise for Trump’s calls for lower corporate taxes, Obamacare repeal and criticism of the stifling FDA. He also liked what he heard about jobs and school choice.

He was “somewhat pessimistic” about Trump’s infrastructure spending, border taxes, throwing money at the VA and the Pentagon, and unambiguously depressed about his ongoing calls for trade protectionism, childcare entitlement and paid parental leave.

Mitchell concludes:

I wondered back during the campaign whether Trump is a big-government Republican or a small-government conservative. I contemplated the same question when he got elected. And also when he got inaugurated.

Last night’s speech left me still wondering, though it’s safe to say Trump does not share Reagan’s instinctive understanding that government is the problem rather than solution.

That’s how you do analysis.

33 comments on “Newspaper ‘analysis’ of Trump speech reads more like a review

  1. Steve says:

    Agreed, the San Francisco “conservative” columnist is showing true colors.

    Though in this I have to agree with her evaluation of his delivery.
    Whether we like what he said or not, we now know Trump can deliver a speech that rivals any given by Obama. And Obama knows how to make a speech.

    The key now is, follow through. Will he, can he, do that?

  2. deleted says:

    This is incredible stuff. Add Sessions lies, under oath, to recent revelations that the Obama administration made sure that evidence relating to the contacts between the a Russians, and the a Trump incoming administration were kept by as many people as possible so that they could not be covered up later by orange man, means the FBI is gong to have lots to look at in the days to come.

    We can only hope, for the sake of our beloved republic, that Don will not be able to corrupt the entire government before the information gets out..

  3. deleted says:

    I wonder if Don is going to list stories like this, next time he wants to tell the press about stories that don’t get the coverage they deserve?

    The KGB chief likely responsible for handing the dossier on Trumps urination games, to the former British MI6 agent, which was released after Dons electoral “victory”? Dead in the backseat of his car.

  4. Rincon says:

    Trump’s numerous Russian connections make Benghazi look lie a harmless little oopsie in comparison, but you’ll never read that here. For some odd reason, the Conservatives here seem to have writer’s block. Trump was quite right that he could have shot somebody and not lost his voters. People root for their team no matter what.

  5. deleted says:

    Magine Rincon if, instead of sympathetic “conservatives” in charge of the investigative tools at the governments disposal as existed when they wanted to investigate Benghazi, and the IRS, and Obamas birth certificate, etc. Etc., the democrats were in charge of those resources what this country might learn about Trumps involvement with the Russians?

    It’s gotten so bad, in the last 4 hours, that even republicans are getting anxious.

    “We shall see”.

  6. Looks like it’s time to confiscate the lighter fluid from the left again…before they have no hair left at all…

  7. “A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Sarah Isgur Flores, said “there was absolutely nothing misleading” about Mr. Sessions’s answers at his confirmation hearing. She said that Mr. Sessions, as a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had at least 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors, including those from Australia, Britain, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Poland and Russia.

    She added: “He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.” (excerpt: NY Times article by Charlie Savage, March 2, 2017)

    The blood is in the water…the spooks continue to leak, and this means war…time to kick some Democrat ass.

  8. Barbara says:

    Equating Benghazi wherein 4 Americans died to allegations that Russian meddled in the election is beyond the pale. How soon we forget that the Obama administration spent $350,000 in taxpayer funds to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Where was the Democratic calls for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Obama’s administrations meddling in a foreign government’s election?

  9. deleted says:

    “Conservatives” suggesting that the country look away from evidence that, as their hero Raygun called it”the Evil Empire”, interfered with US elections because “we did it too”.

    I fear for our republic.

  10. deleted says:

    The pressure continues to build. So much so that even the most far right, of the far right believe Sessions must answer for what he did, and recuse himself from the investigation.

    “Top Republicans said Thursday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should recuse himself from federal investigations of whether Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

    House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) tweeted early Thursday that “AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself.”

    Later, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said in a statement, “Jeff Sessions is a former colleague and a friend, but I think it would be best for him and for the country to recuse himself from the DOJ Russia probe.”

  11. deleted says:

    Those dang “progressives” and their feeding frenzy.

    “”Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from any investigation into Russia,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, in a statement. “We need a clear-eyed view of what the Russians actually did so that all Americans can have faith in our institutions.”
    House Speaker Paul Ryan said Sessions should recuse himself if he’s part of an ongoing probe.
    “If he, himself, is the subject of an investigation, of course he would,” Ryan told reporters Thursday. ”

  12. While the piranha circle…we’re still waiting for what’s called real “evidence”…not hearsay from unnamed sources and leaks, not rehashing of the same stories from months ago by the NY Slime and other members of the praetorian guard of the progressive left…show us some real evidence of wrongdoing or collusion by members of the Trump election team with the Russians to affect the election. I won’t hold my breath. Did Loretta Lynch recuse herself from investigations of Hillary Clinton’s keeping of a private server after meeting on the tarmac in Arizona with Bill Clinton for over a half hour with no staff nearby? NO….did she offer to…NO. Clearly what’s good for the goose isn’t what’s good for the gander when it comes to frothing at the mouth Democrats like Chucky boy Shumer and Botox face Nancy Pelosi.

  13. deleted says:

    I’m reminded of a story that came out a few years ago, where even newspaper men voiced questions as to why so few sources were being identified within the stories being published. In fact, the questions asked by HFB reminded me of one memorable scene from the movie where Jason Robards asked Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford the same question.

    “Ben Bradlee: Where’s the goddamn story?
    Bob Woodward: The money’s the key to whatever this is.
    Ben Bradlee: Says who?
    Howard Simons: Deep Throat.
    Ben Bradlee: Who?
    Howard Simons: Oh, that’s Woodward’s garage freak; his source in the executive department.
    Ben Bradlee: Garage Freak? Jesus, what kind of a crazy fucking story is this? Who did you say?
    Howard Simons: He’s on deep background, I call him deep… throat.

    Howard Simons: Then can we use their names?
    Carl Bernstein: No.

    Ben Bradlee: Goddammit, when is somebody going to go on the record in this story? You guys are about to write a story that says the former Attorney General, the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in this country, is a crook! Just be sure you’re right.

    Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

  14. Steve says:

    “Those who ignore Hollywood movie messages” (Fixed it for you, Patrick) are doomed to receive silly remarks like the one Patrick just spewed out.

    And the reason we don’t respond that often is not because we don’t read your dreck, it’s because we are too tired from laughing at it!

  15. deleted says:

    I’d say the questions relating to the death of the American SEAL, the loss of a 75 million dollar aircraft, the deaths of several children, and the incompetent rush to launch an operation that was deferred by the previous administration, which resulted in NO significant intelligence (despite the initial reports from orange man’s lackeys) need to be answered.

    Otherwise….I fear for our republic.

  16. Rincon says:

    Sessions, Flynn, Kushner, Tillerson = Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean.

  17. Rincon says:

    Of course, there’s also Trump, Trump junior, Stone, Ross, Manafort, Gordon and Page, but who’s counting?

  18. Steve says:

    Keep your eye on the pea….ignore the people who would have you look at anything but Russia!

    What? the pea isn’t under your cup?
    what a surprise….

  19. Rincon says:

    Isn’t this the classic deflect that you so frequently complain about in others?

  20. Again, show us some real “evidence”…not hearsay from unnamed sources and leaks, not rehashing of the same stories from months ago by the NY Slime and other members of the praetorian guard of the progressive left…show us some real evidence of wrongdoing or collusion by members of the Trump election team with the Russians to affect the election. All we’ve seen thus far is innuendo and unproven accusations.

  21. Rincon says:

    Innuendo? Call it what you will, but probable cause is clearly established. Flynn confessed and Sessions’ contacts with the Russian Ambassador appear to be confirmed. Trump’s refusal to disclose his tax returns deny the American people needed information about possible conflicts of interest. Time will tell. Clinton and Nixon denied all too. The Watergate probe began with unnamed sources. Would you have ignored that at the time as you do today?

    At the very least, the Trumpers neglected one of the major tenets of being a good leader: Assiduously avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Regardless of the outcome, this colossal set of blunders has greatly eroded the trust of the American people. Exoneration is essentially impossible, leaving us with either proof that Trump is a traitor or the purgatory of never knowing.

  22. Steve says:

    Deflecting the deflection to save the deflection from the deflection!

  23. Meeting with the Russian Ambassador is NO evidence of collusion to affect the election…or Obama would be under house arrest. (I also saw a picture of Senator “Masto three names” standing next to the aforementioned ambassador this week…collusion?) The Flynn dust up shows that a citizen’s phone conversation was tapped (part of the FISA warrant from the Obama team in Oct. 2016?) and the intelligence operative who leaked that information is guilty of a felony…and the leaker certainly wasn’t part of the Trump team! There is a lot of smoke being generated by lapdog media and partisan Democrats…if there were any fire, I suppose they could use it for their hair yet again.

  24. Rincon says:

    Woodward and Bernstein presented leaks from “Deep Throat”, an anonymous source and thus began Watergate. Had Nixon been your boy at the time, you would have recommended ignoring their articles. “Move along folks. Nothing to see here.” Thank goodness for nonideologues.

  25. Rincon says:

    I make no claims regarding the guilt or innocence of any in the Trump Administration, but failing to investigate these allegations would be negligent at the least. We all hope that time will tell.

  26. Nixon was never my boy…

  27. Rincon says:

    So if someone is “your boy”, you would have different standards than if not?

  28. Absolutely not (that’s your fanciful assertion)…at that time I was a young teenager enamored with John F. Kennedy and Camelot.

  29. Steve says:

    I remember when Nixon wanted to build a moat around Massachusetts. (I was raised there)
    Better than a wall, lets build a moat along the Mexico border!

  30. Ha ha…great idea, and we can fill it with all of the devouring sea creatures from the drained swamp in DC.

  31. Steve says:

    After we transplant all the overpopulation of Florida’s alligators!

    Don’t let’m fool ya, alligators are everywhere in the state now….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s