Quick Hits: Volume CLV

- Even some of the more high profile Donald Trump apologists (save for Sean Hannity) are having difficulty wrapping their heads around why the President would cut an immigration deal with the minority party without a Mexican border fence (his signature campaign issue) being part of the alleged agreement.

While Trump denies a definitive deal has been made with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the fact he went around his own party's leaders merely adds to the legend of the GOP showing utter ineptitude when it comes to actually governing. So why are Republicans unable to effectively govern despite having all levers of power in Washington?  Julia Azari at FiveThirtyEight shares her perspective in perhaps one of the more insightful pieces on this frustrating trend.

A snippet:

Much of the party’s stated governing ideology rests on the premise that “government is the problem,” which makes it difficult to develop a coherent agenda for determining what the government should be doing. And currently, there isn’t much else unifying a party fragmented along lines of ideology, openness to compromise and support for the president.

Trump’s own approach to policy, meanwhile, hasn’t helped the party set priorities. He hasn’t clearly articulated what *he* wants the GOP to focus on, jumping from infrastructure to taxes to health care to immigration, and from controversy to controversy. He has also promised a number of governing outcomes – better health care coverage, stronger national security, a better economy – but he’s often short on the details about what kinds of policies might achieve them. Legislation tends to die in the course of working out the specifics, and without a stable, widely shared set of priorities, it can be hard to achieve anything.

The entire thing's worth a read.


- Hillary Clinton wrote the book (literally) on how *not* to get over losing a presidential election.

As usual, the Washington Free Beacon perfectly summarizes Mrs. Clinton's delusion on how scores of factors outside her own corruption, dishonesty and arrogance were to blame for her loss.





- I agree with National Review's David French when he says the White House should not insert itself into the job status of ESPN personality Jemele Hill. WH Press Secretary Sarah Sanders recently indicated that Ms. Hill's comments (via Twitter) on President Trump being a "white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself with other white supremacists" is a "fireable offense."

Yes, ESPN management are flaming hypocrites over which employees have latitude to convey their political opinions and which do not (see Schilling, Curt). But if conservatives are going to stand firm and say it was wrong for Schilling to be fired just because he expressed right wing views, then we should also be on board with Hill being free to express her leftist opinions. Now if Hill's weeknight show SC6, which she co-hosts with Michael Smith, tanks in its ratings due to viewers boycotting the program over her opinions, then it makes sense to fire her from a business standpoint.

In the end, ESPN is becoming largely irrelevant when it comes to how consumers take in their sports news. Perhaps it's best to just let the network continue to circle the drain.

------------------------------------------