http://donpolson.blogspot.com/ Bringing you the very best information, analysis and opinion from around the web. NOTE: For videos that don't start--go to article link to view. FAVORITE SITES FOR INFO: https://pjmedia.com , www.powerlineblog.com , https://rumble.com/c/Bongino , instapundit.com https://justthenews.com , https://Bonginoreport.com
Caroline Glick is one of the most astute observers of events in Israel as well as in the U.S. I was privileged to meet her when we were both speakers at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend a year and a half ago. Scott made this column by Caroline a “pick” a day or two ago, but I think it deserves more attention.
Glick addresses the seeming weirdness of the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations taking an anti-American line:
Taken at face value, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield’s condemnation of the United States in a speech last week before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network was one of the most bizarre statements made by a diplomat—from the U.S. or, indeed, from anywhere—in recent years.
In her remarks, Thomas-Greenfield castigated the U.S. as inherently, irredeemably evil. “I have seen for myself how the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding documents and principles,” America’s woman at the United Nations said.
While bizarre to the uninformed, it turns out Thomas-Greenfield’s remarks were simply her stump speech. She gave the same one—nearly verbatim—at the UN last month.
What can possibly be going on here?
The most basic job of a diplomat—for any country—is to put a good face on his or her country before the nations of the world. At the UN, an institution dominated by tyrannies, the U.S faces isolation as a matter of course. For the most part, the only U.S. initiatives at the UN that have succeeded have been those that directly support rogue actors—like then-President Barack Obama‘s decision to rejoin the dictator-controlled, anti-American and anti-Semitic Human Rights Council, as well as his decision to legitimize Iran’s nuclear program.
By repeatedly attacking and condemning her own country, Thomas-Greenfield was telling her fellow UN ambassadors two things. First, they have no reason to take seriously anything the U.S. says about human rights in their own countries. By accusing her own nation of using private prisons to “warehouse young black and brown men,” Thomas-Greenfield signaled to the regimes of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China, Cuba and fellow tyrannies to go ahead and abuse their own citizens “just like America.”
It gets even worse:
Second, Thomas-Greenfield signaled that the U.S. is surrendering its leadership of the free world and is instead reverting to the Obama administration’s policy of “leading from behind” at the UN by adopting positions that are advantageous to U.S. foes.
But why would Joe Biden appoint a U.N. Ambassador who tries to damage America and help its enemies? By any normal standard, this is irrational. I think Caroline’s explanation is the correct one. Joe Biden and those who actually run his administration don’t care about foreign policy. This quote follows examples of the Biden administration’s supporting America’s enemies:
Trying to place the Biden administration’s policy of national humiliation into a recognizable doctrine of foreign policy is impossible. All U.S. foreign policy doctrines, from the isolationist school to the liberal internationalist school, begin with their agreement that U.S. foreign policy should aim to advance U.S. interests, and that those interests reflect the fact that the U.S. is a moral and exceptional country. Instead, the Biden administration’s policy begins with the assertion that the U.S is an immoral and unexceptional nation, without the right to expect or receive the respect of others, or to advance its own national interest.
America’s allies are stunned by the administration’s behavior. And America’s enemies are quick to capitalize on it: China’s $400 billion strategic partnership with Iran is a direct corollary of Biden’s masochistic behavior in Vienna.
The only way to understand Biden foreign policy doctrine is by recognizing that it isn’t a foreign policy doctrine at all. It is an extension of Biden’s domestic genuflection to the radicals who control his own party. This genuflection takes the Biden administration’s embrace of critical race theory in domestic law enforcement, public health, immigration and economic policies and projects it out onto the world stage. The purpose is not to advance America’s interests in the world. Rather, the purpose is to signal to the fanatical progressives who run the modern Democratic Party that Biden is their man in the White House.
I think that is correct. And the Biden administration is unapologetic:
When asked whether Biden would fire Thomas-Greenfield in light of her use of Chinese Foreign Ministry talking points to attack America, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki scoffed. “Most people recognize the history of systemic racism in our country,” she said dismissively.
So, that’s that. Politics no longer stops at the water’s end—or in Tehran, or Beijing. Politics defines America, both at home and abroad.
The far Left has seized the reins of power and is doing everything it can to destroy–or, if you prefer, “fundamentally transform”–our country. Normal Americans must fight back with every legal and honorable tool at our disposal.
A new Fox News poll, released Monday, finds 77 percent of voters nationally think "a valid form of state or federally issued photo identification to prove U.S. citizenship" should be needed for voting. That’s down from a high of 85 percent who felt that way when Fox first asked the same survey question 10 years ago. The 8-point decline comes from a shift among Democrats and independents. In 2011, 75 percent of Democrats and 86 percent of independents favored showing government-issued ID for voting. Today, 60 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents support the prerequisite. Virtually all Republicans favor providing identification and their views held steady: 95 percent today vs. 96 percent in 2011.
Given that success, DeSantis represents a clear and present danger in 2024, with his fairly unique composition of discipline and rhetorical wit that allows him to make his opponents, including the media, look like idiots. Thus, the attacks against him have grown more and more laughable.
Even still, there are always new heights of cringe to aspire to.
Thomas Kennedy holds the lofty position of being an activist who stalks Ron DeSantis to yell things at him. I know, goals, right? His organization, United We Dream, bills itself as the “first and largest immigrant youth-led organization in the country.” I have no idea what that actually translates to, but the “abolish ICE” hashtag gives it away a bit. Kennedy is just another open-borders shill.
He also apparently doesn’t realize how you eat a large slice of pizza because DeSantis’ form is absolutely perfect. Only a moron tries to eat over their shirt in that situation. The lean is absolutely essential, and who the heck wants to take little bites only befit for the most beta of the male species?
Meanwhile, here’s soon-to-be-disbarred, COVID grifter, Daniel Uhlfelder, chiming in. You may remember him as the clown who dressed up as the Grim Reaper and harassed people on Florida’s beaches, so he could build a massive social media following.
They hate him so much, and it’s freaking hilarious.
And sure, they’ll keep attacking DeSantis in harsher and harsher ways going forward, but we are now firmly in “he gets two scoops of ice cream” territory on the absurdity scale. Anyone on the right still under the illusion that the left’s idiocy was only a result of Trump being Trump can now be completely disabused of that notion.
They will treat any Republican they see as a threat this way. Trump was the master at getting them to expose themselves, but the hate runs past much further. I fully expect DeSantis to thrive off of it.
I have written regularly about COVID-19, new research on the virus, and potential treatments over the past year. I also understand the sting of censorship thanks to the Facebook fact-checkers and I have had to retract articles based on peer-reviewed research because they did not align with the WHO and the CDC. This is a strange standard since those two agencies have often given conflicting messages. While our health bureaucracy still pushes remdesivir as a primary treatment, the WHO has recommended against its use. Oddly, the global agency can’t replicate the results of the NIH study run by one Dr. Anthony Fauci. Color me shocked. That is just one example.
So, most of my COVID-19 writing now resides behind the VIP paywall. The final straw was the Facebook fact-checkers telling me I interpreted a New York Times article from last year incorrectly when I quoted the researchers directly from the article. It had to do with PCR test oversensitivity. All available research asserts that doctors should not interpret these tests in isolation, that the tests are not indicative of much in the absence of COVID-19 symptoms, and that they do not indicate a replication-competent virus at a cycle threshold (Ct) of over 30. IF I were to post that sentence on Twitter, I could get suspended.
Yet, when I inquired with the FDA about the Ct level and reference range required to obtain an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for a COVID-19 PCR test, this is what their media representatives told me:
Generally speaking, an authorized test’s labeling details the cycle threshold (Ct) values for the individual test. The FDA does not use a standard Ct value as a comparator in reviewing EUA requests for molecular tests. The appropriate Ct value is determined based on the test’s intended use and processing procedures. There are tests that have been authorized with a cutoff of 45Ct. For such authorizations, the test developers established the performance of their tests using a Ct cutoff of 45 cycles.
When they sent me the answer to their frequently-asked question, I was even more confused, even though I know what all the jargon means (emphasis mine):
“Ct values indicate the number of amplification cycles needed to reach the threshold at which a molecular diagnostic test can detect a positive signal. Ct values are not comparable between tests and may not be comparable between different lots of the same test, as they are dependent on various factors such as the specimen collection, storage, transport, time from collection, nucleic acid target, primers and probes, extraction method, amplification method, instruments used, etc. Therefore, if the same sample from an individual is tested with two different tests, or even the same test from different lots, they are likely to return different Ct values, even if both tests return a ‘positive’ test result.”
WHO reminds IVD [in-vitro diagnostic] users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
In short, both the FDA and the WHO say PCR assays are not diagnostic. Yet, that is how the United States is using them, and we have locked down states, schools, and small businesses because of “cases,” which are simply positive tests that have wide variability. Most of the tests are not done in a medical provider’s office where a doctor can evaluate them for the Ct against the patient’s clinical presentation, history, contacts, and community prevalence information. Most people I know got their results from an app without ever seeing a doctor who had their test results in hand. However, if I published this for public consumption, it would run the risk of censorship.
All of this really hit home when I attempted to watch an interview with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a well-regarded doctor, professor, and health policy expert at Stanford University. He advised Governor Ron DeSantis on Florida’s COVID-19 response. However, his perspective on the national response to COVID-19 directly opposes the health bureaucracy’s approach. YouTube removed DeSantis’s panel with Bhattacharya and several other advisors. The platform’s justification was that the committee put out “misinformation.”
When I tried to watch the latest interview with him, I could only see the first ten minutes. An acquaintance of mine from The Epoch Times named Jan Jekielek conducts in-depth, thoughtful interviews for a series called American Thought Leaders. The Show’s YouTube channel was demonetized a few weeks ago, and rather than risk another strike related to COVID-19 information, the entire interview is now behind a paywall.
Bhattacharya shared research statistics, global predictions from the U.N., and other verifiable COVID-19 information in the first ten minutes. In my writing, I share peer-reviewed research and additional verifiable information. For fear of censorship or outright ban, The Epoch Times and I both put this dissenting information behind a paywall. How much information are our political leaders, school leaders, and individual citizens missing to make the best decisions possible, not just related to the pandemic but also civic life?
It bears consideration. Florida had one of the best COVID-19 responses in the country from a health policy and outcome perspective. Yet, you are not allowed to listen to an in-depth discussion with one of the governor’s primary advisors on a public platform. How Orwellian is that?
It’s now been over three weeks since a torrent of sensational headlines about U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) blared from corporate media newsrooms. It sounded about as bad as it could get for the representative from Florida’s 1st Congressional District; breathless claims that he was “under investigation for underage sex trafficking” touched off a media frenzy.
No stranger to controversy, Gaetz’s initial instinct was to confront the allegations live on Fox News with Tucker Carlson. While many saw it as a bizarre interview, it may at least have been the right move in terms of staring down a bloodthirsty establishment.
As several weeks have passed, though, the controversy seems to have generated more heat than light. Indeed, this might be the longest running “sex scandal” in the nation’s history without an accuser.
But the media has been busy. Since the original story broke, there’s been a drip of follow-on stories at outlets like the Daily Beast, Politico, the Washington Post, and CNN—all using a shady collection of off-the-record and dubious government sources.
Unsurprisingly, given that sourcing, none of the stories have contained anything close to serious detail or evidence. Reporters keep dropping tidbits of evidence likely to be emanating from within the Justice Department, yet none of which confirms any of the headline-grabbing allegations.
Few of these articles even attempt to deal with the wild allegations first made about the congressman. Writing in Politico on Tuesday, Betsy Woodruff Swan stated: “[Gaetz] has not been charged with a crime, and no women have publicly accused him of sexual misconduct in the three weeks since the New York Times first reported on the investigation. He has denied any wrongdoing.”
Note how—after making a sensational media splash for maximum public relations damage—the accusations against Gaetz have shifted, from shocking and unsupported claims of underage sex trafficking and pedophilia to the less scurrilous (and still unsupported) accusation that Gaetz had sex at parties. Crucially, there has not been any evidence of payments, prostitution, or underage girls.
Journalists Collude With the Government
As Scott Adams recently said, while some may first cringe at hearing too much about the sex life of a politician, deep down, they’re more likely to be indifferent. CNN even had to note in a recent report:
One of the women who spoke to CNN said she did so in part because the picture of Gaetz as potentially connected to sex trafficking that has emerged in recent days does not align with what she saw. Both women said that they never saw anyone at the parties who appeared to be underage.
It’s hard to believe that much of this reporting isn’t being weaponized against Gaetz—the hard-charging America First Member of Congress and top Donald Trump defender—for purely partisan reasons. This seemed to be the case as illustrated by Nate Nelson, a disabled veteran who worked in Gaetz’s congressional office. Early on in the saga, Nelson held a press conference outside his home in Florida. It didn’t get much media attention, probably because the subject of the presser was, in large part, the media.
He detailed how he was visited by the FBI in the week before the first story appeared in the New York Times. “They told me that members of the media reached out to them, asserting that I had previous knowledge of Congressman Gaetz’s illegal activities,” Nelson said.
What is the FBI doing running down a tip from a reporter? Our most competent domestic law enforcement agency is interviewing possible witnesses based on the hearsay of a reporter.
“This baseless claim against me leaves me further convinced that the allegations against Congressman Gaetz are likewise fabricated,” Nelson concluded. “They’re merely an attempt to discredit a very vocal conservative.” This seems to fit with what CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester inadvertently told Project Veritas’ hidden camera:
If the agenda, say, is to like get, like Matt Gaetz right now, he’s like this Republican. He’s a problem for the Democratic Party because he’s so conservative and he can cause a lot of hiccups in passing of laws and what not. So, it would be great for the Democratic Party to get him out. So, we’re going to keep running these stories to keep hurting him and make it so that it can’t be buried and just like settled outside court just and like, you know, if we keep pushing that, it’s helping us.
Russiagate Set a Dangerous Precedent
For the media, the regular drip of government leaks serves to keep the controversy alive in some form while they silently walk back their most outrageous and sensational claims. Reporters do this so often—and often so elegantly—you’d think they were born to do it. If this sounds like a familiar script, that’s because it is the state of political warfare in America today.
In 2016, the media hyped a massive conspiracy that implicated President Trump, his team, and his family in a stunning takeover of America by the Russian government. If true, it would be among the most serious examples of treason in modern history. Of course, it was no such thing; after years and millions spent on investigations, the conspiracy turned out to be nothing but partisan fakery.
That frenzy served to divide the nation, destroy bipartisanship, and weaponize parts of the American government against its own citizens. Within weeks or months of wall-to-wall, partisan media hysteria about Donald Trump and Russia, half the country was persuaded, without evidence, that the president of the United States was effectively a traitor, and that a foreign enemy was in control of the American government at the highest levels. There has perhaps never been anything even remotely as corrosive to social cohesion and national unity, at least in this country’s modern history.
From start to finish, Russiagate was an information operation. It was weaponized in the press, but it emerged from the bowels of the national security branch of the administrative state—what some have called the deep state. We must remember how complicit the apparatus of government was throughout that situation. Media introduces misleading, incomplete or outright false information from elements of national security and law enforcement bureaucracies.
Americans don’t expect the people who are supposed to be defending them from criminals or foreign enemies to abuse their powers to settle personal scores or to commit themselves to a clandestine media jihad against domestic political opponents. But we’ve seen it happen repeatedly in the last several years. And the leaks from the Justice Department or within law enforcement indicate that the deep state might again be up to its Russiagate tricks, this time against Matt Gaetz.
Knowing what we know about the deep-state leaks to the press so far about Gaetz, we should ask some questions:
First, who is furnishing the Daily Beast and other media outlets with tidbits of information to drag this “scandal” on, without any real evidence of wrongdoing?
Second, who is leaking information about an ongoing criminal investigation, and why?
It took years of diligent and thankless effort by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Kash Patel and others within government to get to the bottom of the deep state’s malfeasance during Russiagate. And this was during the Trump years, when the president (theoretically) controlled the executive branch, of which the Justice Department is a part. Unfortunately, under the Biden-Harris Administration, the deep state doesn’t meet even the slightest resistance; getting answers about who is taking shots at Matt Gaetz will be difficult. Still, it’s worth pulling the threads here. Americans should know how this story emerged, who is really behind it, and in whose interest it remains for America First firebrands like Gaetz to disappear.
As the 93rd Oscars kicked off in Los Angeles from downtown's Union Station transit hub, the lack of COVID precautions we've all become accustomed to was immediately noticeable. Even NBC pointed out the general lack of the chin diapers we've all come to know and loathe.
There's no reason for alarm though, as was explained to viewers, because all attendees have supposedly been vaccinated, tested, retested, and socially distanced inside the awards venue.
As LA's ABC7 reported, the crowd gathered to celebrate its self-importance is not subject to the same restrictions schools, churches, and individuals have languished under for months:
"According to a report from Variety, the Academy is not asking attendees to wear face masks while they're in front of the camera. Academy representatives and nominees reportedly discussed it during a Zoom meeting Monday.
The mask requirements for Oscar Sunday are being slightly loosened because the show is being treated as a TV film production. However, guests are being asked to wear masks when they aren't on camera, including commercial breaks."
Because, of course, COVID can only strike during commercials.
Los Angeles County's current guidance for fully-vaccinated individuals in public who can't write off their parties as TV productions states that residents should "take steps to protect themselves and others by wearing a mask, staying at least 6 feet apart from others, and avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces," also saying people should "avoid medium- and large-sized in-person gatherings."
So yes, this year's Oscars are happening indoors, in downtown Los Angeles, with little distance between attendees and no masks required while the show is live.
But what about the science, you may ask—if you haven't already completely tuned out our expert class—after being chided and warned for months that masks are still required regardless of whether an individual has been immunized against COVID-19.
Well, when asked Thursday whether vaccinated Americans could expect to soon discontinue mask-wearing—as the Oscars audience is doing Sunday night—CDC Director Rochelle Walensky dodged a definitive answer and instead chose to paint our nation's current situation in a negative light:
"One of the things I think that's really important to understand is while there's wonderful news and we're getting more and more people vaccinated every single day, we still had 57,000 cases of COVID yesterday, we still had 733 deaths. And so while we are really trying to scale up vaccination, we have this complex message that we still have hotspots in this country and we will be looking at the outdoor masking question, but it's also in the context of the fact that that we still have people who are dying of COVID."
Well, people are still testing positive for COVID-19 and people are still dying of COVID-19—so what's the difference between everyday Americans and the rich and famous gathered at LA's Union Station?
That is the proposition advanced by my friend Roger Simon at the Epoch Times. (Which, by the way, is well worth subscribing to.) Roger notes that Trump may take up residence in New Jersey, which would clear the way for a Trump-DeSantis ticket in 2024:
At least to some degree, Donald Trump must reinvent himself for the 2024 presidential election.
Of course Donald will always be Donald but something new is always advisable and one situation in our country is in such crisis, worse even than the border, that it is crying out for him to address it.
This situation is so alarming, in fact, that if it continues in the direction it is going we might as well elect Xi Jinping president and start brushing up our “social credit scores.” The USA is over.
And that is—as I am sure you know—education. From pre-K to Ph.D., the vast majority of our educational institutions have curricula that seem as if they were written by Trotsky between Politburo meetings.
It is true. The far left has captured both public education and elite private education across pretty much the entire country. If you live in a red state, don’t be complacent: it is highly likely that your children are being taught to hate America.
Incongruous as it may seem—and it’s really not—Trump should assume that mantle and make it the number one issue of his campaign to recapture the presidency.
He should start now, very publicly, because, as I noted, we are in crisis, destroying more of our youth by the minute and with them America’s future.
In so doing, Trump would be expanding his base.
Roger is more sanguine than I am about a Trump candidacy in 2024. To say that Trump carries a lot of baggage is, of course, an understatement, and having lost one run for the presidency–Roger thinks he really won, while I am agnostic, but the point remains–being renominated is likely a path to Adlai Stevenson status. Still, Roger’s point is well-taken, no matter who the GOP nominee is:
This would be especially true of two key parts of the electorate where he did not fare particularly well—suburban women and blacks (where he did better than most Republicans but not yet good enough).
The suburban women will need some wooing (they’ve been propagandized endlessly against him), but many blacks already see school choice as the civil rights movement of our time. (Teaching young black kids that it’s okay not to learn basic math is about as condescending… and racist… as you can get.)
That last point is telling. The Democrats allege that math is “racist” because of its emphasis on getting the right answer. So, yeah: let’s tell young blacks that any answer will do. That Asian kid? He might be able to solve the problem, but it is too tough for you. Don’t even try. Nothing better illustrates the grotesque racism of modern liberalism.
Near the end of his presidency [Trump] took on phony “diversity” training, critical race theory, and the fundamentally dishonest 1619 Project that even the New York Times, where it first appeared, walked back. Instead, he initiated the 1776 Commission that Biden, of course, killed.
True. Roger suggests that Trump start now to stake out education as an issue, beginning by selecting Hillsdale President Larry Arnn as “the secretary of education in waiting.”
I am a fan of Larry’s, but I would just as soon someone other than Donald Trump–like, for example, Ron DeSantis, Tom Cotton or Kristi Noem–tout him as Secretary of Education in Waiting. But Roger’s larger point is sound: America’s educational system, dominated by far-left teachers’ unions, is working hard to destroy America.
This issue must be front and center in the 2020 Congressional elections, and in the 2024 presidential election. My own organization has taken on the issue of left-wing indoctrination in the schools repeatedly, for example here (dating to 2017, I am proud to say), here, here, here, and on many other occasions.
Democrats have generally owned the education issue because the political debate is generally framed in terms of spending. Are you in favor of better education? Then spend more money! Yet while spending on education has skyrocketed, results have declined. (See, for example, this report.) I think a great many Americans, including lots of parents, have figured out through their own experience that the problem with American education is not a lack of money, it is a lack of common sense and pro-America, pro-free enterprise sentiment. By 2024 the time should be right for a populist rebellion on education. Let’s hope that by then it isn’t too late.
On Sunday morning, media talking heads were touting President Joe Biden’s approval rating after 100 days in office citing polls from NBC News and ABC News/The Washington Post. Both polls found that Biden’s approval sits at 52%, which the commentators pointed out is ten points higher than Donald Trump’s at the same milestone in his presidency. However, as the Washington Examiner’s Byron York pointed out, Biden’s approval is the third lowest since President Harry Truman. Only President Trump and President Gerald Ford scored lower. Both of them had the media united against them, and Biden has received nothing but air cover and glowing coverage from the corporate media.
Further, when you examine the poll detail, NBC surveyed American adults. It broke out some results between registered voters and non-registered respondents. Biden’s approval was 51% in this population, and his disapproval was 43%. In the ABC poll of American adults, the disapproval rating was 42%. The only president with a higher disapproval rating going back to President Truman was President Trump. The margin of error for ABC’s poll and the measure of registered voter responses from NBC was 3.5%, meaning there could be a much narrower difference between those who approve and disapprove.
Despite the approval rating, NBC’s poll found that 56% of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. Further, it found that a plurality of 48% prefers a smaller government with fewer services, even post-pandemic. These results are surprising, given there are significant sampling errors. The ABC poll oversamples Democrats by 9%. NBC’s version oversampled Democrats by 6%. While results are weighted in the polls, the full effect of oversampling is never corrected. Polls of American adults are also not as indicative of the electorate as polls including only registered or likely voters.
Harris: We have newly released numbers this morning from an ABC News/Washington Post poll. Look at this. Fifty-two percent of Americans approve of Joe Biden’s work in office as he approaches the 100-day mark. That is ten points higher than Donald Trump at this point in his presidency, but 17 points lower than Barack Obama. So, let’s bring in our ABC News political director, Rick Klein. Rick, good morning. What’s your take on these top-line numbers from the poll?
Klein: Dan, Biden’s honeymoon appears to be ending, if it was even there in the first place. What’s so striking here is, you can at the same time say President Biden is in so much stronger position than his predecessor, but so much weaker than almost everyone else that we’ve seen at this point in a presidency. And the easiest culprit to blame here is partisanship.
Unfortunately for Klein, the rest of the poll doesn’t bear that out. As he noted, Biden is under the delusion that there is some significant segment of Republican support for his policies, and that partisan Republicans in Congress, not moderate American citizens, broadly approve of his agenda. Even Klein had to concede that this is not the case even in a poll that oversamples Democrats:
We’ve never before seen in polling not even 100 days in, in the Trump administration, partisan divides dominate the approval of a president or disapproval of a president like we are right now for President Biden. And that, of course, is problematic for a president who has promised unity, has talked about bipartisanship, and has talked about Republican support that he sees out there in the country for his policy initiatives.
Both polls show Biden is only safely over 50% on policy issues for his handling of the pandemic at between 64% and 69%. This score is generous since the only Biden policy to date is mandatory mask mandates on federal property. The satisfaction here is probably a reflection of how Americans feel about their governor and local leaders, who have far more influence over pandemic policy. Biden did sign the COVID-19 spending package, and some Americans did receive $1,400 checks. But the coming inflation will take the blush off that rose when it occurs.
Approval for his handling of the border is in the 30s. The NBC poll found that on race relations, taxes and spending, China policy, and gun policy, approval for Biden’s policies are under 50%.
Klein gets close to the proper assessment at the end of the segment:
But we see in this poll deep skepticism about whether Biden is trying to grow government too large, too fast. A lot of concern about some of the scope of his programs, and some mixed messaging. [By a] two-to-one margin Americans say they want President Biden to make major concessions to try to get Republicans on board. But of course, no Republicans voted for that COVID bill.
Of course, no Republicans voted to bail out failing union pensions, to pay off the teachers’ unions with more school funding, and to punish red states who didn’t wreck their economies. Republicans openly supported a narrow COVID relief bill to address pandemic-related issues. The Democrats used reconciliation rather than negotiating. Biden’s stance has indicated they will do the same with his proposed union jobs plan that he calls infrastructure. He appears convinced he has a mandate that his approval ratings do not demonstrate.
The issue in the poll numbers is not partisanship as much as it is buyer’s remorse. The Biden campaign and the media sold his candidacy as the moderate choice. His first 100 days in office have demonstrated there was no truth in the advertising. Many conservatives warned that Biden was simply a vessel for the radical Left, and he moved very fast to show the country that those warnings were correct. As we move closer to the midterms, Republicans need to use this disconnect — along with strong approval for police departments and law and order — to make their case.