ResCon1

Trump and NSC Adviser Robert O’Brien Launch New Smear Against Vindman

Trump and NSC Adviser Robert O’Brien Launch New Smear Against Vindman

By John R Guardiano on February 11, 2020

Trump and his National Security Adviser, Robert O’Brien, dug an even deeper hole for themselves today by continuing to focus public attention on the president’s quest for revenge over impeachment, and by continuing to defame the good name of one Alexander Vindman, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army.

Trump spoke about Vindman and other matters during an impromptu talk with reporters after a bill signing in the Oval Office. He repeated the same demonstrably false charges against Vindman that we debunked here at ResCon1 yesterday and then added:

[He] did a lot of bad things. So we sent him [Vindman] on his way to a much different location, and the military can handle him any way they want. Gen. Milley has him now. I congratulate Gen. Milley. He can have him, and his brother also…”

When asked whether Vindman should face disciplinary action, Trump said: “That’s going to be up to the military; we’ll have to see. But if you look at what happened, they’re going to, certainly, I would imagine, take a look at that.”

This led to a flurry of news headlines like this one in Politico: “Trump says military may consider disciplinary action against Vindman.”

Later in the day, in a Q&A before the Atlantic Council, O’Brien chimed in with this gem: “We’re not a banana republic where lieutenant colonels get together and decide what the policy is.”

Margaret Brennan, the host of CBS News’ Face the Nation, then reportedly challenged O’Brien. Is that what you think happened? she asked. O’Brien said no, he was just making the point that that’s not how U.S. policy is made, tweeted Ali Rogin, a reporter with the PBS News Hour.

In other words, O’Brien first smeared Vindman, then says he doesn’t believe the smear. He’s just making the point that people who defend Vindman have a distorted or warped understanding of how public policy is made in the United States.

They (we) think that “a group of lieutenant colonels” (or other National Security Council bureaucrats) get to override the commander-in-chief and make public policy. But that’s not how it’s done. The United States, after all, is not a “banana republic.”

False Talking Point. This has become a favorite talking point of Trump apologists Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham: the notion that Vindman and other NSC staffers (“bureaucrats”) tried to superimpose their will over that of the president.

As these apologists tell it, the real wrong was not Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, but rather the effort by Vindman and other bureaucrats to falsely malign Trump simply because they did not like his policy, which they viewed as straying from their prepared talking points. But the president gets to make policy, not the bureaucrats! cry Hannity and Ingraham.

Nice try, but no cigar. Obviously the president (and Congress) decide U.S. foreign policy. No one—including Vindman—disputes that. That’s never been at issue.

Indeed, Vindman did not raise concerns about Trump’s phone call because he disagreed with Trump’s policy, or the policy of the U.S. government vis-a-vis Ukraine. To the contrary: he was an enthusiastic supporter and executor of that policy.

Instead, he raised concerns because it appeared to him that Trump was demanding that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent (Joe Biden), and because he believed that such a demand would undermine stated and long-standing U.S. foreign policy.

Vindman had a solemn obligation, both as a U.S. citizen and as a U.S. military officer, to raise those concerns with his chain of command, which he did. Yet, in typical Trumpian fashion, O’Brien nonetheless smears Vindman with an utterly false charge.

Banana Republic. O’Brien is, however, absolutely right about America not being a banana republic. This means that the president, even Trump, does not have dictatorial power. He is restrained (or at least should be restrained) by the Constitution, Congress, and the rule of law. Yet, O’Brien and other Trump lackeys seem not to fully appreciate this.

As for disciplinary action against Vindman because he testified before Congress after being subpoenaed, it won’t happen. The U.S. military is far more professional than the president.

The Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, have stated publicly that Vindman will be protected from retribution “or anything like that.” “We protect all of our people [and have] already addressed that in policy and [through] other means,” Esper said.

In fact, to anyone who knows anything about the U.S. military, the notion that Vindman would suffer retribution is ludicrous. Senior military leaders fully recognize and appreciate the political perils and landmines that accompany service on the National Security Council.

They also recognize and appreciate that Trump is, to put it mildly, a completely unique and unusual president. Thus Vindman’s service will not be held against him. To the contrary: it will be recognized for what it was: exceptional, especially considering how politicized national security decision-making had become under pressure from Trump and Rudy Giuliani.

Thus it has been publicly announced that after a brief tour at the Pentagon, Vindman will be attending the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

But what does this sordid incident say about the Commander-in-Chief when he suggests that a U.S. military officer should be punished for testifying, truthfully and dispassionately, before Congress?

What does it say about his understanding of the men and women whom he’s entrusted to lead? What does it say about his understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law? And what does it portend for our future as a free and self-governing people?

Feature photo credit: The Hindu.

Tump’s Tweets About Lieutenant Colonel Vindman Are Politically-Inspired Lies

Tump’s Tweets About Lieutenant Colonel Vindman Are Politically-Inspired Lies

By John R Guardiano on February 10, 2020

In two tweets Saturday, President Trump charged Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman with “insubordination,” “leaking information,” and “bad judgment.”

He further charged Vindman with failing to adhere to the chain of command and mischaracterizing the contents of his [Trump’s] “prefect” call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.

These charges are demonstrably false and say far more about Trump and his bad political judgment than they do anything about Vindman. However, because so much about U.S. civil-military relations is poorly understood, even within the U.S. military, it is worth explaining in some detail why these are charges are utterly groundless.

Origins. The charges arose last fall during the impeachment hearings. Tony Morrison, a Trump political appointee and Republican politico from Capitol Hill, had been brought onto the National Security Council (NSC) and served briefly as Vindman’s supervisor. He testified that he had concerns about Vindman’s “judgment.”

But Fiona Hill a professional Russian and foreign policy expert, who was Vindman’s supervisor before Morrison and for a much longer period of time than Morrison, clarified that their concern over Vindman’s “judgment” was specifically a concern about his domestic political judgment, and not a general concern about Vindman’s judgement as a Russian and Ukraine foreign policy professional serving on the National Security Council.

Here’s what Hill told Congress:

[Lieutenant] Colonel Vindman is a highly distinguished [and] decorated military officer. He came over to us from the chairman’s office in the Joint Chiefs of Staff…

I did not feel that he had the political antennae to deal with something that was straying into domestic politics. Not everyone is suited for that. That does not mean in any way that I was questioning his overall judgment. Nor was I questioning in any way his substantive expertise.

He is excellent on issues related to Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, on Russian defense issues. He’d been in charge of the Russian campaign, thinking though at the Chairman’s office and in the Pentagon.

This was a very specific issue: because by June, we saw that things were diverging, and you needed a completely different sensitivity…

Mr. Morrison had come from Capitol Hill. He knew politics inside and out; and we said that Colonel Vindman did not. And we were concerned about how he would manage what was becoming a highly charged and potentially partisan issue, which it had not been before.

In other words, Vindman was doing a superb job, but seemed unwilling to compromise his integrity and his work product to meet the political demands of Trump and Rudy Giuliani, who were determined to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and Burisma.

That’s at least how I interpret this concern over “judgment” in light of the impeachment hearings, Hill’s testimony, and everything we now know. Indeed, during his Congressional testimony Vindman read from his military fitness report signed by Hill:

Alex is a top 1% military officer and the best army officer I have worked with in my 15 years of government service. He is brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment… He was exemplary during numerous visits…

So much for the concern over Vindman’s “judgment”—which, in any case, is a bureaucratic weasel word designed to deprecate high-achievers who refuse to stay in their bureaucratic box. As the Air Force puts it, “if you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target.”

If Vindman wasn’t causing consternation among bureaucrats and partisan political operatives like Morrison, then he wouldn’t have been doing his job.

‘Leaking.’ As for the charge that Vindman leaked classified information, there has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever put forth to support this smear; and Vindman directly and specifically denied the charge in sworn Congressional testimony, calling it “preposterous… I never did [that and I] never would,” he said.

It is true that Vindman reported to the NSC’s top lawyer that he had concerns about Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman was concerned because, as he explained in his testimony:

It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent…

It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued investigations into the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermining U.S. national security and advancing Russia’ strategic objectives in the region.

As a result of voicing his concern through official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command, Vindman was later subpoenaed by Congress. He did not expect this nor did he seek it, but it happened. And when U.S. military officers are called before Congress, they have a solemn obligation to come forth and tell the truth.

Pace Trump, that is not “leaking”; it is “testifying,” and it is the right and honorable thing to do.

‘Insubordination.’ And there is nothing “insubordinate” about testifying before Congress. U.S. military officers do not take an oath to the Commander-in-Chief. They take an oath to the Constitution of the United States. Their obligation is to the rule of law, not to the dictates or demands of any one man, even the president.

Nor did Vindman mischaracterize Trump’s “perfect” call with Zelensky. Quite the opposite: everything we’ve learned about the call—from the transcript itself and from a myriad of apolitical and nonpartisan witnesses—confirms that it is what Vindman said it was: inappropriate, and that’s putting it mildly.

As Vindman’s attorney, David Pressman, succinctly put it: Trump’s charges “conflict with the clear personnel record and the entirety of the impeachment record of which the President is well aware.”

Unfortunately, facts have never stopped Trump from deliberately lying and smearing those he perceives to be his enemies.

Still, it is important that we all realize: far from exercising “bad judgment,” Vindman instead exercised superior judgment: by sharing his concerns about Trump’s call with his chain of command and testifying truthfully and dispassionately before Congress. And, far from being “insubordinate,” Vindman instead was loyal to the country and the citizenry whom he serves.

Good on him and Godspeed.

Feature photo credit: Barcroft (via Getty Images) and Alamy Live News via the Daily Mail.

Trump’s Quest for Revenge Threatens to Destroy His Chances for Reelection

Trump’s Quest for Revenge Threatens to Destroy His Chances for Reelection

By John R Guardiano on February 9, 2020

Case in point: this week’s National Prayer Breakfast, White House political rally, and ‘Friday Night Massacre’

Has there ever been an American president—or any elected official for that matter—with a greater propensity to shoot himself in the foot than Donald J. Trump? He seems as eager to squander his political fortune as he did his father’s big-money inheritance.

The president this week survived impeachment and gave a masterfully written State of the Union Address. His most formidable potential general election opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, is imploding after finishing a distant fourth in the Iowa Caucuses and trailing badly in the New Hampshire primary, which takes place Tues., Feb. 11.

Any semi-functioning adult with half a brain would recognize that lady luck is shining down upon him, thank his lucky stars, and look forward, not backward.

But of course, Trump, as we all know, is not normal. He is dim-witted and seemingly hellbent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Thus he spent the latter part of the week venting his spleen and trying to exact revenge on his enemies, real and imagined.

And if Trump loses reelection, it won’t be because of the growing economy, booming stock market, historically low unemployment rate, and relative peace and prosperity that we Americans now enjoy.

Instead, it will be because of days like Thursday and Friday, when the electorate saw an angry and vindictive man who seems to care more about creating drama and settling personal scores than he does about exercising calm and steady leadership that will benefit us all.

First, there was the National Prayer Breakfast, which Trump bastardized. Then there was his rank display of anger, self-pity and resentment on display for all the world to see at a pathetic and melancholy White House rally with Republican lawmakers.

And finally, Trump had nonpartisan public servants and military officers whom he deemed responsible for his impeachment publicly fired, dismissed, and humiliated. It was, to say the least, a shameful and disgraceful exhibition of selfishness, self-absorption, and small-mindedness.

The National Prayer Breakfast, of course, is a 68-year-old national tradition in the nation’s capital. It is, obviously, supposed to be an apolitical, nonpartisan event that brings lawmakers and the country together. The intent is to call a ceasefire in our nation’s political wars and temporarily suspend partisan hostilities.

For most normal politicians, this is an easy-lift and something they look forward to doing. It gives them the chance to rise above the political fray and appear judicious and broad-minded, while appealing to apolitical, independent voters turned off by constant political warfare.

Amazingly, though, Trump managed to fumble this opportunity and turn it into an easy score for his enemies.

How? By stupidly politicizing the event and completely disregarding its purpose and intent. As Cal Thomas explains, Trump arrived late and held up two newspapers that included “acquitted” in their headline. This was an obvious reference to his impeachment acquittal by the Senate.

He conspicuously avoided shaking hands with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California); and, after Arthur Brooks, the former head of the American Enterprise Institute, gave a wonderful speech expounding upon the theme of his 2019 book, Love Your Enemies, Trump responded: “Arthur, I don’t know if I agree with you… I don’t know if Arthur’s going to like what I’m going to say.”

Well, Trump is surely right about that, because, as Michael Gerson observes in the Washington Post:

The purpose of Trump’s sermon at the Hilton was, in fact, to put his enemies on notice. Those who pursued impeachment were “very dishonest and corrupt people.” “They know what they are doing is wrong,” he continued, “but they put themselves far ahead of our great country.”

Congressional Republicans, in contrast, had the wisdom and strength “to do what everyone knows was right.”

Trump proceeded to make a thinly veiled attack against Mitt Romney of Utah, the only Republican senator to vote for the president’s removal: “I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong.”

And then a shot at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): “Nor do I like people who say, ‘I’ll pray for you,’ when I know that is not so.”

The rest of the speech alternated between pedestrian civil religion and Trump campaign riffs. The stock market is up. Do I hear an “amen”? Gallup personal satisfaction numbers are rising. Preach it, brother!

What makes Trump’s remarks all the more stunning is that, as Gerson points out, Brooks’ argument for political forgiveness and reconciliation isn’t based on some odd or esoteric ideal.

Instead, it is based on Biblical commands and the words of Jesus Christ himself: “Love your enemies; bless those that curse you; do good to them that hate you.” It’s all there in the Sermon on the Mount.

It is understandable, of course, that, in the immediate aftermath of impeachment, Trump would be angry and disinclined to forgive and forget, let alone love his political enemies. We all understand that and Brooks understands that. Which is why, as Cal Thomas notes:

In his remarks, Brooks said that if people can’t sincerely practice forgiveness and reconciliation, they should “fake it.” His point was that reconciliation has a power all its own, even if one initially is not sincere about it. Trump clearly missed a grand opportunity. It would have cost him nothing to shake Pelosi’s hand.

Trump’s Angry Rant. But Trump rarely misses an opportunity to fumble the ball politically; and he did so again later that day in what the Washington Post’s David Nakamura describes as an “angry, raw and vindictive 62-minute White House rant:

He spoke without a teleprompter. He cursed in the East Room. He called the House speaker a “horrible person.” He lorded his power over a room full of deferential Republicans. He mocked a former GOP presidential nominee and his 2016 Democratic rival. He played the victim again and again.

Two days after President Trump delivered what aides called an “optimistic” State of the Union address that made no mention of his historic impeachment, he ranted for more than an hour at the White House on Thursday in a “celebration” of his Senate acquittal a day earlier. But the mood—at least his mood—was not particularly celebratory.

Trump was angry, raw, vindictive, aggrieved—reflecting the id of a president who has seethed for months with rage against his enemies. This was the State of Trump.

In short, it was not an attractive or winning performance. It was, as I say, an exercise in selfishness, self-absorption, and small-mindedness—and it will not win Trump any votes beyond his hardcore base in November.

‘Friday Night Massacre.’ The president concluded the week by removing Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council (NSC) and firing Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union.

Their crime: they testified truthfully before Congress about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the pressure campaign mounted by Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani and others to force Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and Burisma.

LTC Yevgeny Vindman also was removed from the NSC, apparently because he is the twin brother of LTC Alexander Vindman. Politico, moreover, reports that others who testified truthfully before Congress—former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and former top U.S. envoy to Ukraine William Taylor—left their posts in recent days.

National Security staff, ambassadors and envoys, of course, serve at the pleasure of the president. Trump has every right to dismiss those he deems untrustworthy, unsupportive, and unhelpful. But these dismissals were clearly rooted in Trump’s desire to exact revenge and retribution on mostly apolitical and nonpartisan public servants whose only crime was to tell the truth to Congress and the American people.

Indeed, as Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) explains, “by firing Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Ambassador Sondland like this, the Trump administration signaled it won’t tolerate people who tell tell the truth.” Max Boot notes that federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1513) protects witnesses from retaliation—“not that the president will ever be prosecuted,” he writes.

But while Trump may be technically within his rights, he is clearly violating the spirit of the law, and, as a political matter, is hurting himself and the country. No American—and certainly, no independent-minded swing voter—wants as president a man with a disdain for the truth and an intolerance for staff who tell Congress and the American people the truth.

The smart move, politically, would have been to demonstrate some magnanimity and high-mindedness, leave these officials and staff in place, and move on to matters of greater political and public policy consequence.

Trump also viciously defamed LTC Vindman in two tweets filled with lies and falsehoods about Vindman’s service on the National Security Council.

We’ll have more to say about that in a subsequent piece; but what matters here is Trump’s stupid and boneheaded political judgment. How does viciously attacking a decorated Army officer and Iraq War veteran help Trump’s political prospects and chances for reelection?

It obviously doesn’t.

Political Self-Immolation. If (when?) trump loses reelection, political analysts and historians may see the days after his acquittal as critical harbingers of his defeat. This was when Trump decided to forego any attempt to rise above the fray and try and unite the country.

Instead, he opted to indulge himself by trying to exact revenge and retribution against anyone he thinks did him wrong. Trump should learn from another president, Richard Nixon, who, although nearly impeached, actually won reelection in a landslide (albeit before he was impeached).

“Always remember,” Nixon said, “others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.”

Unfortunately, at a time when everything politically is working in Trump’s favor, he has embarked upon a path that likely will destroy himself and the Republican Party, and it may be too late to stop him.

Feature Photo Credit: Market Watch.

Trump’s Outreach to Black Voters Is Real, and Prominent Media Voices Are Beginning to Take Note

Trump’s Outreach to Black Voters Is Real, and Prominent Media Voices Are Beginning to Take Note

By John R Guardiano on February 7, 2020

In the immediate aftermath of President Trump’s State of the Union Address, we were struck by the fact that it was written in large part to appeal to black voters.

Trump touted the strong U.S. economy and explained how it is benefiting the poor and disadvantaged, who are disproportionately black, brown, and members of racial and ethnic minorities.

He heralded his tax cuts and enterprise zones as the engine of opportunity and upward mobility for “forgotten Americans” in the dilapidated inner cities. And he pledge to build “the world’s most prosperous and inclusive society—one where every citizen can join in America’s unparalleled success, and every community can take part in America’s extraordinary rise.”

In short, we will leave no American behind, Trump essentially said.

However, a close reading of the speech shows that it has even more explicit appeals to African Americans, and prominent media voices are beginning to take note.

The Wall Street Journal, for instance, published an editorial called “Trump’s Bid for the Black Vote. African-Americans,” the Journal notes, “were front-and-center at the State of the Union.”

Beyond the inclusive tone, Mr. Trump emphasized policies that address real inequities in American life.

Perhaps the most compelling was Mr. Trump’s extended brief for school choice. The quality of many urban government schools is a national disgrace, and African-American children suffer most.

Mr. Trump highlighted a black youngster whose “future was put further out of reach when Pennsylvania’s Governor vetoed legislation to expand school choice,” and he called for Congress to expand opportunities for scholarships to attend alternative schools.

This has become a sharp dividing line between the two parties, as Democrats have abandoned choice under pressure from unions.

In 2018 Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis won a close race thanks to the votes of African-American women who supported him out of proportion to other GOP candidates. One likely cause was his school-choice platform.

Mr. Trump should campaign around the country highlighting charter, private and parochial schools that help children of all races escape rotten union schools.

CNN analyst Van Jones, meanwhile, warned his fellow Democrats that Trump’s State of the Union Address was

a warning to us, a warning shot across the bow of Democrats that he’s going after enough black folks to cause us problems.

It’s not just the white suburban voters. He’s going after black voters, too… And what he was saying to African Americans can be effective.

In addition to the strong economy, enterprise zones, and school choice, Trump specifically mentioned his administration’s support of historically black colleges and universities, as well as criminal justice reform.

“Our black colleges have been struggling for a long time,” said Van Jones. “A bunch of them have gone under. He [Trump] threw a lifeline to them… in his budget.”

Indeed, according to the Associated Press, the Future Act, which Trump signed into law Dec. 19, 2019,

authorizes $85 million a year for historically black colleges and universities, along with $100 million for Hispanic-serving institutions, $30 million for tribal schools and $40 million for a variety of other minority-serving institutions.

“The money,” reports the AP, “is primarily meant to expand programs in science, technology, engineering and math.”

“To expand equal opportunity,” said Trump in his State of the Union Address, “I am also proud that we achieved record and permanent funding for our nation’s historically black colleges and universities.”

Criminal Justice Reform. Trump is equally proud that he achieved criminal justice reform, which, he said, is giving many former prisoners the ability to work and make a fresh start in life.

“Everybody said that criminal justice reform couldn’t be done, but I got it done, and the people in this room got it done,” he bragged.

“Mr. Trump’s willingness to buck political convention on this issue is making a difference for young black men especially,” says the Journal.

In fact Trump clearly wishes to communicate to African Americans and other minorities that he is fully committed to broad-based opportunity, inclusion, and second chances. His campaign thus spent “half of its $10 million Super Bowl ad-buy highlighting [his] commutation of a black woman’s life sentence for a drug offense.”

African-American Contributions. Moreover, the president made clear that African Americans have contributed mightily to our achievements and greatness as a nation. Thus he recognized one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen, Charles McGee, whom he promoted to Brigadier General.

The Tuskegee Airmen, of course, are a storied U.S. military unit of predominantly black fighter pilots and support personnel who served during World War II, when the U.S. Armed Forces were still segregated by race.

Trump noted that Brigadier General McGee flew more than 130 combat missions in the Second World War before serving in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars as well.

McGee is now 100 years old; and his great grandson, 13-year-old Iain Lanphier, aspires to follow in his footsteps through service in the United States Space Force

Finally, Trump rounded out his paean to American greatness by acknowledging that Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and Martin Luther King, Jr. rank high in the pantheon of heroes and heroines who are responsible for “our glorious and magnificent inheritance” as a nation.

Leadership. Trump’s outreach to black voters is a demonstration of moral and political leadership, and it is the right thing to do irrespective of any potential political gains for him and the Republican Party in November. But sometimes, doing what is right is also good politics, and this may be one of those times.

Trump won about eight percent of the black vote in 2016; however, a conspicuous number of recent polls suggest that he is poised to significantly increase that tally on election day.

A new Zogby poll, for instance, finds that Trump’s approval rating has reached 50 percent among all voters; and that 26 percent of African Americans and 47% of Hispanics at least somewhat approve of the job he’s doing as president.

Even if just half of that 26 percent end up voting for Trump, that would represent a 62 percent increase in the president’s share of the black vote vis-a-vis his 2016 tally; and, with that, Trump would most likely easily win reelection.

It’s still too early to tell what will happen; but it’s never too early to do the right thing. And Trump, to his credit, is trying to do the right thing for African Americans and other minorities. Good on him.

Feature photo credit: Getty Images via MegaNewsEn.

In the 2020 Election, It’s Not the Economy, Stupid, But Maybe It Should Be

In the 2020 Election, It’s Not the Economy, Stupid, But Maybe It Should Be

By John R Guardiano on February 6, 2020

James Carville, the colorful Democratic political strategist who helped mastermind Bill Clinton’s 1992 win, famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

The notion that American presidents are reelected or thrown out of office based on the nation’s economic performance has since become conventional wisdom. Yet, that maxim doesn’t seem to apply this year because of all the political drama, Sturm und Drang, that surrounds President Trump.

Impeachment is the latest drama, but there have been many others—Charlottesville, the Mueller investigation, the crisis at the border, the Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, the government shutdown, Khashoggi, Syria, Ukrainian aid, et al.

Some of these crises, like the Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, are beyond Trump’s control and must be laid squarely at the feet of his political opponents, who are determined to stop the GOP’s policy agenda, either by hook or by crook.

To the diehard partisans of the left, it doesn’t matter who is president. They would fight to the political death against any Republican President, be he Trump, Bush, Romney, or Mother Theresa.

But it’s also true that Trump has been his own worst enemy; and that his utterly undisciplined, shoot-from-the-hip nature has seriously exacerbated his political problems and created crises that need not have occurred.

Charlottesville, for instance, was a completely self-inflicted wound that could have been avoided entirely had Trump simply chosen his words more carefully and been more disciplined when responding to reporters’ questions.

This is why, despite relative peace and prosperity, Trump has been unable to achieve a 50-percent job-approval rating.

So it was good to see the president use his State of the Union Address to deliver a clear, coherent, and compelling message of American renewal led by a strong and resilient U.S. economy that is very much the envy of the world.

Trump called it “the great American comeback… The years of economic decay,” he declared, are over.

From the instant I took office, I moved rapidly to revive the U.S. economy—slashing a record number of job-killing regulations, enacting historic and record-setting tax cuts, and fighting for fair and reciprocal trade agreements.

Our agenda is relentlessly pro-worker, pro-family, pro-growth, and, most of all, pro-American…

Since my election, we have created seven million new jobs—five million more than government experts projected during the previous administration. The unemployment rate is the lowest in over half a century…

The unemployment rate for African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian-Americans has reached the lowest levels in history… The unemployment rate for women reached the lowest level in almost 70 years…

Real median household income is now at the highest level ever recorded…

U.S. stock markets have soared 70 percent, adding more than $12 trillion to our nation’s wealth, transcending anything anyone believed was possible. This is a record. It is something that every country in the world looks up to and admires.

Consumer confidence has reached new highs. Millions of Americans with 401(k)s and pensions are doing far better than they have ever done before, with increases of 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 percent…

Critics will carp that Trump inherited a growing economy, and this is in part true. But it’s also true that wages were stagnant and the economy was slowing. Trump has reversed that, and the U.S. economy has performed far better than the critics predicted when Trump took office.

Indeed, three years ago we were warned that the sky would fall. Today, by contrast, it seems as if the sky’s the limit.

“In just three short years,” Trump boasted, “we have shattered the mentality of American decline. We have rejected the downsizing of America’s destiny… and we are never, ever going back.”

The 2020 election doesn’t seem to be about the economy, but maybe it should be. America could be doing a lot worse than it is now, and the choice in policy direction—more or less government, higher or lower taxes, a bigger or smaller private sector—could not be more stark, and certainly not more economically consequential.

Feature photo credit: Getty Images via the New York Post.