Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Donald Trump”

Fake News Reported by the Washington Post: Trump’s Estimate of 60,000 Coronavirus Deaths

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes that President Trump’s estimate for the coronavirus death toll has changed over time, has been too optimistic, and differs from the estimate given by one of his chief medical advisers, Deborah Birx, M.D.

Another instance of Trump ignoring the medical and scientific experts because he doesn’t want to hear bad and politically inconvenient truths?

That, of course, is what “progressive” journalists would have us believe. However, the facts in this particular case don’t support the left-wing narrative.

As Blake reports, in recent weeks, Trump has said there would be between 50,000 and 60,000 deaths. Yet, yesterday (May 3, 2020), on Fox News Sunday, Birx “told Chris Wallace:

“Our projections have always been between 100,000 and 240,000 America lives lost, and that’s with full mitigation and us learning from each other of how to social distance.”

“That contradicts what Trump said,” Blake notes—“and even what he went on to say later in the day.

“The president hasn’t just offered a more optimistic tone on the death toll; on April 20, he suggested 50,000 to 60,000 deaths had actually replaced the previous 100,000-to-240,000 goal that he had said would constitute a successful response.”

“We are at over 66,000 deaths, with little sign in recent weeks of any significant downturn,” Blake notes.

Fauci’s Estimate. OK, but here’s the problem with Blake’s (left-wing) narrative: Trump didn’t just pull his estimate of 50,000 to 60,000 coronavirus deaths out of thin air.

Instead, he was given that estimate from another prominent medical adviser, one Anthony Fucci, who heads up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

How do I know this? Because I reported it here at ResCon1 back on April 9 when referencing an April 9, 2020, report by National Public Radio.

The title of that NPR report: “Fauci Says U.S. Coronavirus Deaths May ‘Be More Like 60,000’; Antibody Tests on Way.”

National Public Radio, I wrote,

reports that, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “the final toll currently ‘looks more like 60,000 than the 100,000 to 200,000’ that U.S. officials previously estimated.”

NPR’s Bill Chappell:

Fauci, America’s leading expert on infectious diseases and a key member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, also said that antibody tests have been developed and will be available “very soon.”

[…]

The new projection sharply undercuts an estimate Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, made just 11 days ago. In late March, he said “between 100,000 and 200,000” people in the U.S. could die from COVID-19.

The 60,000 figure is reflected in a new projection by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, or IHME, a research center at the University of Washington.

The estimate predicts the U.S. death toll through early August; it also predicts that COVID-19 deaths will peak in this country on April 11.

Dr. Birx may believe that “our projections have always been between 100,000 and 240,000 American lives lost” to the coronavirus; but that’s not what her Trump administration colleague, Dr. Fauci, told the president. 

Unfair Criticism. It is fair and reasonable to hold Trump accountable for his erratic and undisciplined remarks. However, it is unfair and unreasonable to blame him for relying on information given to him by one medical adviser (Dr. Fauci) that contradicts the information given to him by another medical adviser (Dr. Birx).

Moreover, while Trump’s estimate for the coronavirus death toll has changed over time, this is more a reflection of changing circumstances than deliberate or willful lying, distortion, and exaggeration.

Scientists and researchers, in fact, have revised, and continue to revise, their estimates as they learn more about the coronavirus. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

Facts are stubborn things. They don’t always comport with left-wing journalists’ prefabricated, anti-Trump narrative. Give the president his due—and hold his medical advisers, Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci, to account.

Feature photo credit: Internewscast.

Because of Racialist Thinking, Dems Like Biden Were Slow to Recognize and Confront the Coronavirus

Ellen, one of my most loyal readers, says I make an unfair assumption when, in my last post, I wrote:

What’s more, it is highly doubtful that Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or any other Democratic presidential wannabe would have responded any earlier or more effectively [to the coronavirus pandemic], given their obsession with “racism,” “bigotry,” and “xenophobia.”

This obsession likely would have prevented a Democratic president from acknowledging Chinese culpability early on and then confronting China. 

But as I pointed out in the piece, I don’t think this requires any great leap of faith or logic, given what Biden, Sanders, and other leading Democratic officeholders said (and did not say) when the coronavirus first emerged as a public health concern here in the United States—and “given the Democrats’  obsession with ‘racism,’ ‘bigotry,’ and ‘xenophobia.’”

I should have included that first italicized thought in the piece, and have since updated the post accordingly. Still, even without that specific thought, the argument—and the evidence—is there, I think.

Democrats MIA. Simply put, back in January and February, when it became increasingly apparent that the coronavirus was a ticking time bomb waiting to happen, top Democrats, like Trump, were slow to recognize the problem. Dave Seminara observes in the Wall Street Journal, for instance, that:

Democratic candidates held five televised debates, lasting nearly 11 hours from Jan. 14 through March 15. They offered no policy proposals that haven’t already been enacted and said little about the virus in the four events in January and February…

At no point during any of the debates did a Democratic candidate suggest that the country should have been locked down or taken other social-distancing measures sooner.

As Arthur Conan Doyle observed: “It is easy to be wise after the event.”

On the other hand, it it is true that, as Tony Blinken observes, Biden said this in the Feb. 25, 2020, Democratic presidential debate:

I would be on the phone with China and making it clear: “We are going to need to be in your country. You have to be open; you have to be clear; we have to know what’s going on. We have to be there with you.” And insist on it—and insist, insist, insist.

Blinken is Biden’s senior foreign policy adviser. He served as Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Adviser for Obama.

In this Biden campaign video, Blinken makes a compelling indictment of Trump for being soft on China. However, his case for Biden’s prescience re: the coronavirus is much weaker.

Yes, Biden made this one tough comment about insisting on access to China. However, to the best of my knowledge, it is one comment made in isolation, and it lacks follow-through in anything else Biden has said.

Moreover, a month before Biden sounded off (once) against China, Trump already had established his coronavirus task force, while declaring COVID-19 a public health emergency.

Trump already had imposed his so-called China travel ban; and, two days earlier (Feb. 23), he had requested a $2.5 billion supplemental specifically to combat the coronavirus.

Biden, meanwhile, reports Robert C. O’Brien in the Wall Street Journal 

criticized the president’s “xenophobia” and “fear-mongering.” He stressed that “diseases have no borders.” It took until April 3 for Mr. Biden to do a 180 and come out in support of the president’s travel restriction.

O’Brien is Trump’s National Security Adviser.

Democrats’ obsession with “racism,” “bigotry,” and “xenophobia” is a real problem: it distorts their thinking and prevents them from seeing clearly looming threats, both domestically and internationally.

And even the toughest-minded Democrats can’t help but be adversely affected because they have to work within the confines of a political party obsessed with, and paralyzed by, racialist thinking and racialist modes of analysis.

Note, for instance, that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s first response was to attack Trump’s China travel restrictions as “just an excuse [for the president] to further his ongoing war against immigrants.”

Biden, moreover, bizarrely is being accused now of “racism” and “xenophobia” because of a perfectly legitimate campaign ad that says Trump “rolled over for the Chinese.”

Massachusetts Democrat Seth Moulton, likewise, withdrew his support of a bipartisan congressional resolution condemning China’s coronavirus response “following criticism that it played in President Donald Trump’s attempts to blame China for the global pandemic,” reports Boston.com.

Moulton is a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War and a promising national security hawk within the Democratic Party. Yet, even he felt compelled to apologize (!) for supporting this bipartisan Congressional resolution condemning China’s communist dictatorial regime.

Incredible—but, sadly, unsurprising. Moulton faces a “progressive” primary challenge and knows he must toe the line. The far left, after all, rules the Democratic Party and composes the lyrics which Moulton, Biden, and other center-left Dems must sing—or else.

Then, of course, there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who downplayed the threat of the coronavirus during a Feb. 24 walking tour of San Francisco’s Chinatown, ostensibly because she wanted to combat… yes, you guessed it: “racism” and “discrimination”

The bottom line: although Trump was slow to recognize that the coronavirus was a public health emergency which required strong and decisive preventative action, there is little reason to think his Democratic opponents, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, would have responded any earlier or more effectively.

And a big reason for this is the Dems’ inability to forthrightly confront threats when doing so might invite the wrath of the PC police and bring down upon them the dreaded, albeit utterly false, charge of “racism,” “bigotry,” and “xenophobia.”

Consequently, they cannot be trusted to protect America and defend Americans.

Feature photo: CNN.

Because of His Response to the Coronavirus, Trump’s Prospects for Reelection Are Better Than You Think

The big high-stakes political battle that’s now playing out in the media, and in some early presidential campaign commercials, is this:

Did President Trump act quickly and vigorously enough to confront the growing coronavirus pandemic and thereby save American lives, or was his response belated, tardy, and lacking—and, therefore, responsible for unnecessary and needless American deaths?

Trump’s reelection obviously hinges on how this question is adjudicated in the minds of the voting public.

Here at ResCon1 we have been highly critical of the president’s response to the coronavirus, arguing that his failure to act early and decisively has “endangered American lives and forced the United States to take even more draconian measures than otherwise would have been necessary.”

This is true, but arguably too harsh: because there are other salient considerations that must be weighed:

First, is it fair to fault Trump for his belated and tardy response, given that no one elseincluding the mainstream media and all of the Democratic presidential candidates—sounded the alarm either?

Yes, it is fair: because the president is the president. He’s supposed to be attentive to threats to the safety and well-being of the American people. He’s supposed to know more than the media and more than the rest of us.

U.S. taxpayers, moreover, spend tens of billions of dollars annually on intelligence personnel and intelligence capabilities precisely to give the president and other policymakers early warning of impending threats.

And in fact, as we’ve noted here at ResCon1, parts of the Trump administration were trying to inform the president early on (back in January) about the coronavirus. Yet Trump seriously downplayed the risk of a pandemic—in large part because he was too credulous of the assurances given to him by his “friend,” China’s dictator, Xi Jinping.

On the other hand, Trump administration actions re: the coronavirus are far better than Trump’s statements about the coronavirus. Indeed, while the latter are often contemptible the former are usually laudatory.

The media (ResCon1 included) tend to fixate on Trump’s statements, which are usually impulsive, scattershot, and misguided. But Trump administration actions are usually more focused and on target.

Thus Trump established a presidential task force Jan. 29 to tackle the coronavirus; and, two days later, he declared COVID-19 a public health emergency. On Feb. 23, he requested a $2.5- billion supplemental specifically to combat the virus.

Then of course, there is Trump’s so-called China travel ban, implemented Jan. 31.

The word “ban” is really a misnomer: because many categories of people traveling to and from China are excluded from its strictures. Consequently, as the New York Times reported April 4, nearly 40,000 Americans and authorized travelers have come into the United States from China since the “ban” was enacted.

Still, by limiting and restricting the entry of Chinese nationals, and by advising Americans against traveling to China, Trump was acknowledging that a serious public health problem had originated there, and he was buying us time to prepare for the fight ahead.

‘Racism’ and ‘Xenophobia’. It’s also important to note that while Trump was responding to COVID-19, Democratic politicians, liberal journalists, and the mainstream media were criticizing him for being unduly alarmist and “racist.”

As we noted here at ResCon1, for instance, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the travel restrictions “just an excuse [for Trump] to further his ongoing war against immigrants.”

The 2020 Democratic Presidential nominee, Joe Xi, likewise, criticized the president’s “xenophobia” and “fear-mongering,” reports White House National Security Adviser Rober C. O’Brien in the Wall Street Journal. Biden “stressed that ‘diseases have no borders,’” O’Brien writes.

(But if diseases have no borders, then why, according to Pew Research, does 93 percent of the world’s population now live in countries or territories that limit or ban travel in part because of the coronavirus?)

O’Brien catalogues five other “fateful coronavirus decisions” that Trump made. These include:

  • stopping entry of foreign nationals from Europe;
  • initiating a national social distancing campaign to dramatically slow the spread of the virus;
  • pushing for innovative use of therapies (such as remdesivir) to fight the virus;
  • issuing CDC guidelines that recommend the personal use of cloth masks to stop the spread of the virus; and
  • initiating public-private partnerships to dramatically ramp-up production of ventilators and other personal protective equipment needed by patients and healthcare providers.

In short, even though Trump’s rhetoric has been lacking, and even though he was slow to recognize the true depths of the problem, he has, nonetheless, acted forcefully and vigorously to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

What’s more, it is doubtful that Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or any other Democratic presidential wannabe would have responded any earlier or more effectively, given what they said (and did not say) when the coronavirus first emerged as a public health concern here in the United States, and given their obsession with “racism,” “bigotry,” and “xenophobia.”

Indeed, this obsession likely would have prevented a Democratic president from acknowledging Chinese culpability early on and then confronting China. 

Ventilators. We also should note that one one crucial matter, the supply of ventilators, Trump has been proven right and his critics monstrously wrong.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for instance, complained loudly and often that his state needed 30,000 ventilators; and that Trump and the federal government needed to step up and help.

Otherwise, he gravely warned, ventilators would have to be rationed, and patients who needed ventilators might not get them.

Well, as it turned out, New York did not need anywhere near 30,000 ventilators; and the Trump administration did a genuinely masterful job of managing the supply of ventilators to ensure that no patient nationwide who ever needed a ventilator was ever denied a ventilator.

National Review’s Rich Lowry reports this story in full, and it is well worth reading in its entirety. Suffice it to say: Trump has gotten a lot of bad and undeserving press over the ventilators when, in fact, he should be getting praise and plaudits.

Poor Spokesman. Of course, a big reason Trump doesn’t get the credit he sometimes deserves is because he is such a poor spokesman on his own behalf; yet, he feels compelled to hog the limelight.

Trump would be much better off if he said less and let his very able team—Vice President Pence, Drs. Fauci and Birx, CDC Director Robert Redfield, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin et al.—do more of the talking and explaining.

Also, Trump sometimes seems to be at war with his own administration; and this, too, contributes to an overall sense of policy incoherence and confusion.

If Trump were a more disciplined and organized administrator, he’d get better and more consistent policy results, realize greater media plaudits and recognition, and achieve higher poll ratings.

In short, while it is easy to criticize Trump, it is important to view him and his administration in a broader and more inclusive context, and to consider the plausible alternatives.

For starters, the Trump administration, thankfully, is much more than just Donald Trump. And even Donald Trump is more than just his Twitter feed and bombastic statements.

For these reasons, a fair-minded and holistic assessment must give our president (or at least his administration) higher marks than most think might be warranted.

However, the story of the Trump presidency is still unfolding; it will have many twists and turns; and the American people will decide its fate on election day, Nov. 3, 2020.

Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: WisPolitics.com.

Trump Is Right About Cuomo’s Failure to Procure Ventilators, and the So-Called Fact Checkers Are Wrong

As we reported here at ResCon1, Tuesday, March 24, New York’s Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, bears significant responsibility for his state’s lack of ventilators.

U.S. intelligence agencies and public health experts, we observed, warned Cuomo and other government officials years ago of likely pandemics that would overburden our hospitals and healthcare system.

A New York state task force, in fact, specifically warned Cuomo of the lack of ventilators during a pandemic. Cuomo, though, opted not to purchase the requisite number of ventilators.

These are all facts, not opinion or conjecture, and this a matter of public record.

What is a a matter of opinion is Cuomo’s assertion that Trump needs to “nationalize” the medical supply chain, because doing so would mean that 30,000 ventilators would suddenly be produced and descend upon New York State hospitals.

Trump, as we reported here at ResCon1, has wisely resisted Cuomo’s call to have the federal government take over the medical supply chain, because doing so would not solve anything.

Instead, nationalization would create more problems because the government is inept at running commercial businesses. That is simply not a public-sector comparative advantage. 

Trump, meanwhile, hit back against Cuomo in a Fox News virtual town hall:

This [article] says that New York Governor Cuomo rejected buying recommended 16,000 ventilators in 2015 for the pandemic—for a pandemic; established death panels and a lotteries instead.

So he had a chance to buy, in 2015, 16,000 ventilators at a very low price and he turned it down.

I’m not blaming him or anything else, but he shouldn’t be talking about us. He’s supposed to be buying his own ventilators. We’re going to help.

But, you know, if you think about—if you think about Governor Cuomo, we’re building him four hospitals. We’re building him four medical centers.

We’re working very, very hard for the people of New York. We’re working along with him, and then I watch him on the show, complaining. And he had 16,000 ventilators that he could have had at a great price and he didn’t buy them.

As a result of these comments, two news organizations, The Dispatch and FactCheck.Org, have published overly long, tendentious, and convoluted criticisms of Trump for allegedly not telling the truth about Cuomo and the ventilators. But their criticisms really miss the mark and are beside the point.

FactCheck.Org flags Trump for charging that, because New York failed to purchase more ventilators years ago, it would be forced to employ a “lottery system” and “death panels” to ration the use of available ventilators. This is “misleading,” they argue.

Moreover, says FactCheck.Org, the New York State task force that looked into the matter in 2015 “did not recommend whether the state should buy more ventilators (and hire the staff necessary to operate them).”

But this is splitting hairs. As Betsy McCaughey explains in the New York Post,

In 2015, that task force came up with rules that will be imposed when ventilators run short.

Patients assigned a red code will have highest access, and other ­patients will be assigned green, yellow or blue (the worst), ­depending on a “triage officer’s” decision.

In truth, a death officer. Let’s not sugar-coat it. It won’t be up to your own doctor.

Exactly. Let’s not sugar-coat it. As for the reference to a “lottery system,” that came from a Feb. 27, 2020, New York Times article:

The task force that issued the report devised a formula, relying partially on medical criteria, to help hospitals decide who would get ventilators and who would not.

It also envisioned a lottery system in some instances. And age could play a role, with children being given preference over adults.

Rationing. But the larger-scale point, which we made here at ResCon1 is this: without more ventilators soon, ventilators will have to be rationed, and that means deciding who will live and who will die.

Call it what you will, that is a problem—a big and serious problem. 

And whether the task force recommended that the state buy more ventilators is immaterial. The reality is that, as Governor of New York State, Cuomo has a responsibility to safeguard the health and safety of his people, the residents of New York. He failed.

He failed by not buying more ventilators—even though he had been warned of this problem, and even though he had been warned about the likelihood of a pandemic that would require many more ventilators. 

Maybe he failed for good reason: because the tradeoffs were too difficult and too stark. Still, he failed. As governor, the buck stops with him.

The Dispatch, meanwhile, complains that “Trump provided no evidence to support his claim that Cuomo could have had the ventilators ‘at a very low price’ in 2015, and that Cuomo ‘turned it down.’”

But cost, too, is really immaterial. When it comes to public health, government has an obligation to spend whatever it takes to protect the health and well-being of their people—us.

That is a fundamental and non-negotiable obligation of the state.If government officials think the cost of public health is too high or prohibitive, then they should say so, clearly and publicly.

That way, we can openly and rationally discuss and debate the tradeoffs involved, our public policy and spending priorities, and what level of risk we, as a society, are willing to assume.

In any case, Trump was echoing what McCaughey argued in her New York Post piece. “In 2015,” she wrote,

the state could have purchased the additional 16,000 needed ventilators for $36,000 a piece, or a total of $576 million. It’s a lot of money, but in hindsight, spending half a percent of the budget to prepare for a pandemic was the right thing to do.

The Dispatch also gets lost in the weeds on the origins of the New York State task force and its precise findings; but this is all background noise and beside the point.

The bottom line is this: Cuomo was warned of a problem and yet, he did not act.

But what’s done is done. What matters now is: where do we go from here? How do we ramp up production and delivery of ventilators to New York and other states that are suffering most from the coronavirus?

The most obvious place to begin is with the Strategic National Stockpile, “the government reserve meant to fortify overwhelmed hospitals in a crisis.” But that stockpile has only 16,600 ventilators, reports the Center for Public Integrity—far fewer than the 64,000 to 742,000 that might be needed.

In truth, only an unleashed and unchained private sector free to innovate can possibly produce the requisite number of ventilators quickly enough to meet the anticipated demand. Fortunately the Trump administration is relaxing the regulatory burden and companies are stepping up to produce.

A company called Prisma Health, for instance, is using 3D printing to manufacture a new ventilator model that can support up to four patients simultaneously.

The company says that it “has received emergency use authorization” from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is working with “COVID-19 [treatment] teams who have no more ventilator capacity, and who can initiate emergency use of the prototype.”

The good news, reports the Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn, “is that players in the private sector… have already been in touch with one another to see how they might team up.”

For example, he writes, before the coronavirus hit, one company’s “peak output was roughly 150 ventilators a month.” However, within the next 90 days, they expect to increase that to 1,000 ventilators a month.

“It won’t be easy [nor will it happen] overnight,” says Chris Kiple, “but it can be done.”

Mr. Kiple is CEO of Seattle-based Ventec Life Systems. He says Ventec is one of about a dozen players in the global market for ventilators, only about half of which are U.S.-based companies.

“Ventec,” McGurn writes, recently

announced it will work in partnership with General Motors. The idea is to combine GM’s experience of mass-production manufacturing with Ventec’s technology.

Mr. Kiple says the partnership will mean getting “more ventilators to more hospitals much faster.” The president tweeted Sunday, [March 22, 2020]: “Go for it auto execs.”

Feature photo credit: NY1

J-L Cauvin Does the Greatest Impersonation of Donald Trump That You’ve Ever Seen—and Heard!

Thanks to Twitter, I stumbled upon this wonderfully entertaining and amazingly spot-on impersonation of Donald Trump. The gentleman’s name is

J-L Cauvin. As you can see, he is an extraordinary talent.

https://twitter.com/JLCauvin/status/1242515702688485376

What makes Cauvin’s impersonation of Trump so compelling, I think, are three things, three rare gifts that he has:

First, like all great impressionists, Cauvin captures his subject’s voice and inflections to a tee. Indeed, the timbre and intonation of his voice all truly sound like Trump’s. It is remarkable. Cauvin obviously has a great ear.

Second, Cauvin perfectly captures Trump’s facial expressions, contortions, and mannerisms. It is, amazingly, like watching The Donald.

Third, Cauvin is a great writer. He not only looks and sounds like Trump; he speaks like Trump! Thus he perfectly captures Trump’s rhetorical tics and unique style of speaking.

Cauvin’s satirical spoof on Trump’s Easter message (above) is pure brilliance and a joy to behold. In fact, Cauvin is so good that I cannot help but wonder: why has he not received greater national attention?

For example, why has he not been on Saturday Night Live? Cauvin is much more entertaining than Alec Baldwin, who does a very weak and decidedly unentertaining Donald Trump.

The reason may be that Cauvin is too good. He is laugh-aloud entertaining, and his impersonation has the effect of humanizing Trump. And humanizing Trump is the very last thing our progressive denizens of pop culture want to do.

Trump, to them, is a monster, and he must be depicted as such.

It’s too bad because wit and humor can help soften and leaven the political polarization that plagues our country.

But even were that not the case, there is intrinsic wisdom and beauty in great art that is worth contemplating for its own sake. And great art should be considered as such irrespective of the subject whom it depicts.

All of which is to say: Donald Trump may a less-than-admirable human being; but J-L Cauvin’s depiction of Trump is, nonetheless, admirable and impressive—and well worth the moments of levity that it engenders.