"Trumptopia"

The editorial board of The New York Times is scrambling, along with their minders within the Democratic party,  to dismiss Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress. I've decided to comment on their editorial, entitled "Visions of Trumptopia". My comments are indented in italics:

In his speech Tuesday night to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Trump presented himself as having made an aggressive start at championing the cause of working people, and promised a new era of rising wages, bustling factories and coal mines, sparkling air and water, and cheaper and better health care, all behind a “great great wall.” He told a few whoppers, but largely kept his eyes riveted to his teleprompter and his delivery subdued. He even opened his speech with a long-overdue condemnation of hate “in all of its very ugly forms.”

Hmmm. Mostly accurate assessment here. But it's odd that the NYT never, ever took the same snarky tone when Trump predecessor told us that the oceans would recede on his watch. They never seemed to mind that his predecessor used a teleprompter constantly, even when addressing a grade school classroom, and, believe it or not, told a few "whoppers" himself (e.g., "You can keep your Doctor.") over his years in office. But never mind. Trump's predecessor was a Democrat, so the editorial board never even considered snark.

We heard again the same sorts of gauzy promises and assertions of a future Edenic America, a sort of Trumptopia, that characterized his campaign. He didn’t explain how he would get it all done, much less pay for any of it; indeed, it sounded at times as though he were still running for the job, rather than confronted with actually doing it.

Ummm. "Hope and Change" was not a detailed strategy, yet the NYT editors were beatific in their admiration and Trump's predecessor who did little to lead throughout his eight years but was very good at campaign style rhetoric. But ... Trump's predecessor was a Democrat, so the editorial board never even considered snark.

Across his first few weeks in office, Mr. Trump has shown little sign of delivering anything for working Americans beyond whatever satisfaction they may derive from watching him bait the Washington establishment and attack the reality-based media.

Really? Reducing regulations, holding jobs in the USA, suggesting a middle-class tax cut don't count? In addition, the fact that the editorial broad draws conclusions about specificity after only 40 days is absurd, but that's a trait that is common among NYT editors.

Mr. Trump likes to describe his chaotic first month as “promises kept.” Really? Remember how he promised during the campaign to “immediately” fix Obamacare and deliver “great health care for a fraction of the price”? He hasn’t even put a plan on the table. On Monday, he complained to the nation’s governors that “nobody knew” replacing Obamacare “could be so complicated.”

Are the NYT editors so stupid that they expected Obamacare to be jettisoned on Trump's first day in office, or is it that they are so cynical that they take his words literally only when they work against him? Maybe it's just that the editors are unsophisticated and simply have never heard of figures of speech. Pathetic.

As in the campaign, Mr. Trump also promised Tuesday night to accelerate economic growth with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. “Crumbling infrastructure,” he said, “will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways, gleaming across our very, very beautiful land.” Sounds great. What’s the plan? How will we pay for it? He wasn’t saying. He also renewed his promise of “massive tax relief” for the middle class — but once again there are no details in sight.

I find it amusing that all of a sudden, progressives, who never saw a government spending program they didn't like, now demand to know 'how we'll pay for it?' It's a good question, if it comes from those of us who have warned against deficit spending for decades, but it rings rather hollow when coming from tax and spend progressives.

The editors also refer to themselves as the "reality based media." The only reality I can discern is that the NYT is the lead hamster among thousands who shill for the Dems and will do everything possible to incorporate one or more of the meta-characteristics of fake news into their content.