Polls show Americans split 50-50 on impeachment; Dems say proves Trump is losing because numbers aren't moving

John Diefenbaker, the late, unlamented prime minister of Canuckistan, used to say that dogs know what to do with poles. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean "Poles", so guess he meant "polls". I think of his little joke every time some pundit tells me that the latest polls prove this, that or the other. And I remember how right the pollsters were (NOT!) about the 2016 election.

Yesterday I heard several members of the commentariat trying to explain away the latest Clinton News Network poll which, according to CNN's headline, shows that "The nation remains divided on impeachment as House vote approaches". I'll get to that in a moment, but first some other recent poll results.

According to Breitbart News, a Quinnipiac Poll released last Tuesday showed registered voters oppose impeachment and removal from office by 51% to 45%. A Monmouth University Poll released last Wednesday showed almost the same result: 44% in favour, 51% opposed. And even an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll released on Monday showed voters opposing impeachment and removal from office by 49% to 46%.

In contrast, a poll released Sunday by Fox News (high on President Trump's fecal roster at the moment) showed registered voters support impeachment and removal from office by a 50% to 46% percent margin.

Breitbart says Fox News Poll respondents (if not the pollsters themselves) have been consistently left-leaning for some time. For instance, in the poll conducted between September 11 and September 14, 2016 -- less than two months before Donald Trump was elected president -- 55% of respondents opposed building a wall along the US-Mexico border, while only 41% supported it. Despite those poll results, Mr Trump easily won the presidency in the electoral college vote, even though he lost the popular vote by two points. Neither Fox nor any other major pollsters saw that coming!

The poll that really counts, though, IMHO, is one conducted for CNN from the 12th to the 15th of December. It shows that support for impeaching and removing President Trump from office has decreased, even as the House prepares to take a full vote on the articles of impeachment this week. 45% of Americans told CNN they support impeaching and removing the president. That represents a 5-point decrease from a poll conducted in mid-November after the House Intelligence Committee finished its public hearings. But opposition to the impeachment and removal of the President increased in the new survey from 43% to 47%!

The survey found that support for impeachment and removal fell even among Democrats, with 77% now in favour, compared with 90% in November. Moreover, the majority of Americans surveyed also said they do not think anything will come up during the looming Senate impeachment trial to change their minds on the removal of Still-President Trump. Just 24% said it is "likely" or “very likely” a Senate trial could push them to change their minds, but 22% said it is "not too likely" and 50% of those surveyed said it is "not likely at all."

Do the math. Add and divide as you will the polls show a nation deeply divided, split right down the middle, give or take a percentage point or two between the supporters of the President and the anti-Trumpers and never-Trumpers. So how are the lamestream media pundits playing this? The official party line is that because the numbers haven't changed over the weeks and months of the impeachment witch-hunt, obviously the President's campaign against the Democrats and the media is failing!

Seriously... that's what they're saying. It's not their campaign to get Mr Trump out of the Oval Office that is failing... it's his campaign against them! It's the Goebbels strategy: keep repeating the Big Lie, loudly and often, and people will eventually believe it. Doesn't look to me as if it's working. Not all Americans are as stupid as the Dumbocrats take them to be.

Bottom line: Even Fox News concedes, as the headline over their report on their poll says, "Impeachment needle not moving as majority of voters oppose removing Trump." That's all ye know and all ye need to know. Impeachment? Fuggedabahtit and MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Boris pulls it off! Brits OK Brexit, reject EU, hard-left socialism

Yes, folks, another step on the road to the status quo ante, and another defeat for the liberal, progressive one-worlders. In yesterday's "Brexit election", the British Conservative Party, led by Boris Johnson -- Britain's version of Donald Trump -- won a commanding majority of seats in the UK Parliament.

Mr Johnson now has a clear and strong mandate to fulfill his plan to take Once-great Britain out of the European Union next month. In other words, he will, as promised, "get Brexit done!" Speaking to his supporters last night, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, "We pulled it off!" In his speech last night he said he would work "flat out" and lead a "people's government". Gotta love that expression of populism!

With just one constituency (St Ives, in Cornwall) left to declare, the Conservatives have 364 MPs, Labour 203, the Scottish National Party 48, Liberal Democrats 11 and the Democratic Unionist Party (Ulster Protestant baskets) 8.

Labour was swept aside by the Conservatives in its traditional heartlands in the Midlands and north-eastern England, and lost six seats in Wales. The increase for the Scottish Nationalists is interesting, as they have promised to push a referendum on Scottish independence. Mr Johnson has suggested he might allow that, keeping in mind what happened in Canada when the Québécois were given a chance to opt out of confederation, and decided they'd rather keep their Canadian passports and Canadian dollars.

In a result which I found very satisfactory, Nigel Dodds, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party at Westminster, lost his Belfast North seat to Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein has 7 MPs, Plaid Cymru (the Welsh nationalist party) 4, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party (= Páirtí Sóisialta Daonlathach an Lucht Oibre -- a social-democratic, Irish nationalist political party in Northern Ireland) 2. The Green Party and Alliance Party have one each. Nigel Farage's Brexit Party, which triumphed in the summer's European Parliament elections, failed to win any Westminster seats.

Jeremy Corbyn, the neo-Marxist leader of the Labour Party, did not resign, but said he would not fight another election as Labour leader. Britain's commentariat, along with many in his own party, lay the blame for last night's defeat squarely at Mr Corbyn's feet. He steered the party hard aport (= to the left, landlubbers!), and was accused of tolerating, if not abetting the wave of anti-Semitism which has splashed Britain in recent months. Strange for a party covertly funded by George Soros, but the cliché -- politics makes strange bedfellows -- is true enough.

All in all, a very satisfactory result. Walt congratulates Mr Johnson, and suggests that American Dumbocrats take note. The Prez was not wrong when he said recently (see "Featured Post") that the majority of Americans will not support a party which espouses extreme socialism. Let's see if any of the Democratic presidential wannabes are paying attention.

Further reading, including a comment on the sudden resignation of Canadian "Conservative" "leader" Andrew Scheer: "Boffo Boris", by our old friend Mark Steyn, 12/12/19.

Bablyon Bee reacts to Saint Greta "Person of the Year"

Ed. here. I don't think you people (Hello, Don Cherry!) know how hard it is for me to refrain from reposting the bogus articles that the Babylon Bee runs regularly. BB is one of the funniest, and most trenchant (look it up!) blogs extant. Here, unabridged and unedited, is their take on Time magazine's naming of climate alarmist Greta Thunberg as its "Person of the Year".

Poll Finds Most People Would Rather Be Annihilated By Giant Tidal Wave Than
Continue To Be Lectured By Climate Change Activists

A new study found that most people would rather be annihilated by a giant tidal wave caused by climate change than continue to be lectured by climate change activists.

Study participants were given the option of having the earth flooded by massive tidal waves or listening to virtue-signaling, smarmy lectures by environmentalists for the next decade. Over 87% of respondents selected, "Bring on the tidal wave." A few people said they'd rather take the lectures, but after hearing a few minutes of the lectures, quickly changed their minds. Several respondents rushed straight to the ocean, arms outstretched, and asked the sea to take us all.

"Come, sweet death," one man scrawled on the survey response form after hearing just 30 seconds of a Greta Thunberg lecture. "O, sweet release that ends my suffering on this mortal plane! Embrace me in your salty arms, great wave of destiny."

"Honestly, between Greta and the climate change, I'll take the climate change," said one man in Minnesota. "Heck, it's Minnesota, don't ya know. We could use a little warming. But even if it turns out to be catastrophic -- I'll take the tidal wave."

Fires, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, and bees also polled higher than the activists.

The Aghanistan war: It was all for nothing

When I began this blog in July of 2009 [! How time flies when you're having fun! Ed.], the two countries closest to my heart (and other organs), the US of A and Canada, were heavily involved and invested in the Afghanistan "mission".

It looked like a war to me, but politicians of both blue and red stripes, on both sides of the World's Longest Undefended Border (TM), kept assuring us that it was a peacekeeping mission. Or maybe a peace-making mission. Or how about "nation-building"? I called BULLSHIT on that from Day One of WWW, as did many skeptics including Dr Ron Paul.

No-one paid attention. Many demonized Dr Paul and other anti-war thinkers and writers as "unpatriotic". The pro-war types told us that this was, after all, part of the war against terrorism. (Back then, some even dared to use the phrase "Islamic terrorism".) "If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them there!" "Nation-building is the best way to defeat the Taliban!" More bullshit, piled higher and deeper.

Those who opposed the war argued that the Taliban weren't out to get us, so much as to get us out of their country. It was a Muslim civil war, we said, in which we had no business meddling... no dog in that fight. Let them duke it out.

This week, the Washington Post is serializing "At War With the Truth: a secret history of the Afghanistan war", a massive report, based on hitherto secret military documents, proving that... wait for it... the whole Afghan war was a blunder from the getgo -- a colossal waste of money and lives. Putting it another way, we who opposed the war were right, after all. Lifetime pct .979.

MSN carries Monday's part of the WaPo report under the headline "Wasteful spending and half-baked ideas: U.S. officials reveal how massive rebuilding projects in Afghanistan backfired". The newly revealed government documents raise profound questions about the execution and results of the war in Afghanistan and the massive nation-building effort that surrounded it. No wonder, then, that the American government tried to shield the identities of the vast majority of those interviewed for the project and conceal nearly all of their remarks. The Post won release of the documents -- 2000 pages of interview records -- under the Freedom of Information Act after a three-year legal battle.

In the interviews, more than 400 insiders offered unrestrained criticism of what went wrong in Afghanistan and how the United States became mired in nearly two decades of warfare. With a bluntness rarely expressed in public, the interviews lay bare pent-up complaints, frustrations and confessions, along with second-guessing and backbiting.

Through the interviews we hear the voice of Gen. Lute and scores of others who detail the core failings of the war that persist to this day. They underscore how three presidents -- George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump -- and their military commanders have been unable to deliver on their promises to prevail in Afghanistan. Here's a sample.

In 2015, US Army Gen. Douglas Lute, who served as the White House's Afghan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations, told government interviewers, "We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan -- we didn't know what we were doing. What are we trying to do here? We didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.... If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction...." He blamed the deaths of 2400 American military personnel on bureaucratic breakdowns among Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department.

Since 2001, more than 775,000 US troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Besides the 2300 (that's the Dept of Defense number) who died in that shithole, 20,589 were wounded in action.

The number of Canadians who went to Afghanistan and didn't return was much smaller -- 158 soldiers and seven civilians died -- but proportionately greater than US casualties. 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces served in Afghanistan. 158 soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Walt ran a body count, in those first years of WWW, each time asking the question "Why did they die?"

Another 2000 Canucks were wounded in a "peace-keeping/nation-building mission" (read" war) which began under a Liberal government and was then enthusiastically embraced by a Conservative government. In 2006 and 2008, Conservative and Liberal Members of Parliament voted together to extend the "mission", at a projected cost of as much as C$18 billion. The Canadians finally realized the war was unwinnable, and bailed out (of military involvement, at least) in 2014. The Americans are still there.

The conclusions of the Post's report -- that the war lacked clear direction and purpose, that the American government misled the public about the war's progress, that the effort to establish a new government in Afghanistan was misguided and quickly corrupted, that billions of dollars in aid and development money were mishandled -- should trouble not just Americans, but citizens and taxpayers of every country meddling in the Muslim civil war. Can our politicians please just cut the BS, bring the trooops and "foreign aid" personnel home, and leave the Islamists to make of their countries what they will. Please!!!

UPDATED: Poor Len Canayen not so worried about Habs now

Our sports editor, Poor Len Canayen, craves space to re-evaluate yesterday's piece, in which he expressed doubt as to the future of Canada's team, the Montréal Canadiens. Have at it, Len.

Pass the crow, please. After receiving an e-mail from a Habs fan asking why I was so negative about the Habs' prospects, and after watching last night's thrilling (after the first period) 4-1 win over the Pittsburg Penguins, I must give kudos do the dozen solid and stout-hearted performers who have carried the Habs through a difficult stretch, from which they now seem to be recovering nicely. [What have I told you about run-on sentences? Ed.]

Let's start with the defence corps. While reiterating the need for one or two more reliable D-men, I can express nothing but admiration for:
Captain Shea Weber: 1 goal (a wraparound, or in French un tourniquet) and 1 assist, 4 hits. Jeff Petry: 1 assist, 8 (count `em, 8!) hits. Ben Chiarot: no points but another 8 hits. Chiarot was picked up this summer from the Winnipeg Jets (well done, Marc Bergevin) and has proved a valuable addition to the team.

These three "older men" have been playing upwards of 20 minutes every game, and as much as 29 or 30 in a couple of recent games. My only question is how long they can keep up that pace and still have something left for the playoffs. Helping out and deserving of mention is rookie Cale Fleury, still growing but not afraid to throw his weight around, with 4 hits last night and smart play in his zone. He's a keeper!

Up front, les Glorieux have a solid first line:
Tomas "Tuna" Tatar: 1 goal and 1 assist last night, and has learned to stay out of the penalty box. Brendan Gallagher: the small-but-mighty sparkplug of the team, also 1 + 1, so that's half the scoring right there. Phillip Danault: one of the most under-rated centres in the NHL, IMHO, got a well-deserved assist on the Tatar goal.

Other forwards who contribute consistently are:
Joel Armia: 1+1 last night, playing the best hockey of his career. Arturi Lehkonen: 1 assist, and developing into the key man on the penalty kill. I take back the unkind words I wrote last year. Nick Suzuki: Rookie-of-the-year, on this team at least. Beautiful stick-handler and play-maker. Another great trade by Bergevin. Nate Thompson: the old pro at centre, increasingly trusted by coach Claude Julien on important face-offs, and does more than his share as a support player.  Nick Cousins: Had my doubts early on, but was impressed with his effort and tenacity in the last two games.

So the Habs have a good core, 4 good defencemen, 8 good forwards. That's 2/3 of a starting lineup. And yes, there's still Carey Price. Allowed just one goal last night -- a 2-on-1 rush following a defensive miscue -- and just one the night before. Is the all-star Price back? Hope so!

Summary: Last night's whole-team effort in a road game against a tough team was great to see... Warmed the cockles of this old man's heart. In fact they got so warm I had to rub them with ice! Keep up the good work, guys, and you'll make the post-season for sure!

UPDATE ADDED 12/12/19: Les Glorieux ont remporté la victoire hier soir! The Habs beat Ottawa 3-2 in OT. Goals by Cousins, Tatar, and Chiarot had the overtime winner! Rookie goalie Cayden Primeau stopped 35 of 37 shots, for a save pct of .946, and got the first star. Not an oil painting, but a sign that Canada's team's recovery for the recent slump is real indeed.

Democrats press on with impeachment

Scraped from Blazing Cat Fur. Gotta love that blog!

Poor Len Canayen worries about the Canadiens

From the Great No-longer-white North, our sports editor, Poor Len Canayen, shares his inquietude over the future of the Montréal Canadiens.

The last month has been distressing for fans of la Sainte Flannelle. Of the last 10 games, they've won only 2, lost 6 and lost in overtime twice, for a total of 6 out of 20 possible points. You don't get to the playoffs that way, and the Habs are currently fourth in the very tight Atlantic Division, close to a wild card spot... but not close enough.

What's happened to le bleu, blanc et rouge? IMHO their problems all amount to the same thing -- lack of depth. Ten or twelve games before the last 10, they iced a pretty good, nicely balanced team. Four decent forward lines and four or five reliable defencemen, plus, of course, Carey Price, when he was on his game. Then came the injuries.

Top forwards Jonathan Drouin and Paul Byron fell in one game against Washington. And last week sophomore hopeful Jesperi Kotkaniemi was concussed by a vicious hit from Colorado's Nikita Zadorov. (See "NHL's Department of Knuckleheads disgraces itself again", by Jack Todd, in the Montreal Gazette, 8/12/19.) A couple of games earlier, Victor Mete, Captain Shea Weber's defence partner, injured his ankle during a game against Philthydelphia. That's four of the Habs' best/better players gone, likely until the new year.

To make matters worse, former all-star goalie Carey Price has been, shall we say, less than stellar so far this season. He allowed only one goal in Friday night's 2-1 over the Rangers, but over 24 games in which he's played, his GAA is 3.04 and his save pct just .902. That's in the bottom quarter of active (20 games or more) NHL goalies. It would be OK if backup Keith Kinkaid had been able to pull a couple of games out of the fire, but he wasn't and has now been sent down to Laval.

Who has come up from Laval to backstop Price and the four skaters? Well, Charles Hudon, for one. Hudon is the king of coulda/shoulda/woulda. He's been up and down like a toilet seat at a mixed party, always being given yet another chance to prove that he's capable of playing at the NHL level. Yet he never quite succeeds. Too bad for him. Other call-ups like David Gustafsson, Otto Leskinen and Matthew Peca (another up-and-downer), all of them Europeans, have similarly failed to impress. Too bad for them, too bad for the team.

I am still hopeful, though, for Cayden Primeau, brought up from Laval to give Carey Price a rest, especially in back-to-back games. Primeau's first start was against Colorado last week. He look at a bit shaky at first -- the nerves of a 20-year-old playing his first game with the big team -- but settled down and was not solely responsible for the 3-2 loss. His save pct so far is .914.

Conclusion? Les Glorieux need some new players who can score and/or defend, and, with the possible exception of Ryan Poehling, they're not going to come from the Laval farm team. So it's up to GM Marc Bergevin to find some new talent, and he'd better do it PDQ because if the Habs miss the playoffs again, his head will be the first to roll. He's made some good moves in the last three years, notably the Weber-for-Subban trade, but also some bad moves, like failing to resign Alex Radulov and Andrei Markov.

The Canadiens have lots of cap space -- some $8 million -- but to trade for top players they'll have to be willing to give up some top players. Such as... Drouin? Maybe. Max Domi? Possibly; he's off to a poor start this year. Weber or Price? Unthinkable? They're both getting older and slower, but are still at the very core of the team. And they both have hyuge contracts which few other teams would want to take on. So, is a puzzlement, but unless fresh forces are found, unclear the future is.