Trump has a plan, dishonest NY Times fearmongering and other commentary

Economy watch: Trump Has a Plan

“A recent MSNBC opinion piece” inadvertently explained “the benefits” of the Trump economic plan, points out Andy Puzder at Fox News. The piece complained that “ ‘Trump is obsessed with the macroeconomics’ ” and has a “ ‘big-picture, 10,000-foot view of the economy.’ ” Huh? “No one should criticize a presidential candidate” for being “ ‘obsessed’ with addressing macroeconomic issues such as inflation, wages, interest rates, economic growth and the deficit,” issues central to people’s voting decisions. Harris “has no plan” for those issues, except she has “unabashedly praised the current plan, a failed big government hodgepodge of massive spending and increased regulatory pressure called Bidenomics,” which put us in this mess. Trump’s plan involves “cutting taxes, slashing growth-killing regulations, and incentivizing domestic energy production, including fossil fuels.”

Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter!

Thanks for signing up!

From the right: Dishonest Times Fearmongering

“The New York Times has always charged Trump with demagoguery,” but now makes his “allegedly darkening rhetoric an obsessive theme,” though “Democrats routinely traffic in fear-mongering” against the right, seethes City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald. The Times’ “crusade” just reached “a new level of duplicity” as it claimed Trump has “openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy.” In fact, “Trump said no such thing”; the quote the Times cites was in response to a question about “the possibility of riots breaking out if Trump wins.” It is the media’s “dishonesty, not Trump’s worldview, that is becoming increasingly dark and that threatens the possibility of civil coexistence.”

Foreign desk: A Perilous ‘Escalation’ Phobia

“When it comes to war, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris couldn’t be more self-contradictory,” marvels Shay Khatiri at The Wall Street Journal. They tout their “unwavering commitments” to Israel and Ukraine but “hedge by trying to restrain Israelis and Ukrainians.” Why? They are “extremely risk-averse” about “escalation.” Yet their fears always “prove baseless,” and anyway, “escalation prevention isn’t the political objective of war; victory is. Escalation management is a tool that serves a political purpose.” If Harris becomes president, “expect more of the same” — and that “bodes ill for America’s national security and global stability.” Iran will “almost certainly” keep threatening regional war. “Vladimir Putin will test her by returning to nuclear threats.” Fact is: “The phobia of escalation will only invite more war.”

Eye on Albany: Hochul’s Energy Double Standard

Coca-Cola last year announced plans for a massive “milk-processing facility in Monroe County,” with “few details on how such an energy-intensive operation could fit within Albany’s strict climate rules”— and, fumes the Empire Center’s Ken Girardin, “it won’t have to” explain. The milk plant, a project touted by Gov. Hochul, won the state Public Service Commission’s OK to use “natural gas to run the plant.” Yet that conflicts with “the state’s greenhouse gas goals,” and the PSC is “invoking” the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act “as a weapon against proposals to improve gas availability or reliability” for others. New York state now has two types of projects: “those scuttled because of CLCPA, and those getting the all-clear from high places to proceed despite it.”

Campaign beat: Dems Driving Doubters to MAGA

“Vice President Kamala Harris, her surrogate Democrats and the left-leaning legacy media are all making me — a conservative who is not MAGA in any way — actively want to vote for former President Donald Trump,” confesses USA Today’s Ingrid Jacques. They emphasize her “potential to make history as the country’s first female president,” yet most people care more “about her policies — or lack thereof.” She “has so poorly defined what her presidency would look like and what she actually believes, she’s resorted to focusing squarely on Trump and what’s happened in the past.” Between the “nonsensical preaching on democracy, the media’s harping against Trump and liberals playing the woman card, I’ve had enough. And I may do exactly what they’re hoping people don’t: Vote for Trump.”