There were a number of examples being highlighted this morning, from liberal female politicians laughing like children on a playground while making thumbs down gestures, to former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the newly appointed deputy chair of the DNC after losing his bid to become the chair, Keith Ellison, refusing to stand during an ovation for Carryn Owens, the widow of fallen Navy SEAL Ryan Owens, after Trump offered a tribute.
This was noticed by multiple people on social media, who referenced the disrespect at the time, not only for Owens, but for law enforcement, and for the father of a child killed by an illegal immigrant, one of which was Chief Content Officer for The IJR, who stated "Sobbing widow of slain Navy Seal receives 2 minute standing ovation. Debbie Wasserman Schultz & Keith Ellison stay firmly seated, no claps." He later clarifies for the record "Carryn Owens had 2 ovations. DWS & Ellison stood for her intro. The really long, emotional 2 min one, they did not stand."
While those examples simply show the sheer pettiness of the progressively liberal portion of the Democratic party, the most concerning reaction, or lack there of, to which speaks directly to the lack of respect for Americans and for the jobs they were elected to which is to "represent" the Americans in their states that voted them into office, was when Trump said "My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America."
As can be seen above, after that line, the Democratic representatives of the House, did not to stand and applaud. Refusing to applaud in areas where one side does not ideologically agree is nothing new, it is almost a time honored tradition allowing their base to see they do not agree, but considering the very oath of office these representatives take when elected, states clearly "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God," it is seriously disturbing to see them basically admit they do not agree with that particular statement.
A refusal to stand and applaud Trump's immigration statements is understandable, considering Democrats are on the opposite side of the spectrum, or his terrorism stance, again for the same reasons, in fact any interest to which there is an ideological difference is a chance to make a silent "statement" to their supporters by refusing to stand and applaud, but that one statement, one to which the president, members of the Senate and the House, should always publicly be on the same side of, shows that Democrats do not agree that it is an elected officials duty and obligation to put their citizenry first.
That ladies and gentlemen has the potential to cost Democrats the entire moderate segment of their party, in order to appease the radical left portion of their party.
The context, the meaning and the message given there cannot be overstated.
PROGRESSIVES DECLARE WAR ON LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
After Trump's speech last night, liberal darling Van Jones, now infamous for saying using the term "whitelash" on election night in reference to why he thought Trump won the presidential election, did the unthinkable in the eyes of the progressive liberal portion of the Democratic party, when he said the following, according to the video below and transcript from Fox News:
"There are a lot of people that have a lot of reasons to be frustrated with him, to be fearful of him, to be mad at him," Jones said. "But that was one of the most extraordinary moments we have ever seen in American politics...period.
"And he did something extraordinary and for people who have been hoping that he would become unifying, hoping that he might find some way to become presidential, they should be happy with that moment.
Jones said Trump's critics, who might be hoping he remains a "divisive cartoon," should be worried after the speech.
"That thing you just saw him do, if he finds a way to do that over and over again, he's gonna be there for eight years," Jones stated, adding that he believed much of Trump's speech was "counterfactual."
"He did something tonight that you cannot take away from him. He became President of the United States."
While reactions varied over that statement with some conservatives reminding Van Jones that Trump became president on January 20, 2017 when he was inaugurated, the basic message of his statement was clearly understood and caused a massive backlash from the progressively liberal faction of the party, with brutal attacks against him, including, but not limited to the one below grabbed from the trending Twitter phrase 'Van Jones', where he was called "drunk, gullible, and accused of being corrupted, an "idiot," people saying he is "dead" to them now, a "sell-out," to just name a few of the least offensive statements while going through the trending page, which included the following graphic:
All because he gave an opinion that wasn't full of hatred, liberals turned against him *snap* that quickly.
He isn't the only one though, as we note that liberal pundit Gayle King, stated "He said from the beginning he was going to speak from his heart, and I certainly think he did that," which was tweeted out by CBS This Morning, to which commenters told her she was "gullible,"and that she drank "Trump Love Potion."
ABC News Chief White House Correspondent said "This is @realDonaldTrump at his most presidential -- his most effective speech yet," and the responses are once again full of vitriol, with people asking him "Were you ever a real journalist?," and one asking if this was Karl's "way of sucking up to make sure you retain your seat at @PressSec WH briefings--or you're just high right now!." Others include accusing the media of "kissing Trump's *ss, which in and of itself is pretty funny considering all the negative coverage the outlets these same pundits work for have consistently written about Trump, but they cannot dare ever say anything positive, or they get attacked by progressives.
While the examples above show the amount of demnted loathing aimed directly at anyone, especially anyone considered a liberal, that dares say anything even seemingly complimentary about Trump, the back and forth between known Trump critic Chris Cillizza from Washington Post, and frothing at the mouth liberals after he dared offer objective opinions about Trump's speech by saying "Trump is never going to be a brilliant orator but this speech is the best I have seen him," and followed up by stating "I thought this was the best speech Trump has given since he became a candidate in June 2015," and "President Trump's speech to Congress was a very good moment for him - objectively," shows the level of inner-party bickering it has come to.
Cillizza was called and "easy mark," to which he responded, "I ask again though: Why can't Trump be praised for delivering a good speech full stop?" Clillizza then followed up with poll results showing 54 percent of Democrats called Trump's speech "presidential."
As an interesting side note, it appears that when Cillizza first saw the prepared remarks and that Trump would say ""My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America," he predicted that "This is a line lots of people -- Democrats and Republicans -- will applaud," showing he massively overestimated liberal politicians that attended the speech.
While I cannot feel much sympathy for these liberals that are discovering what Trump supporters have been noting since Trump announced his candidacy, because they themselves, being part of the MSM, have instigated much of unreasonable attitudes they are now facing for having an opinion that doesn't walk in lockstep with progressives, it might be helpful going forward now that they have seen it for themselves. Perhaps.
The reason the Democratic party cannot seem to regroup and converge on a message is because they are divided within their own party, amidst a civil war of their own making, with liberals attacking more moderate Democrats, and their abject hatred and vitriol is now being witnessed by the more objective portion of their party, which is costing them support from those that see how unreasonable they have become.
As to the liberals members not standing and applauding the assertion that that it is Trump's job to represent America, which should also be their job, The Daily Wire succinctly underscores the bottom line when they write "No wonder Democrats aren’t connecting with Americans. Their hatred for Trump is stronger than their love of country."
I would add one thing to that.... their hatred for Trump is also destroying their whole party from within.
Below we see Presidential historian Doug Wead give his objective opinion on President Trump's speech to a joint session of Congress.
Father of teen killed by illegal immigrant reacts to speech
For those that missed the speech last night, the entire adress to a joint session of Congress speech by President Trump is shown below.