Watching American politics remains as depressing as ever. There are the Democrats who run as Democrats (DD), there are the Democrats who run as Republicans (DR), there are the Republicans (R) and then there’s Donald Trump (T). And running far to the left of all of these is the media (M). The configuration is thus DD+DR+M vs R+T. Maddening. And the DR types may well have preferred Hillary over Trump, and that includes Paul Ryan, the present Speaker of the House, a DR to his very bootstraps. So let us go to the tape. This is Ryan speaking in October, just a month before the election:

“His comments are not anywhere in keeping with our party’s principles and values,” Ryan said. “There are basically two things that I want to make really clear, as for myself as your Speaker. I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future. As you probably heard, I disinvited him from my first congressional district GOP event this weekend—a thing I do every year. And I’m not going to be campaigning with him over the next 30 days.”

In the things Trump can do on his own, he is making progress but it is a shark pool at every turn. But the one area he cannot control are the issues that can only be decided by legislation, which means by Congress, which means they must pass through the hands of Paul Ryan. And this is the core issue of Obamacare, which either can be repealed or it cannot. And if it cannot be repealed, because it requires 60 votes and there are only 52 Republicans, then there may or may not be other ways to do it, which requires some kind of finessing in the way the legislation is crafted. And that is how it is being done, or so Ryan says. But among those who in my view are in the R column is Tom Cotton, Senator from Arkansas, a potential presidential nominee and very astute. Here he is talking to Hugh Hewitt.

HH: So what can be done? I’ve talked to the Speaker, I’ve got to the Leader. I’ve talked to Cathy McMorris Rodgers is on today, Mick Mulvaney, Tom Price. They all say it’s a three-step dance because of the Senate reconciliation rule. So you know those rules. Working within the rules, how can the Senate improve its bill, or how can the House send to the Senate a bill that fits within the guardrails of reconciliation and allows for 51 votes that improves the individual market?

TC: Hugh, there is no three-phase process. There is no three-step plan. That is just political talk. It’s just politicians engaging in spin. This is why. Step one is a bill that can pass with 51 votes in the Senate. That’s what we’re working on right now. Step two, as yet unwritten regulations by Tom Price, which is going to be subject to court challenge, and therefore, perhaps the whims of the most liberal judge in America. But step three, some mythical legislation in the future that is going to garner Democratic support and help us get over 60 votes in the Senate. If we had those Democratic votes, we wouldn’t need three steps. We would just be doing that right now on this legislation altogether. That’s why it’s so important that we get this legislation right, because there is no step three. And step two is not completely under our control.

Meanwhile the drumbeat of left opposition continues with anything and everything that can be thrown into the vat included, however preposterous it may be. To which is added the often sensible but still negative criticisms from those who support Trump in general but disagree on various particulars. Three years and nine months till the next election, but those years do go by quickly.

What continues to amaze me is how little assistance the right side of the political divide offer to Trump. I don’t say that there should be blind allegiance, but I do say there should be at least some awareness of how hard it is to push a conservative agenda in this day and age. There is endless opposition from almost 50% of the population who are socialists of one kind or another, either through personal conviction or because it raises their personal incomes to much higher levels than they would otherwise reach. And in that latter group, there are the oceans of welfare recipients on one side and the crony capitalists on the other. They present a formidable phalanx and are almost immovably difficult to deal with. Trump has both the mentality and the will to overcome much of this but he cannot do it by himself on his own. The #NeverTrump is now more than supplemented by the #WishyWashyTrump, who are ready to criticise from the very moment an issue comes up. The benefit of the doubt is never towards seeing what Trump is trying to do with the limited resources available in the midst of a public service that is largely and implacably opposed to his agenda. I need hardly add that not everything can be done at once and many things that Trump may wish to do might in the fullness of time turn out to be impossible to carry out. But that he is trying to achieve my agenda is never in doubt, and that he miraculously prevented a Hillary administration will always mean we were given at least this one last chance before the deluge.

Michael Savage, along with Rush Limbaugh, are two who do get it. Savage has just published a book – Trump’s War: His Battle for America – that spells out the dangers of a fairmindedness that borders on the inane.

This is a battle that is for keeps. If we lose it, we don’t get to come back next season and have another go.

Anything can be faked in this day and age, but this is at least has it funny side. It’s from Barack’s half brother Malik: Malik Obama shares photo of brother Barack’s Kenya ‘certificate of birth’. Of course, to quote Hillary Clinton, what difference at this stage does it make?

Meanwhile, the Hawaiian version has had its critics as discussed here. Nevertheless, fake or not, this is what has been published.

Now perhaps we can clear up the questions surrounding Obama’s Connecticut social security number, a state in which he never lived. And while we are at it, we could look into why no fellow student remembers ever seeing him at Columbia although he was supposedly there for two years!

This article provides a genuine public service, an explanation of why repealing Obamacare is so very very difficult. As the title says Repealing and Replacing ObamaCare – Much Confusion is in “The Process”. Provided at the link is an explanation of just how intricate and immensely difficult the process is which is in large part a consequence of the way the legislation was first introduced. Repeal cannot be done by the President on his own. The undoing of Obamacare must go through the Congress. The Senate is 52-48 Republican so that a repeal, which requires 60 votes, can never occur. The need is to find a way to keep at least 50 of the 52 Republicans together so that they can piecemeal amend the existing legislation to modify its effects and change the nature of the system.

If this interests you, you should read the entire article, but the following gives you a summary of the summary you find at the link.

The Republicans are going to attempt to repeal that bill by modifying it; and have to also plan for a full unity road block of Democrats providing them no support. That means the Republican repeal/modification needs to pass the house and senate without a single Democrat vote. . . .

This process takes three phases. In phase #1 you are repealing a bill through modification knowing you need to use the Senate Reconciliation process (51 vote threshold). That means the repeal/modification bill itself cannot have any federal budgetary impact beyond 10-years. Any bill/modification that HAS budgetary impact, beyond ten years, cannot use reconciliation in the Senate and must reach the higher hurdle of 60 votes.

Additionally, phase #2 and phase #3 will take place over time, through the regular process, as the House and Senate debate their constituent provisions. This is how the law should have been written in the first place – but it wasn’t. Phase #2 and phase #3 mean compromise, because the higher vote thresholds will be required.

All of the changes that people want in a replaced ObamaCare bill (purchasing across state lines, etc.) can only come after the entanglement/modification of the law takes place.

Which brings us to the second major issue, why not just repeal the entire thing and start over? “The hand grenade approach”. As explained:

Firstly, a clean “repeal bill” would be “new legislation” that would require 60 votes of support in the Senate. That means 8 Democrat Senators would be needed to eliminate ObamaCare. They don’t exist. Secondly…

POLITICS! Repeal alone would mean 100% of Americans could immediately be thrown into a state of immediate loss of coverage, and tens of millions – especially those currently using medicaid- certainly would. And not a single Democrat would be in a hurry to create another construct with the 2018 election coming and their ability to say “republicans destroyed your healthcare” etc.

Thus, if repeal and replace is to happen at all, this is what must take place:

Phase #1 – Dismantle the underlying financial construct of the law through new law targeting the underlying financial architecture. This process allows reconciliation (lower vote threshold in the Senate).

Phase #2 – HHS Secretary Tom Price rewrites the rules and regulations to focus on patient centered care. Most of the tens of thousands of pages are rules and regulations. Secretary Price uses the new architecture created under phase #1 to rewrite the rules.

Phase #3 – The wholesale reforms and changes to the law: malpractice/tort reform, purchasing across state lines, etc. are additions – new bills – (higher vote thresholds) to add to the law that provide the changes most ObamaCare critics are demanding.

Maddening. But what you will now see unfold is whether Trump actually has the ability to guide this process through the various stages required, while the entire world of the left does everything they can to stop the process while half of those who are lining up on his own side have agendas of their own which will often not coincide with whatever is required to finally see this misshapen disaster finally discarded.

The one certainty I have is that Trump wants to see Obamacare gone but understands the care he needs to take.

Supposedly a compilation of insults but really just a compilation of Trump making his points in opposition to others.

I have provided a more compact version of the speech. A true show stopper! Here’s how it starts.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States, and Citizens of America:

Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our Nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains. Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a Nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.

Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty and justice –- in an unbroken chain all the way down to the present.

That torch is now in our hands. And we will use it to light up the world. I am heretonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart.

A new chapter of American Greatness is now beginning.

A new national pride is sweeping across our Nation.

And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp.

What we are witnessing today is the Renewal of the American Spirit.

Our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead.

All the nations of the world — friend or foe — will find that America is strong, America is proud, and America is free.

And I do have to say I am amazed at the Democrats who do not applaud a single statement made by the President. You can find the full text here.

UPDATE: I will only mention this report of Trump’s speech that is featured at Drudge because it has the following passage:

Putting some policy meat on the bones, he proposed introducing an Australian-style merit-based system to reduce the flow of unskilled workers — and held out the prospect of a bipartisan compromise with Democrats on root-and-branch immigration reform.

We led the world and the world is now following our example. I will just say that if our Liberal Party can somehow manage to lose the next election in an international environment that ought to be exactly what they ought to have hoped for, they will be remembered as the most incompetent bunch of dimwitted losers in the history of politics.