Economist/YouGov Poll Reveals Kamala Harris’ Serious Unpopularity; Problematic for Dems Chances in 2024

Photo Credit: Image by chayka1270 from Pixabay

An Economist/You Gov poll conducted in early May shows that Vice President Kamala Harris, whose failure to gain traction in the 2020 Democratic primary forced her to drop out of the race ahead of the Iowa caucuses, remains deeply unpopular.

The results show that 48 percent of U.S. adults hold a very or somewhat unfavorable opinion of Harris, 41 percent have a very or somewhat favorable opinion, and 10 percent don’t know.

As one would expect, a whopping 84 percent of Republicans view the Vice President unfavorably, 12 percent favorably and 4 percent are unsure.

The real problems for Harris are revealed by the numbers from Independents and Democrats. Nearly three out of five Independents, or 57 percent, regard her unfavorably and just 32 percent view her favorably. Eleven percent don’t know.

Among Democrats, 74 percent hold a favorable opinion, 19 percent unfavorable and eight percent don’t know. That one out of every five Democrats view the Vice President negatively, especially this early on in the administration, is problematic.

Although President Joe Biden says he will run in 2024, it’s a pretty sure bet he will be incapable of doing so. Due to the pandemic, he was able to run his 2020 campaign from his basement. Had COVID-19 not been a factor and he had been forced to run a traditional presidential campaign, he likely would have lost the race. As Biden’s cognitive decline continues to deteriorate, a conventional campaign, which would start two years from now, is inconceivable.

Harris very possibly may be the president by that time which is why her unpopularity matters.

Except for that one brief moment of glory during a Democratic presidential debate when Harris performed her well-rehearsed takedown of then-rival Joe Biden over busing and segregation, her numbers languished in the low single digits until she was forced to end her campaign in December 2019.

Harris’ popularity soared to 16 percent after her ambush on then-former Vice President Biden – only to fall back into the low single digits after she was dealt a fatal blow by rival Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii.

Note too that, at the time of this debate in June 2019, Biden was still able to hold his own in the public arena. He wasn’t quite his old self, however, he spoke with relative ease and was able to recall legislation he had worked on. Now, two years later, he lapses into gibberish at times and his handlers must orchestrate each of his public appearances. Two years from now, the differences will be stark.

In the video below, Gabbard torches Harris’ record as the attorney general of California. Harris’ support never recovered from that exchange. (Gabbard’s remarks come at 4:00 and 5:40 in the video below.)

Harris is unquestionably a bright, accomplished woman, but she is unlikable and appears to be completely out of touch with ordinary Americans.

Aside from her reputation as a politician who will say or do whatever is necessary to achieve her goals, many find her habit of nervous laughter to be disconcerting.

For example, in March, a reporter asked Harris if she had plans to visit the southwestern border,

Initially, she appeared to be stunned by the question. Collecting herself, she replied, Uh … Um … Not today.” This was followed by laughter. How is that humorous?

Turning serious, she said, “I have before and I’m sure I will again. Yeah.”

I don’t think the Vice President actually finds the growing disaster funny. Her cackle, in my opinion, is a defense mechanism. When she is nervous, when she wants to deflect from an uncomfortable topic, she laughs. The reporter had obviously hit a nerve.

After Biden announced Harris as his running mate last summer, the dutiful media put on a full court press to revamp her image.

Even with all of the positive news coverage that ensued, Harris still remains unpopular. The majority of Americans simply don’t like her. This, combined with the Biden Administration’s radical transformation of America, will be a major challenge for Democrats going forward.

Will Trump Run in 2024? Mark Meadows Puts the Odds at Better Than 50-50

Photo Credit: Image by StudioLabs from Pixabay

Mark Meadows, who served as former President Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff from March 2020 through the end of his term, spoke to conservative commentator and radio host Sebastian Gorka on Wednesday. Gorka asked Meadows to “give us your expectations” on the possibility of a Trump run in 2024. “Every day he’s got another statement he’s making. He’s opened his office. He’s doing political endorsements. Are you feeling good Mark?”

“I’m feeling great about President Trump’s willingness to serve once again in the Oval Office,” Meadows replied. “I can tell you this, he’s making all the preparations necessary. He’s being encouraged by his friends and former staffers.”

“But, ultimately, what I think you will see is a vision for America that didn’t stop on Nov. 3, didn’t stop on Jan. 20, and we need to reengage,” he said. “So he’s getting major encouragement, and I would say this: I would put the odds at better than 50-50 that he runs again, and everybody should take note of that.”

(Relevant portion starts at 6:00 in the video.)

Gorka brought up the “establishment GOP and RINO sub-class” and asked Meadows if they would lose their stranglehold on conservative politics. “What else do we need to do? … Give them some advice.”

“They need to stay in the fight. Do not believe that this battle is over. In fact, if anything, it’s ramping up with those that are Republican In Name Only, the establishment, the swamp’s trying to fight back to make sure that they don’t remember a President Donald Trump,” Meadows told Gorka. “The fighters that are actually fighting for your values and my values and for we the people. Let them hear from you.”

Trump remained uncharacteristically quiet for the first six weeks or so after leaving the White House and moving into his Mar a Lago home with his family.

All of that changed on March 1 when he delivered his much anticipated first major post-presidential speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He came roaring back to the delight of his supporters.

Since then, he’s been actively preparing for a Republican comeback in the 2022 midterm elections. He’s been endorsing candidates and finding primary opponents for those whom he “disfavors.”

He continues to issue statements about items in the news.

He is also planning his own social media platform. According to his former advisor, Jason Miller, that will happen relatively soon.

In an appearance on Fox News’ “Media Buzz” last month, Miller said, “I do think that we’re going to see President Trump returning to social media in probably about two or three months here with his own platform. And this is something that I think will be the the hottest ticket in social media. It’s going to completely redefine the game and everybody is going to be waiting and watching to see what exactly President Trump does. But it will be his own platform.”

“I can’t go much further than what I was able to just share, but I can say that it will be big once he starts,” he explained. “There have been a lot of high powered meetings he’s been having at Mar a Lago with some teams of folks who have been coming in. And I got to tell you, there have been – it’s not just one company that’s approached the president. There have been numerous companies.”

Does all of this add up to a Trump run in 2024? I guess we’ll see.

After Democratic Socialists Win Every Seat, Entire Staff of Nevada Democratic Party Quits


A civil war has been brewing since 2016 between the Democratic Socialists in Nevada and the establishment Democrats, known as the Harry Reid machine, which the former Senate Majority Leader still advises. On Saturday evening, candidates supported by the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America won all five seats in the party’s leadership.

The Intercept reported that, shortly after her victory, the new chair of the state’s Democratic Party, far-left Judith Whitmer, received an email from Alana Mounce, the party’s executive director, to say that she and “every other employee were quitting. And so were all the consultants.”

Whitmer had been the chair of the Clark County Left Caucus.

Mounce’s wing of the party claims that Whitmer would have fired them all if they hadn’t quit.

The Intercept contacted Whitmer who denied that claim. She said, “I’ve been putting in the work. What they just didn’t expect is that we got better and better at organizing and out-organizing them at every turn.”

The rift began during the 2016 Democratic primary in the state. Reid supported Hillary Clinton while the “insurgent” wing of the party backed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

According to the Intercept, “over the next four years, outside organizations like DSA exploded in size and strength. The Sanders campaign focused on organizing tens of thousands of young Latino voters in the state, with the goal of activating people whom the party hadn’t bothered with before. And it worked: In the 2020 cycle, after investing heavily in Nevada, Sanders won a commanding victory in the Nevada caucuses.”

Whitmer told The Intercept, “The mass exodus of party staff, despite the rhetoric around unity, wasn’t a shock. We weren’t really surprised, in that we were prepared for it. But what hit us by surprise and was sort of shocking is that for a slate that claimed that they were all about unity, and kept this false narrative of division going on throughout the entire campaign — in fact they kept intensifying that — that’s what was surprising about it, was the willingness to just walk away, instead of working with us.”

It’s always easy for a winning candidate to call for unity, but according to Whitmer’s predecessor, former Clark County Democratic Chair Donna West, “Whitmer did not try to bridge gaps within the party. She does not listen to others’ opinions and really take those on board. I found that working with her could be really difficult, that she doesn’t really collaborate well, and doesn’t work to build consensus.” And West is on the same page politically as Whitmer.

The Intercept spoke to a former staffer under the condition of anonymity who said “they had quit out of a belief that Whitmer hadn’t built relationships across the party as Clark County chair and was at times unfairly critical of the state Democratic Party.” This individual said, “I knew I couldn’t work with her and watch her destroy the years of hard work so many operatives put into making our state party the best state party in the country.”

(Note: The Intercept provides a detailed account of the feud between the establishment Democrats and the progressives which led to Saturday’s socialist blowout. Read the whole story here.)

It’s not surprising to hear of a clash between the progressives and the establishment wings of the party. We’ve witnessed a radical change in the Democratic Party over the last five years. Ideas that were considered extremist when Sanders first proposed them on the 2016 campaign trail have become mainstream. We watched as every candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination expressed their support for granting health care coverage to undocumented immigrants at a primary debate.

Unfortunately, rather than seeing a clash between progressives and the more moderate Democrats in Washington, most of the party’s leaders have embraced the sharp left turn.

America is well on its way to becoming a socialist nation. We’re on a very dangerous path and the time is now for some drastic and fierce pushback.

Biden Signs Executive Order to ‘Expand Voting Access’ on Anniversary of ‘Bloody Sunday’


President Joe Biden is contemptible. Just as he chose the anniversary of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting several weeks ago to introduce gun control laws, he used the anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” to announce his latest power grab executive order to expand voting access.

As The War Room’s Steve Bannon said on his podcast last week, Biden’s eyes look dead.

He slurs his way through the words that appear on the teleprompter before him.

“The blood of [the late congressman and civil rights icon] John Lewis and so many other brave and righteous souls that was spilled in Selma on this Sunday in 1965 sanctified a noble struggle,” Biden says.

“But there are those [us] who will do anything they can to take that power away. Today we have a hailstorm, not a rainstorm, a hailstorm. In 2020, our very democracy … on the line, in the midst of a pandemic, more Americans voted than ever before.”

He’s right about that. In fact, in the state of Pennsylvania, so many people voted that there were 200,000 more ballots than people who voted!

“Multiple recounts in states and decisions of more than 60 cases from judges appointed by my predecessor, including at the Supreme Court, upheld the integrity of this historic election.”

That is not true. Those judges refused to review the cases brought by former President Trump’s legal team. They wouldn’t even look at the 1,000 affidavits of election observers who swore, under the penalty of perjury, that they had witnessed fraud.

“We’ve seen an unprecedented insurrection in our Capitol and a brutal attack on our democracy on January 6th.”

I would argue that we saw a brutal attack on our democracy on November 3.

He continues, “A never before seen effort to ignore, undermine and undo the will of the people. And to think of that and yet it’s been followed by an all-out assault on the right to vote in state legislatures all across the country.”

“You know, during the current legislative session, elected officials in 43 states have already introduced over 250 bills to make it harder for Americans to vote. We can … not … let … them … succeed.”

Biden emphasizes the importance of H.R. 1 which would make permanent all of the chicanery that handed him the presidency. He hopes that it passes the Senate.

“I also urge Congress to fully restore the Voting Rights Act named in John Lewis’ honor.

“Today, on the anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” I’m signing an executive order to make it easier for eligible voters to register to vote and improve access to voting.”

Yes, because it’s so onerous to travel to our local precincts, show our drivers’ licenses and cast our ballots.

Then, he discusses words he exchanged with John Lewis shortly before he passed. Lewis had told him to “finish the work.” And that’s what our noble president has vowed to do.

He is a disgrace.


Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!

20 States Send Letter to Congressional Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes


Democratic leaders no longer even try to hide their real objectives. All of the bills introduced by Democratic lawmakers have been undisguised power grabs.

Having been well pleased with the flexibility in voting methods the pandemic allowed them, and certainly with the result of the election, party leaders decided to make these changes permanent. The result was the passage of H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2021,” (the Act), by the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

Noting the gross overreach by the federal government in the bill, the attorneys general of 20 states penned a letter to Congressional leadership which can be viewed here.

This group of top law enforcement officers write that “it is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening to election integrity and voter confidence.” They make the case that H.R. 1 strips the state legislatures of their constitutionally granted authority to determine how elections will be held in their states.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, the leader of this group and the first signer of the letter, issued a statement to Fox News which read in part, “This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box. As a former chief election officer, and now an Attorney General, I know this would be a disaster for election integrity and confidence in the processes that have been developed over time to instill confidence in the idea of ‘one person, one vote.’”

The letter begins: “As introduced, the Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates that, if passed, would federalize state elections and impose burdensome costs and regulations on state and local officials. Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal — and with presidential elections, exclusive — responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections. The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance.”

It states further that “the Act regulates ‘election for Federal office,’ defined to include ‘election for the office of President or Vice President.’ The Act therefore implicates the Electors Clause, which expressly affords ‘Each State’ the power to ‘appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,’ the state’s allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to ‘determine the Time of chusing the Electors.’  That exclusive division of power for setting the ‘manner’ and ‘time’ of choosing presidential electors differs markedly from the collocated powers of the Article I Elections Clause, which says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the ‘time, place, and manner’ of congressional elections.”

“That distinction is not an accident of drafting,” the group maintains. “After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.”

They cite a Supreme Court ruling in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) in which the court upheld “a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district.” The court “observed that the Electors Clause ‘convey[s] the broadest power of determination’ and ‘leaves it to the [state] legislature exclusively to define the method’ of appointment of electors.”

“The exclusivity of state power to ‘define the method’ of choosing presidential electors,” write the attorneys general, “means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example.”

The group notes the Act’s “regulation of congressional elections” which includes “mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter identification (“ID”) laws, and mandating that states conduct redistricting through unelected commissions [gerrymandering], also faces severe constitutional hurdles.” Rather than “acting as a check,” Congress is “seizing the role of principal election regulator.”

The letter excoriates the Democrats’ proposal to eliminate voter ID laws which the group writes is “perhaps” the “most egregious” feature of the bill. It also cites the Act’s attempt to put limitations on how states can purge voter rolls of those who have left the state.

“The Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement, as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to “attest [ ] to the individual’s identity and . . . that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.” This does little to ensure that voters are who they say they are.”

Identification is required for everything in modern life. I went to a Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles facility several months ago to renew my driver’s license. In Connecticut, a trip to the DMV requires several hours. Finally working my way to the front of the line, I presented my passport, social security card, even my birth certificate – complete with a raised seal. I had forgotten, however, to bring two pieces of mail from my address of the last 27 years, so I would not be allowed to receive a “REAL ID,” one that could be used to board an airplane. Unless I wanted to do all of this over again, I would be issued a “standard” license that stated “Not for Federal Identification” on its face. Deciding that I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than repeat this exercise anytime soon, I opted for the standard license.

Voting is one of the most sacred privileges of a U.S. citizen. There is only one reason for waiving the voter ID requirement. And that is because it facilitates voter fraud. It’s that simple.

The attorneys general conclude with the following message. “Despite recent calls for political unity, the Act takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps states’ authority over elections. With confidence in elections at a record low, the country’s focus should be on building trust in the electoral process. Around the nation, the 2020 general elections generated mass confusion and distrust — problems that the Act would only exacerbate. Should the Act become law, we will seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens.”

In their quest for absolute power, Democrats have forgotten that the United States is a constitutional federal republic. Our government “is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers.” (Emphasis added.)

Finally, “‘federal’ means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states.” Under the federal system of government, state legislatures are granted the power to determine election laws in the state.

Blinded by their lust for power, Democrats are ignoring the Constitution and showing complete disregard for the rule of law. The fact that 20 attorneys general have come forward to threaten “legal remedies” to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens,” if this bill becomes law, speaks volumes.

The National Constitution Center, a left-leaning think tank, provides the weak counter-argument to the belief that states have the right to set their own regulations concerning elections. They claim that the Elections Clause “vests ultimate power in Congress.” They write that the Framers “were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress.”

The NCC website states: “Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.”

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the opposite is true, that the Framers were more concerned with endowing the states with sovereignty.

A final decision on this case may ultimately require an interpretation of the Tenth and Eleventh amendments by the Supreme Court.

So far, however, perhaps because they feel vulnerable over Democrats’ threats to pack the court, the justices have repeatedly rejected attempts to get pulled into political disputes. Rather than being mere “political disputes,” I see them as questions requiring constitutional interpretation. And isn’t that why we have a Supreme Court?

This bill may never need to be settled by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, it will fail in the Senate. In March 2019, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked an earlier version of the “For the People Act.”

(Note: After the new version was introduced in January, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson addressed the features of this proposed legislation on his show. He concluded that if H.R. 1 were to become law, it would “enshrine fraud.” A video of Carlson’s excellent analysis can be viewed here.)

Like a commander regrouping with his troops after a major defeat, Trump assessed the damage and offered a path forward


We welcomed back an old friend.

With his theme song, “God Bless the U.S.A.,” playing in the background, former President Donald Trump took the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Sunday looking better than he has in years. Six weeks away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has renewed him. He even appeared to have lost some weight.

Like a commander regrouping with his troops after a major defeat, Trump assessed the damage and offered a path forward.

He also cleared up any doubts about the leadership of the Republican Party.

I’m sure you all saw either Trump’s entire address or caught the highlights on the news, so there’s no need to recount the entire speech. I’d just like to hit a couple of items that stood out to me.

The former president made a key observation about the Democratic Party which Republicans would be wise to learn from.

Democrats stick together.

The Democratic Party doesn’t have any Mitt Romneys or (little) Ben Sasses. Or any Lincoln Projects. They have no anti-Clintoners or anti-Bideners. Party members rally behind their own regardless of their personal feelings toward a candidate. Because, for them, any Democrat is better than a Republican.

Here’s what Trump had to say (via

The Democrats don’t have grandstanders like Mitt Romney, little Ben Sasse, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Pat Toomey, and in the House, Tom Rice, South Carolina, Adam Kinzinger, Dan Newhouse, Anthony Gonzalez. That’s another beauty. Fred Upton, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Peter Meyer, John Katko, David Valadao. And of course the warmonger, a person that loves seeing our troops fighting, Liz Cheney. How about that? The good news is in her state, she’s been censured, and in her state, her poll numbers have dropped faster than any human being I’ve ever seen. So hopefully they’ll get rid of her with the next election. Get rid of them all.

Democrats are vicious. Remember this, it’s true. Democrats are vicious. He said evil, well, there is evil there, but they’re vicious, they’re smart, and they do one thing. You got to hand it to them. They always stick together. You don’t have Mitt Romney’s in the group. They always stick together.

Back in October, Mitt Romney’s office confirmed to The Hill that he did not vote for then-President Trump. They declined to say whether he had voted for Biden, a third-party candidate or no one. Only that he did not vote for Trump, whose policies largely line up with his own. Romney and so many others can’t possibly be happy with all of the far-left policies that have been put into place since Jan. 20. Yet, he put his personal hatred for Trump above what he believes is best for America.

Ditto for so many other Republicans.

Are they pleased with the liberal assault on our once-great nation?

How do they feel about the Democrats’ undisguised attempt to silence Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News Network?

Are they happy to provide food, shelter and health care for the throngs of illegal immigrants pouring into our country when there are millions of homeless Americans?

Trump pointed out that Biden administration officials are bragging about providing education for the children of illegals at the border while American children are falling behind because Biden has bowed to the powerful teachers’ unions.

Democrats would never allow this to happen. Bernie Sanders couldn’t have been pleased about losing the party’s nomination to Biden. Whatever Sanders’ private feelings may be, he supported Biden publicly. Republicans need to do the same.

Early on, Trump threw cold water on the persistent rumor that he was planning to start a third political party (the Patriot Party). He said this had been fake news. He fully understands that such a move would divide Republicans and guarantee defeat.

We’re not starting new parties. They kept saying, he’s going to start a brand new party. We have the Republican party. It’s going to unite and be stronger than ever before. I am not starting a new party. That was fake news, fake news.

No. Wouldn’t that be brilliant? Let’s start a new party and let’s divide our vote so that you can never win. No, we’re not interested in that.

That came as a tremendous relief to many of us.

He offered a definition of Trumpism.

It means low taxes. It means eliminating job-killing regulations. Trumpism means strong borders, but people coming into our country based on a system of merit so they can come in and help us as opposed to coming here and not being good for us, including criminals.

It means no riots in the streets. It means law enforcement. It means very strong protection for the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. It means support for the forgotten men and women who have been taken advantage of for so many years.

And he set out a four-year plan for the GOP. Trump assured the crowd he intended to play an active role in realizing these goals. However, he stopped short of saying he was planning a 2024 run. He’ll likely tease us about this for at least two more years. Whether or not he runs, he will be busy behind the scenes implementing his vision for the party’s future. And settling political scores.

To the Democrats, Trump may pose an even greater threat outside of the White House where he can’t be monitored so closely.

Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!

Report: Trump Will Take a Swipe at Kevin McCarthy During CPAC Speech


Politico’s Tara Palmieri reports that former President Donald Trump may publicly reprimand House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy during his highly anticipated CPAC speech on Sunday afternoon (3:40 p.m.).

“Three people close to Trump” have told Palmieri that Trump is “stewing anew over” the highest-ranking House Republican. Palmieri writes:

It’s become so frequent that his advisers think the House minority leader may be in for a public reprimand. That’s even after the powwow at Mar-a-Lago where McCarthy tried to patch things up after he denounced Trump for the violence on Jan. 6.

The reason for Trump’s displeasure: an emboldened Cheney.

Each time Cheney criticizes Trump from her leadership post as the No. 3 House Republican, he’s reminded that it was McCarthy who pleaded with his conference to keep her on as chair — despite her vote to impeach Trump. The latest trigger came Wednesday when Cheney said at a press conference that Trump should not lead the party going forward while McCarthy awkwardly stood by.

We’ll see whether McCarthy can get to Trump before his speech Sunday. He seems to already be trying to work his way back into Trump’s good graces. On Thursday, McCarthy took a swipe at Cheney on Fox News, suggesting that she supports cancel culture.

In a floor speech ahead of the House vote to impeach Trump for a second time on January 13, McCarthy said he should be censored instead. He told colleagues that Trump must “accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest and ensure President-Elect Joe Biden is able to successfully begin his term.”

McCarthy has since walked that statement back and tried to “patch things up” during a visit to Mar-a-Lago.

Still, he was instrumental in persuading members of the House GOP conference to allow Liz Cheney to keep her leadership position. Cheney was one of ten Republicans to vote to impeach then-President Trump.

Additionally, after Cheney told reporters she doesn’t believe Trump should be playing a role in the leadership of our country at a joint press conference on Wednesday, McCarthy abruptly ended the event, but allowed her statements to stand.

This is important to McCarthy because Republicans just might take back the House in 2022; they only need to flip five seats to do so.

If that happens, he will no doubt seek the role of House Speaker, a position he sought in 2016. McCarthy didn’t have enough votes and the Speakership went to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who did not want it.

Whether or not the former president rebukes McCarthy or not in this afternoon’s address, I fully expect him to knock it out of the ballpark and leave his enemies confounded – again.

The left has made it their mission to destroy Donald Trump, but every time they think they’ve finally succeeded, he comes roaring back.

The New York Times published an article about Trump’s speech and found a former advisor willing to diss him on the record. Look who they found:

“In 2013 and 2014, Mr. Trump wanted ‘to be part of the action,’” recalled Sam Nunberg, a former adviser to the Trump campaign in 2016. Now, as a former president, Mr. Nunberg said, Mr. Trump “has ‘to be part of the action’ to keep his precarious grip as the leading contender for the 2024 G.O.P. primary.”

“The reality is that speaking at CPAC so soon after becoming only the 10th president to lose re-election is a sign of weakness,” Mr. Nunberg said.

Sam Nunberg. Sam Nunberg…Oh, that’s right. Nunberg made headlines in March 2018, at a time when Democrats were sure the Mueller investigation would bring Trump down. Vox reported:

Starting Monday afternoon and going well into the evening, America watched a man melt down on live national television.

Former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg repeatedly called into national television stations, most notably CNN and MSNBC, to vent about a subpoena he had received from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia probe. Nunberg repeatedly threatened not to comply with the subpoena, at one point literally daring Mueller to arrest him.

He ranted about legal fees and the effort required to find the emails that Mueller requested of him. At one point, he seemed to reveal a piece of vital information about the Russia investigation, but clarified that he meant something very different when I spoke to him over the phone.

This all culminated in a dramatic in-studio interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett, who noticed something wrong with Nunberg. “You’re sitting very close to me … I have smelled alcohol on your breath,” she said. “I have not had a drink,” Nunberg insisted, adding that he had taken nothing “besides my meds.”

It was car crash television, an awful, sad spectacle you couldn’t help but watch. It’s also a little window into how the Trump campaign operated — and how Russia was capable of exploiting it.

The Times was really reaching, weren’t they?

Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!