A first-hand report by New York Analysis of Policy & Government’s
editor-in-chief, Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr., J.D.
I covered, live, both President Trump’s inaugural address from the Capitol, and its protesters.
My work began before I left my home in New York City. Flights and trains were already booked (and it would have been impossible to find parking in D.C.) so I took an interstate bus.
My cab driver to the terminal had, decades ago, emigrated from the Dominican Republic, and was now a U.S. citizen. He mentioned that, to the dismay of his friends, he supported Trump. “Things keep getting worse in this country, especially over the last eight years. It’s time for a big change,” he stated.
The bus (which broke down in New Jersey and had to be replaced) was largely populated by protesters, some of whom were heading to McPherson Square to demonstrate during the inaugural, while others planned to take part in the women’s march the following day. Many wore buttons that bore obscene phrases about the (then) president-elect, while others had signs accusing Trump of being a racist, a Nazi, a homophobe, or a misogynist.
I asked a number of the passengers which Trump statements or policies led them to their concerns. The responses generally fell into one of four categories: 1) Trump was a billionaire, which they felt made him incapable of understanding the concerns of everyday people, 2) he was a Republican, which they believed automatically made him despicable, 3) his statements about gaining control of the borders meant he was a white supremacist.
It was the fourth category which had the most respondents, however: the presidency should have gone to Hillary Clinton, and both the fact that Trump won, and at times during the campaign, personally criticized her was, to them, unacceptable. They were particularly galled when he called her a “nasty woman,” and several had buttons which read “A nasty woman against Trump.”
Trump’s speech was certainly not hard-core conservative. It was filled with references about infrastructure and neglected American workers.
An objective analysis of the speech reveals two main targets of his blunt comments.
But back to our point as to how to purchase cialis in spain http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/soviette/? In today’s techno savvy world it’s becoming more and more tiring to actually go to your local pharmacy or superstore. Another common problem that can happen after gallbladder removal is fundamental. secretworldchronicle.com order levitra online For buy cipla viagra finding out a solution to the issue man needs to discuss various solutions available. levitra viagra price Some require the use of catheters that enter the veins through tiny incisions and then help close the vein by radiofrequency heat.
First, both Democrat and Republican legislators and bureaucrats who had made lucrative and extended careers by centering power in Washington while not delivering (and even obstructing) solutions to the nation’s problems. Trump stated, “What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people … We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.”
Second, the governments of nations who had enriched themselves by both engaging in unfair economic policies towards America, while at the same time benefiting from U.S. assistance.
The new President also overturned eight years of White House reluctance by condemning, in no uncertain terms, “Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.” The response from the crowd was visceral, loud, and deeply favorable. Indeed, the ethnically diverse crowd I was with at the Capitol responded enthusiastically to just about every phrase.
Interestingly enough, the loudest and most sustained “boos” for the invited dignitaries were not aimed at Ms. Clinton, but for Senator Charles Schumer, who included a number of subtle criticisms of the new President in his guest remarks. Schumer remains unpopular with many for his 2014 legislative proposal which would have weakened First Amendment protections for certain types of political speech.
After the ceremony, I went to McPherson Square, where the mood was decidedly different. An angry protest crowd included a number of groups which shouted epithets at police officers, journalists, and passersby (who, if they wore business attire, were apparently considered pro-Trump.)
Most of their signs and banners, rather than criticizing specific policies, tended to be general or profane comments about Trump, his family, and Republicans in general. What distinguished those protesting this inauguration from those in the past was the general lack of specificity. It seemed to be more of a collective temper tantrum on the part of the left that the American electorate had dared to disagree with them.
Many media reports appear to have understated the size of those who attended to be part of those supporting the new president. This is nothing new. Major news outlets have consistently engaged in the inappropriate practice of intentionally understating crowds at conservative-oriented events, and drastically overstating attendance at leftist-oriented gatherings.