The three factors shaping the era we're now embarking upon

The avalanche of developments this week has been particularly intense, has it not?

The discrediting of Buzzfeed for trumpeting the dossier compiled by that private British intelligence firm, Squirrel-Hair's wild press conference, Senate confirmation hearings for cabinet appointees, the Most Equal Comrade's farewell speech, the last-minute overturning by the MEC regime of the longstanding wet foot-dry foot policy for Cuban refugees.

With regard to the confirmation hearings, it seems to me that they serve as an encapsulation of our current political dynamic. Dem lawmakers basically use their questioning opportunities as a stage for agonized howling, for cornered-animal baring of teeth. Probably the clearest example of that is Kamala Harris of California asking CIA-head appointee Mike Pompeo about his past statements on "climate change." Talk about an angle of inquiry completely irrelevant to the proceedings at hand! But before she let him respond, she announced to the world what a tiresome twit she is by reciting the thoroughly discredited claim that 97 percent of the world's scientific authorities are certain that the global climate is in some kind of trouble due to human activity. Pompeo responded courteously and effectively, but Harris having got her two cents in will be the point of obsession for much of the chattering class.

Ditto the exchange between HUD-head appointee Ben Carson and Elizabeth Warren. From what orifice did she pull her question - couched in oh-so-cordial language about how she really understands his earnest desire to run a tight ship; she really does - about how he would make sure no grant money from his department would end up in the Trump family's pockets?

Then there is Cory Booker, who had the gall, not only to vaguely and without substantiation, hint that Jeff Sessions holds callous disregard for certain demographics in American society, but to invoke Selma, for crying out loud - mere months after cosponsoring a bill with Sessions awarding the Selma marchers the Congressional Gold Medal and saying he was "blessed and honored" by the collaboration.

With regard to the more directly Squirrel-Hair-related developments, such as the setting up of a trust for his business dealings to deflect any hint of conflicts of interest, or the business about his attorney having been in California when the "intelligence report" claimed he was meeting with a Russian operative in Prague, or the dustup involving Buzzfeed, CNN and golden showers, the shakeout seems to be that the "journalistic community" in post-America is discredited to an even greater degree than it had been.

Which is not to say that S-H comes off looking like some noble figure. Most definitely not, as evidenced by the latest Quinnipiac poll. His jackassery was on full display at his presser, as it was in such tweets as that regarding Schwarzenegger's Apprentice ratings, in which he made a third-person referral to himself as "the ratings machine, DJT."

Upshot of it all: This is unfolding just about the way I foresaw it once November 8 made the way forward a done deal:

• Conservatism, while it has the obstacle of the juvenile aspects of S-H's personality to deal with, has its best opportunity in decades to inform public policy.
• The Left will employ ever more venomous - and insane - tactics in mounting a resistance to that, and 
• Squirrel-Hair will be an embarrassment on a regular basis.

And, barring the introduction of some entirely unforeseen development into the mix (always a possibility in this jagged reality we inhabit), that is the table setting for the era now upon us.

If Laura's starting to waver . . .

Squirrel-Hair's Iowa speech last night may have been, to use a hackneyed-in-the-extreme term, a tipping point.

The Carson's-temper-as-a-kid-makes-him-comparable-to-a-child-molester remark.  "How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?" The "bomb the shit out of ISIS" remark.

It was such a volley of stink bombs that it caused a flying-pigs moment on talk radio this morning. Laura Ingraham, whose just-providing-objective-analysis-of-the-populist-anger-in-the-country schtick has rung completely hollow, given her undisguised glee whenever she has cited S-H's poll numbers or rally attendance numbers, was actually lambasting his performance without reserve. She actually spoke of his rise in the past tense. Took several calls from people who branded him toast. This is, as, S-H would say, yuuuuuuge. 

It's not as if she's done a turnabout on any other level, though. She's still a two-note johnny, the two notes being immigration and trade. In fact, she clearly has a goal of cramming those two words into every segment of her show as frequently as she can.

Look, LITD counts immigration as one of post-America's must urgent dilemmas - and for the reasons Ingraham harps on at every opportunity. National sovereignty, the rule of law, cultural cohesion and the ability of millions of citizens to make a decent living are all being mocked and indeed destroyed by not only the Most Equal Comrade's executive-overreach amnesty-granting to illegal aliens, but by the government's visa policy toward those who come here with their paperwork in order. I get that.

But one-note johnnies are a corrosive factor in our nation's political life.

To focus on immigration - or any other issue - to the exclusion of the others comprising the full array of forces dooming this country and Western civilization inclines one to latch on to a figure who carries the banner of that particular issue, even if that figure is a narcissistic blowhard completely lacking in a coherent conservative worldview, not to mention in depth as a human being.

And Squirrel-Hair is thusly lacking. 

Breitbart.com has also largely become a shill for S-H. In fact, today, Julia Hahn, executive producer for Ingraham's radio show, has a way-too-long piece at Breitbart on how National Review is "clear[ing] the way for Rubio with a war on Trump." Most of the piece is an argument that Rubio has not wavered from the position he eked out during the Gang of Eight episode. That, and an argument that National Review has lost its conservative moorings.

The hell it has. One could only argue thusly if one were so ate-up with Squirrel-Hair Kool-Aid that one were willing to completely ignore all evidence that S-H is an utter charlatan.

The only merit to Hahn's screed is that it has alerted me to the news that the magnificent Kevin D. Williamson of National Review has a new book out about this very subject, titled, quite simply, The Case Against Trump.

My must-read-soon list just got a little longer.

I've written before about how a secondary type of evidence, after S-H's own behavior and pronouncements, of the disturbing nature of his rise, is the manner in which most of his followers on comment threads not only at Breitbart, but pretty much anywhere one finds a piece discussing their hero, express themselves. The dismissing of the entire rest of the GOP field as donor-class RINO squishes and sellouts. "Go Trump!" in all caps. The characterization of National Review as a leftist rag of the same sort as Mother Jones. The one-note-johnny harping on immigration. The turning of any subject of conversation to their idol.

I don't know if Hahn wrote her piece before Ingraham's show today, but it seems likely. Then again, Hahn seems so up to her eyeballs in Kool-Aid that it may not have made much of a difference.

But her boss's new-found willingness to candidly assess S-H's grave misstep last night gives LITD hope that we may see the Pub field winnow down to real conservative contenders - and, yes, that includes Marco Rubio.

And when that scenario plays itself out, it will be a joy to see Ted Cruz give his acceptance speech at next summer's RNC convention.