tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX Business December 26, 2020 6:00pm-7:00pm EST
[laughing] that works. ♪ ♪ paul: welcome to this special edition of the journal editorial report as we look back on the highs and lows of the year. i'm paul gigot, and we begin with the 2020 elections which saw a loss for president donald trump but a better than expected showing for republicans in down-ballot races. so are there lessons to be learned from the election outcome, and where do the two parties stand as we a head into the new year. let's ask fox news contributor karl rove. he served as senior adviser to president george w. bush. karl, you know that it's very rare in american history for presidents not to win
re-election, yet donald trump was not reelected. what's your razor analysis of why it happened? >> well, we're going to go to the white board. negative enthusiasm works just as good as positive enthusiasm. [laughter] for the entire tam -- campaign, trump voters said they were showing up to support president trump. just the opposite for wind, most of -- for biden. most of theirs was an an moss few towards trump, but either way worked. both men had record turnouts. politics remains polarized. there's no "kumbaya" moment available at the end of this race. trump supporters felt aggrieved, and biden supporters are ebb you lent. so polarized -- paul: karl, let me follow up on that. was this a personal defeat for the president, you know?
his traits of governing, or a larger ideological defeat for the republican party? >> no, more personal than ideological. i mean, if you looked at the interims, there were a lot of -- interims, there were a lot of people particularly in the suburbs and especially women who said i sort of like what did, but i don't like how he handled himself and, therefore, i'm going to either sit out or vote for the democrat. we saw this in places as distant as colin county, texas, and cobb county, georgia and, you know, walk shah county, wisconsin, and the suburbs of philadelphia. nominal republicans who said, you know what? i just don't want four more years of him. paul: all right. talk about the republican coalition because there are a lot of folks who think, you know what? donald trump may have lost the election, but he really has are remade the republican party. it's now a very different coalition than when you were sitting in the white house. do you agree? >> yeah, i agree.
both parties are fragmented, is what i'd say about that, and the republican party is fragmented because while it's gained support among blue collar, working class, some college or no college-educated people, it's also lost among suburbanites and particularly in the suburbs college-educated. similarly, the democrats are being fragmented because the hard left of the democratic party which is in ascendance at least at the house level and some of the statements' levels, is not -- states' levels, is not particularly attractive to people who have been democrats, and how they deal with that in the years ahead -- both parties are in trouble. they've got to do something about it because their coalitions are changing and unstable. you want them to constantly change. you want to be able to reach out to new groups of people. but the unstability that's inside each party has got to be dealt with by calm and confident leadership, and i'm not sure either party has that right now. paul: well, yeah, i see you've
got a point about trust in institutions. that's obviously deteriorated, and we've seen it in the wake of the election as well. >> right. paul: that's -- and both parties have contributed to that by casting doubt on election after election -- >> that's right. paul: -- where they end up losing. >> that's right. and, look, also just simply the common sense of the american people to look at institutions like the media and saying you're not really fair and then, you know, the political warfare around the courts has also had an impact. all of these institutions, if you look over the last 30, 40 years, only two institutions have seemed to have kept theirs or gained support, and that's the military and law enforcement, and you can't build a free and open society based on only twoaz -- those two institutions having the confidence of the american people. paul: republicans in particular here, are the unifying forces more cultural than economics or foreign policy? because with it seems to me that that's the case, and that means
that you're seeing a lot more democratic kind of tax and spending policies among republicans. >> well, i think that may be the appearance, but i think it's a very open question. i think a lot of traditional republicans, we're so tribal at this moment in american politics. a lot of traditional republicans who are less government, lower taxes, you know with, federalist, we want more power to the states, less power to washington, have sort of said i'm willing to accept things that run against, that that run counter to my principles because my guy tells me to do so. i think both parties are in that situation, particularly the republicans, and that's going to be why the next two, three or four years are going to be interesting, how does each party sort it out. i think the smart people inside the republican party are the people that say how do we keep this blue collar emphasis without surrendering conservative principles, and we'll see how well everybody
carries it out. paul: karl, about 40 seconds left. look at the democrats, does joe biden have a majority governing coalition right now? >> no. because, look, what was his campaign about? i'm not donald trump, and he screwed up covid. and as a result, all the normal things that we would have gone through since he secured the nomination in march didn't happen. there were no big layout of his agenda, no controversies that allowed people to get a sense of what this was all about and which, by his defense, would strengthen their commitment to that agenda. he's coming in with basically, you know, i'm not trump, and he's going to try to do things that people are not prepared to have done with them or two them, and that's -- or to them, and that that's going to be a problem for the former vice president, soon to be president joe biden. paul: a volatile and unstable period. thanks, karl. much more when we come back as our panel joins us with their picks for the biggest s ♪ limu emu and doug.
and if we win, we get to tell you how liberty mutual customizes car insurance so you only pay for what you need. isn't that what you just did? service! ♪ stand back, i'm gonna show ya ♪ ♪ how doug and limu roll, ya ♪ ♪ you know you got to live it ♪ ♪ if you wanna wi... [ music stops ] time out! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ dcoughing's not new.. this woman coughs... and that guy does, too. people cough in the country, at sea, and downtown. but don't worry, julie... robitussin shuts coughs down.
♪ ♪ paul: welcome back to this special edition of the journal editorial report as we look back on the biggest stories of 2020. and joining our panel this week, columnist and deputy editorial page editor dan henninger, columnist kim strassel, board member kyle peterson and columnist mary anastasia o'grady. kim, start us off here. >> so my biggest story is the biggest election losers. and while a lot of people have focused on the results of the presidential race, the biggest losers in my mind were actually nancy pelosi and chuck schumer and democrats who lost a lot of seats in the house and who failed to make new real gains in the senate. and i think the reason for this is democrats think it had to do with their messaging, but actually it was an american response to their policies which
have become increasingly progressive; defund the police, radical environmentalism, medicare for all and also a failure of governance in the house where they did practically nothing but investigate donald trump. paul: it's all the more remarkable, kim, when you think about it, because the republican candidates in the house and even some in the senate were outspent 2, 3, 3 to 1, and the business community, chamber of commerce and others really moved to the democrats. >> yeah. no, it's a reminder that money is not all and that you can spend a fortune on it, but you can't necessarily sell a bad product x. we see that time and again in elections. you know, you look at someone like michael bloomberg and that extraordinary millions he spent in a place, you know, trying to win florida for democrats, just didn't work in the end. and, again, it came down to their policies. they've moved left, expect country wanted a check against -- and the country wanted a check against that. paul: dan, what about the other
element of this which is republicans made some gains among hispanic voters in particular in florida, texas and other parts of the country and even among young black men. >> yeah, they did. and i think you have to give president trump credit for that, indeed, because what happened in the first three years of his presidency when the economy grew so strongly is that it created a lot of jobs for minorities. and so the issue of economic opportunity became real and tangible for them, and i believe they recognized that they were getting real jobs with real incomes. and so the result was that he did make significant gains among hispanics and some among blacks, and it will remain to be seen whether the republicans can capitalize on those gains going forward. paul: yeah. and, kyle, this does put the republicans in a position in the house, certainly, to be able to retalk it because -- retake it
in 2022, because new mexico city pelosi -- nancy pelosi only has about a 10-seat majority which doesn't give her much room to maneuver in the house. >> right. and it definitely puts them in a position as well this coming year, this next two years to push the legislation in the house in a better direction. you know, a 10-vote majority by nancy pelosi is a whole different ball game than if it's 20 or 30 votes. gives her a lot more room to maneuver. paul: all right. let's turn to dan. you've got your own big with story, what is it? >> well, my big story, paul, are the protests that ensued after the death of george floyd while he was being arrested in minneapolis on may 25th. after that we had extraordinary protests across the country, cities, scores of cities, and it was accompanied, indeed, in many cities by looting and violence. stores, businesses were
ransacked. the protests, by and large, were led by the activist group black lives matter, and they more or less justified the protests saying that the united states was guilty of system you can racism. systemic racism. monuments to u.s. presidents were torn down across the country on that basis. and, ultimately, there was very little criticism of it by the democratic party. we ended up at the democratic national convention in july, and there was no mention, zero mention of any of this violence and looting, paul, which had gone on for a long time. and i'm convinced that that silence did cost the democrats support across the country in the house and senate races, you know? the republicans doing much better than anyone expected as we were just discussing, and i think a lot of that had to do with their inability to come to grips with the extraordinary violence that happened after may
25th. paul: so, mary, i wonder if you think what dan describes -- and i agree with that, but did the blm movement and the protesters achieve a lot of what they wanted ls where -- elsewhere? i'm thinking about the new woke ethic in america's newsrooms, the new woke ethic in american corporations where they have moved to decidedly left on the culture? what do you think? >> well, i think that the elites -- i don't particularly like that term, but, you know, the people that you're describing who have gone woke are very much in conflict with the greater part of the country. and i think that that was reflected -- we talked in the first segment -- in the poor showing of many democrats in local races and in, you know, congressional a races. i mean, when you look at what happened in west philadelphia where it wasn't, you know, some
suburban, rich entrepreneur whose business was destroyed, these were immigrant and minority businesses in a working class neighborhood. and i think that was a huge turnoff not only to people who lived there, but to the rest of the country which watched horrified to see that no one would speak up for these people. i just don't think that the woke movement gained new ground by doing that -- any ground by doing that. i think, in fact, they lost ground. people won't say it publicly because it's politically incorrect, but it's pretty scary. paul: kim, i want do can you about a contrary data point, and that is the remarkable election in california which is a left-leaning state, and yet the voters there overwhelmingly rejected an attempt on the ballot to restore racial preferences in government hiring and college admissions. i think only four or five counties actually voted in
support. what does that tell you about the mindset of the country on these issues? >> yeah. i think it goes to what mary was just saying, that it's very disconnected from what you're hearing in newspapers and what you're hearing coming out of higher education. americans want, one, sense of equality, they want opportunity, but they don't want the deck to be stacked, and they don't particularly like the identity politics that is now at the forefront of all democratic politics. and i think you'll see that reaction play out in more ways in the coming year. paul: all right, thank you. when we come back, from the economy's covid collapse and comeback to the supreme court's conservative transformation, with continue with our look at the biggest stories of 2020. our new house is amazing. great street, huge yard. there is a bit of an issue with our neighbors fencing.
neighbor 1: allez! (sound from wind chimes) neighbor 2: (laughing) at least geico makes bundling our home and car insurance easy. which helps us save even more. neighbor 2: hey, sarah, hey, peter! neighbor 1: touché. neighbor 2: ahhh! neighbor 1: pret! neighbor 2: en garde! for bundling made easy, go to geico.com
♪ ♪ paul: welcome back to the journal editorial report and our look back at the biggest source of the year. mary, you chose the economy. why? >> well, the economy collapsed in march and april because of the government shutdown, but by the end of the year, it is going to be a lot less weak than anybody anticipated. you know, there was a projection of down 6.5% for the year, and now it's projected to be down about 2.4% for the year. so basically what happened, i think, is that the analysts looking at this underestimated the impact of monetary and fiscal support to the economy but also underestimated the inknow vegas and creativity -- innovation and creativity of the markets to basically keep going despite the pandemic. paul: well, mary, how important was the basis that had been laid before the pandemic by what was
seemed to be -- what was going into the pandemic a quite strong economy, you know, after two years, three years of tax reform and deregulation? >> well, economic freedom is central to economic growth. so with a freer economy, i think that allowed entrepreneurs and business people to be, to benefit from the flexibility of the economy, and that made a big difference. the other thing i think that made a big difference was technology. i mean, that's why you see technology stock doing so well. but technology was central to the flexibility that the economy was able to adapt and to make use of things like online buying and delivery and a lot of the logistics red red related to bay satisfying the consumer were very important components in 2020. paul: dan, the public, i mean, a lot of our friends in the media on the left are, they say, oh,
you know, the government is the big driver here because they were the story, they filled the gap in incomes that were left by the pandemic. i guess my response to that is, one, they should have, because their the ones -- they're the ones who forced people out of business. they said you have to shut down, so they had to do something particularly with the small businesses. but i think that they also underestimated the ingenuity of people, as mary suggests. there just was an awful lot of people who found ways to make money despite it. >> yeah. as mary was suggesting, i think people -- democrats virtual don't understand anymore how sophisticated the private sector has become. i mean, it's an extraordinary mechanism. millions upon millions of men and women operating out there in intricate ways to keep the economy going. you know, starting out we -- in
the pandemic we had, indeed, real shortages of things like paper towels and toilet paperer, frozen food. and very quickly those niches were filled by secondary suppliers. you may not have been able to get bounty paper towels, but you were automobile to get them from wakeman's and other supermarkets, and i think democrats do not give it enough credit. they think you have to spend trillions and trillions of dollars and, you know, u.s. debt now, paul, is $27 trillion and rising as a result of the public spending that occurred during the pandemic. paul: and that'll have long-term consequences. kyle, yours focusing on the supreme court for your biggest story. tell us why. >> well, there's a couple reasons. first, it was for weeks it was the story in washington, the death of supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, a liberal icon, and her replacement by justice amy coney barrett who is already becoming something of a
conservative icon. there were questions about whether republicans could hold together to get the confirmation done before the election, and once again the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, pulled it off. but the bigger reason that president trump has now appointed three supreme court justices who will serve for years, decades. this is going to be one of his biggest legacies, and we're already seeing some of the fruits of justice barrett's confirmation. paul: and, kyle, how are we seeing that? what are you seeing in the early going, the first cases? >> well, it's still early in the supreme court's term, but the biggest one has been a switch on some of these pandemic cases involving particularly religious liberty. there were cases earlier in the year where churches, you know, litigating the lockdowns that they'd been put under lost with chief justice john roberts as the swing vote. and now churches school to be winning more of those -- seem to be winning more of those cases.
so there will be questions -- that's the biggest question, i think, about barrett to me, is how her presence will affect chief justice john roberts. everyone knows he's worried about the court's legitimacy, and so now the choice is when he wants to be on the losing side of a 5-4 or on the winning side of a 6-3. paul: kim, one of the remarkable things was that the republicans united so quickly in the senate to confirm justice barrett so soon after justice ginsburg died. and there were a lot of people who said, oh, you'll pay a price at the polls for that. this is extraordinary, never happened before. of course, that was an exaggeration, but why did the republicans unite so quickly, and dud they pay any price -- did they pay any produce at the polls? >> no, they -- well, look, i think only positively, because here's the reality. this is an issue that drives conservative voters. and you have to look at the opposite, and that was what was in a lot of republicans' minds. if they decided to step back
here and missed this opportunity to appoint a final conservative justice, now that would have caused a problem at the polls for them. but it's still, again, as you said, the media headlines, all the democrats really put on the pressure, and when we look back i think many, many years from now, that last decision by donald trump and that ability of mitch mcconnell to unite his senators around it will be one of the lasting, enduring legacies of this administration. paul maul and, mary, we heard the democrats react by saying we're going to to pack the supreme court in 2021. that didn't seem to work for them at the polls. has that ended as a political issue? >> well, we -- i think that they realized that if they start adding seats, there's no end to that, so that's a bad path. and i think in this environment. paul: okay. they're quieting down on that, but it hasn't gone away entirely. all right.
a pandemic in march. we've seen more than 300,000 deaths in america and economic devastation brought by widespread economic shutdowns, but some light may be coming as we close out the year with two vaccines approved by the fda for emergency use this month giving hope that the united states and the world may be able to turn the corner on the pandemic. so what have we learned about the virus in the months in between and the cost and effectiveness of large scale shutdowns? mary, what main lessons do you take away from this? >> well, i would start with the lack of humility on the part of so many people involved with making prognostications about this virus. [laughter] you know, in the very beginning science told us that this was highly contagious. i think angela merkel in germany said she expected 70% of germans to get the virus at some point. i saw projections in the u.s. half of the country would get it.
so it was highly contagious, with we knew it was going to spread, and the most important thing would have been to protect the vulnerable parts of the population. and, of course, here in new york that was not done. in fact, our governor had started putting people who had the virus into nursing homes because hospitals were overflowing and, of course, that sent the virus running wild in nursing homes, and that's why we lost so many people in new york. so a lot has been learnedded but at a very high cost. of. paul: dan, you know, our colleagues, some of our colleagues in the press and academic elites think that the united states -- not just the government, blaming the government, but the united states generally -- failed here as a culture, as a society because we have had so many more deaths and the spread of disease. what do you make of that argument. >> well, i think we're going to have to sort that out for a while, paul.
i think they were wrong, but the question is why the instinct to say those sorts of things. and i think one way to look at this, very interesting, is the degree of lockdowns and shutdowns across the united states. for better or worse, it really did break down, paul, between democratic blue states and republican and red states. the states with the severest lockdowns were all democratic. it was california, washington state, illinois, new york, new jersey, and we know about some of the southern states like florida and texas which were much less severe this their lockdowns, many other states had a variety of categories in which they locked down. but i think the democrats decided they would be happier ruling by executive order and decree and telling people what to do. and this started doesn't obama presidency when he issued a lot of executive orders. they're more comfortable with that. and the media and press, for some reason, paul, seem to be
perfectly happy to have the american people ordered around claiming the authority of science. and what we've learned in the past ten months is that science really is a work in progress when it comes to addressing things like pandemic with a novel coronavirus. paul: kim, you know, one of the problems i have over the last year that's disconcerting is the e do sire for conformity among points of view. if you're in the press or an academic elite and you want to take an alternative view, you become vilified. i'm thinking of the great barrington declaration by those three doctors who were willing to say, you know what? we need focused prevention, not large-small lockdownings. and, you know -- large-scale lockdowns. and they're been attacked and criticized for that. >> yeah, it's part of the cancel culture movement. and what makes it really problematic is that cancel culture bad enough when it comes to free speech in general, but
it's utterly antithetical to the scientific process where the entire point is you're supposed to -- you put out a theory, and then you work to disprove it. you don't put ott a theory e and then say anybody who questions me morally unfit to be in society. this just is opposite of the way it's supposed go. and what we've seen is i kind of new of 2020 as the year of the expert failure, you know, where -- i mean, one of the reasons so many americans have had so much trouble in particular with more recent lockdowns is that we have been getting advice that has been disproven again and again. we were assured it was correct whether it was don't wear a mask, now do wear a mask, or you had political figures like joe biden casting shade on a vaccine and now saying, yes, you should take one. this became wrapped up in politics, and science should never be wrapped up in politics. paul: kyle, what grades do you give the government herely? they had some mistakes early on, the testing failures at the cdc,
not enough pp, provided, but -- ppc, but the vaccines have been a historic success. >> yeah. i mean, i think you have to pratt that, operation warp speed, from the rest of the response. the communications issues at the federal government, there were problems there, not clear advice to people, not clear risk-base add vice to people. at the local level, i think it may have been worst where, as kim says, the science got wrapped up in the politics. l.a. closing indoor dining, new mexico shutting campgrounds at state parks and governor andrew cuomo, not to keep picking on him, but i justifying some of these lockdowns on religious groups as a fear-based response. i mean, we're glad we have the vaccine, but you've got to put that on the press sector, i think. paul: all right. thank you all. still ahead, amid growing tensions with china and iran, a triumph for u.s. diplomacy
during 2020 as president trump brokers h to all the businesses that helped us make it through 2020... thank you for going the extra mile... and for the extra pump of caramel. thank you for the good food... and the good karma. thank you for all the deliveries... especially this one. you've reminded us that no matter what, we can always find a way to bounce forward. so thank you, to our customers and to businesses everywhere, from all of us at comcast business. nicoreyou get advice like: smoking is freaking hard. try hypnosis... or... quit cold turkey. kidding me?! instead, start small. with nicorette. which can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette
♪ ♪ paul: despite ongoing global challenges, 2020 saw triumph for american diplomacy with the trump administration brokering a series of historic peace deals. the united arab emirates and bahrain were the first to sign on to the abraham accords in september potentially recognizing the jewish state of israel. the government of sudan normalized its ties with israel in october, and morocco became the fourth earlier this month. let's bring in cliff may, founder and president of the foundation for defense of democracy. cliff, first, let's get -- explain why this happened when so many people for so many decades said it was impossible. >> a number of contributing factors, one of them is very
important, i think fairly obviously, is the islamic republic of iran. it has long represented an exist ten, threat to the state of israel, but also perhaps more imminently to the saw duhs, to the. race, to the bahrainis, all of which i would call the prague nettic -- pragmatic states that see that the regime in iran wants to be neoimperialistic. they control lebanon through hezbollah, they've bolstered and supported the assad dynasty in syria, they have shia militias that are still attacking americans in iraq, they support the rebels in yemen, they've messed around and supported the taliban, and, by the way, al-qaeda members are living, one less, as well in tehran. so a common enemy of israel. paul: all right. there's the iranian unifying force, but how important was the
united states' role here in asserting that and demonstrating its support for israel, for example, throughout the trump administration -- moving the embassy to jerusalem, recognizing the golan heights and then backing the saudi government in the yemen war, for example? >> yeah, those were all absolutely building blocks in this, no question about it. and also the trump peace plan. why in because the trump peace plan, which mahmoud abbas, the head of the palestinian authority, was unwilling to negotiate on, allowed the israelis to consider the possibility of extending sovereignty, annexing parts of the west bank. the arabs doesn't want to see that happen. the idea came up why don't you trade something important to the israelis like actually moving to serious, open, diplomatic relations for the first time in a generation. all that was very important as well. and also the arab states recognized that if you look
around and say who will stand up to the muslim brotherhood and the islamic republic of iran, well, there's the united states and there's israel which also has significant military capabilities. which one of these cannot get away from the middle east? it's the israel. this is the an important relationship that had been developing covertly, but it was time to bring it out in the open. and also with the next administration for the arabs and israelis to, excuse the phrase, sing from the same hymnal when they talk to the next president about what kind of moves he should and should not make. whether he'll listen or not, we don't know. president obama certainly did not. paul: right. now, the peace plan, the trump peace plan did give a handout to the palestinians. they could have gotten into this had that they wanted to. was their denial -- did that make it easier for the other arabs to say, you know what? you missed another opportunity? >> yes, absolutely.
it's often not recognized. two important points. one the palestinian authority went to the arab league and said will you denounce the abraham accords. the arab league said no, same arab league that in 1967 issued the three nos; no recognition of israel, no peace with israel. so you're talking about now the arab-israeli conflict is essentially at an end, for the palestinians, it is not. the difficulty here that when people talk about the palestinian cause, what do they mean? if they mean what hamas means, the palestinian cause is the destruction of israel, the pragmatic states no longer to see that happen. a two-state solution, living peacefully side but side, that's different. but, again, hamas will never accept that, and mahmoud abbas has been unwilling to be unambiguous and say that's where we should go.
i don't think -- mahmoud abbas does not see himself shaking hands with bibi netanyahu on the white house lawn either under trump or biden. the arab states are essentially sending a message to the a palestinians, we'll back the cause when it's transformed from the destruction of israel to a genuine two-state solution. paul: we've got about 45 seconds left. what is -- how endurable are these? how long are they going to last? and do you think the biden administration will try to build on these accords? >> i think the accords -- i'm hopeful they will certainly last, maybe it's different if you had a revolution and suddenly you had a pro-american and very different regime in tehran, maybe if the muslim brotherhood disappeared. until then, pragmatic arab states in israel have a lot of interest. the biden administration should build on this, not reject this. i would hope that jake sullivan, new national security adviser,
and blinken who's probably going to be the secretary of state will understand that, but i think the left wing of the democratic party will not be in favor of that. what will upend this many? i don't know. paul: okay, thank you, cliff may. when we come back, our hits and misses of the year. ♪ ♪ every year, we set out to do one thing:
and property, their most basic duty. you know, a lot of cities had riots over the summer. the difference is this pair basically turned the keys over to rioters and protesters and antifa thugs and also limited what the police could do. it was one of the biggest failures of leadership in the country and by orders of magnitude. paul: kyle. >> i will give a miss to congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. 2020 was supposed to be a breakout year for democratic socialism with bernie sanders running strong in the presidential race and aoc's squad taking up the fight inside the house. instead, we end the year with president biden elected and republican gains in the house and democratic moderates insisting that the party should never use the word socialism ever again. then last week in a secret ballot house democrats passed over aoc for the committee assignment that she wanted. the revolution is proving to be a hard sell. paul: all right, mary. >> paul, a miss for the
often-mindless and sometimes remark by whiny cancel culture of2020. from tearing down statues, including one of an ab lugsist in madison, wisconsin, to trying to silence free speech simply because its defense from conventional, the conventional party line. this smacks of totalitarianism, and it was a row point for american politics -- a low point for american politics and journalism. paul: great point, mary, thanks. dan? >> my miss of the year, paul, to the coronavirus hypocrites. those are the public officials who told people to stay home while they went out. here's the highlight film. [laughter] house speak or or nancy place city getting her hair down at a shop in san francisco. california governor gavin newsom going out to the famed french runedly restaurant -- laundry restaurant followed the next night by the mayor of san
francisco. governor andrew cuomo having to discuss invite his mother, and steve adler who issued a stay at home order from his vacation in mexico. two thumbs down on all of them. paul: my miss of the year goes to chinese president xi jinping for the crushing dissent and liberty in hong kong, the arrest of democratic advocates including publisher jimmy lieu. this really mark -- jimmy lie are. this really marks the end of hong kong as the example of freedom that it has been for the last 60, 70 years and what human liberty can accomplish, and it demonstrates that the chinese communist party is a real threat to freedom around the world in the coming decades. we have to take one more break. when we come back, our panel's picks for hits of the year. ♪ ♪ to support a strong immune system,
time for the hits. >> department of justice appropriately to having to withdraw charges against former national security advisor, michael flynn after ag bill barr ordered a review, it was clear mr. flynn was subject to abuse of power by both the fbi and bob mueller, special counsel. one of the most important things d.o.j. can do is admit when it makes a mistake and try to correct justice. it did that here and it's an important first step in restoring respect from the american people and trust in the institution. paul: kyle. >> i'll give it to spacex for opening up because of private spaceflights. americans glued to the tvs and make went to nasa astronauts climbed into a spacex capsule atop a spacex rocket and blasted off to the space station. if you can believe it, the company repeated that be in november.
a flight junkie putting private competition into a used to be centralized government program. elon musk says mars is next and he's sounding more believable all the time. paul: mary. >> it for american officer and restaurant tours who kept going despite government shutdowns. healing the economy and serving us all. a special shout out to new york restaurant who have found creative ways new capital to keep during the public through a blistering summer heat. now climbing over snowbanks. along with our first responders, they are heroes of 2020. paul: dan. >> my hit goes to the u.s. department pharmaceutical company. pfizer, johnson & johnson, moderna, the rest of us staring into the abyss of the coronavirus in march, they went to work and within ten months,
produced a safe effective vaccine. arguably, this is the miracle of 2020. this christmas season, vaccination schedules going to start, deliver us from this terrible pandemic. i think the pharmaceutical industry deserves the nobel peace prize. paul: my hit of the year goes to the wi-fi and broadband networks that kept us all working from home in this extraordinary year. one reason for that is the work of rg pie who run the federal communications communication under donald trump and repealed regulation in the late obama administration that had regulating internet like utility and freeing up investment in broadband and wi-fi. all those networks that works so beautifully this year end allowed us to minimize the danger from the pandemic. remember, if you have your own hit or miss of the year, tweet it to us at jtr on fnc.
that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and all of you for watching. i am paul gigot. happy new year. we hope to see you here next week. ♪ lou: good evening everybody. america is now the victim of the most powerful act of espionage in geopolitical history. as we come to you this evening, we now know of at least 15 federal agencies and departments including the white house that have been infiltrated for months on end by enemies of the united states. one of those enemies is certainly russia. it is not only an attack on the american federal government, but a number of state governments as well and those state governments