Archive for the ‘Elitists/Elitism’ Category
Salena Zito’s article turns the spotlight on the MSM, aka the Agenda Media, to highlight why the media got this election badly wrong. Early in the article, Salena wrote about the NY Times, saying “Take The New York Times’ public editor’s laudable call for more diversity in the newsroom. ‘The executive editor, Dean Baquet, is African-American,’ Liz Spayd wrote. ‘The other editors on his masthead are white. The staff with the most diversity? The news assistants, who mostly do administrative jobs and get paid the least.'”
Then she made the important recommendation (I’d argue it’s essential) that reporters “need more people who come from a blue-collar background, who perhaps didn’t go to Brown and can be found in a pew on Sunday on a fairly regular basis.”
Yesterday, I wrote this post to highlight the absurdity of E.J. Dionne’s column. He’s totally certain that a Trump administration will be a disaster with a silver lining for Democrats. Last night, on the Kelly File, Nomiki Konst ‘debated’ Marc Thiessen and Guy Benson about whether Democrats were learning the lesson of this election. Konst insisted that it was all drive about the economy.
While there’s no doubt lots of people voted for Donald Trump because they think a billionaire might know a thing or 2 about reviving this pathetic recovery, it’s more than that. Mr. Trump promises to clean up the VA scandal, build a wall on the US-Mexican border, simplify the federal tax system and rein in the out-of-control EPA. In other words, he promised to make their lives better.
Voters didn’t just reject Mrs. Clinton’s message. In battleground state after battleground state, they essentially said ‘are you out of your flipping mind? We’ve suffered through 8 years of this crap and we’re tired of it.’ But I digress.
Benson and Thiessen both talked about how the Democratic Party is incapable of talking to people of faith or blue collar workers. It’s clear that they haven’t learned their lesson because the people who are the 2 ‘finalists’ for DNC chair, Keith Ellison and Thomas Perez, are incapable of connecting with those voters.
Paul Krugman thinks the Trump economic policies will tank. Thomas Friedman thinks that the Obama administration is the best friend Israel has ever had. Other inside-the-Beltway columnists missed the fact that miners and farmers are fed up with the EPA’s regulatory overreach.
It isn’t surprising why some of the biggest punchlines in Mr. Trump’s stump speeches were criticisms of the corrupt media. That was a galvanizing message. It’s what tied the blue collar workers together with the millionaires who built their companies from the ground up.
The journalist who didn’t miss what was happening this election was Salena Zito. This video illustrates why Salena got it right:
This weekend, I spoke with Ed Morrissey. Admittedly, neither of us predicted Trump winning. We both, however, gave Trump a shot at winning going into Election Night. When I told Ed that the common denominator for both of us is that we both listened to Salena Zito, he quickly agreed. We didn’t know that he’d win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but we knew that Trump’s message resonated with those economically disenfranchised voters.
If newsrooms don’t start sending their reporters out into the real world, if they don’t put a high priority on building a newsroom with cultural diversity, they’ll continue missing the big stories.
Finally, it’s time to thank Salena for her fantastic reporting. If she doesn’t win a slew of awards for her political reporting, it’ll prove that political editors are clueless.
Technorati: Mainstream Media, Agenda Media, Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, New York Times, E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, Elitists, Salena Zito, Guy Benson, Marc Thiessen, Cultural Diversity, Donald Trump, Republicans, Keith Ellison, Thomas Perez, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2016
Richard Trumka’s misguided hissy fit should be seen for what it is: the actions of a desperate man who’s losing control of the people who pay his exorbitant salary.
When Trumka wrote “publicity stunts and Twitter rants are no substitute for a comprehensive, coherent economic strategy that invests in America and lifts up the voices and the power of working people”, what he’s really saying is that he’s hoping union workers wouldn’t listen to Republicans. He’s also saying he wants union workers to support the party of elitists, aka the Democratic Party, because he’s thankful for being part of the Party’s ‘royalty’.
Mr. Trumka hasn’t been in touch with the unions’ rank-and-file for decades. He’s blindly supported the Democratic Party’s anti-worker agenda, then tried telling workers that the table scraps that Democrats shovel them is like eating like a king.
Mr. Trumka is wrong when he said the “share of income going to the middle class has fallen in almost perfect correlation with the declining percentage of people working in jobs where they enjoy a union.” The share of income going to the middle class started falling when union fat-cats (like Trumka) paid more attention to lining their own pockets than they paid to fighting environmental activists who crushed their blue collar jobs.
Mr. Trumka was nowhere to be found when President Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Secretary Kerry killed the Keystone XL Pipeline project. That’s because he’d been bought off in the name of Democratic Party unity. The next time that Mr. Trumka speaks before the rank-and-file, the dues-paying members should pepper him with questions for why he isn’t representing them.
Let’s remember that Mr. Trumka sold out workers by supporting Obamacare, which essentially killed the unions’ Cadillac care health plans. That hurt blue collar workers immensely. It’s time for private sector unions to ask if people like Mr. Trumka has their best interests at heart.
Saying that this Aaron Sorkin op-ed sounds like a liberal that’s unhinged is understatement.
Sorkin’s op-ed starts by saying “Sorkin Girls, Well the world changed late last night in a way I couldn’t protect us from. That’s a terrible feeling for a father. I won’t sugarcoat it—this is truly horrible. It’s hardly the first time my candidate didn’t win (in fact it’s the sixth time) but it is the first time that a thoroughly incompetent pig with dangerous ideas, a serious psychiatric disorder, no knowledge of the world and no curiosity to learn has.”
It’s hard to read that, then think it gets more unhinged after that. That’s what happens, though. Sorkin continues, saying “And it wasn’t just Donald Trump who won last night—it was his supporters too. The Klan won last night. White nationalists. Sexists, racists and buffoons. Angry young white men who think rap music and Cinco de Mayo are a threat to their way of life (or are the reason for their way of life) have been given cause to celebrate.”
I won’t pretend that I think Mr. Trump is a policy wonk. Clearly, that isn’t fact. Further, it’s indisputable that the KKK endorsed Mr. Trump. That doesn’t mean Trump is a bigot.
Apparently, Sorkin didn’t have a problem voting for a corrupt woman who lied repeatedly to Congress and to various judges.
Mr. Sorkin has the constitution right to make these statements. He should consider, though, that it’s Trump voters’ rights to ridicule him for being this unhinged. It’s also within the Trump voters’ constitutional rights to boycott his products.
Let there be no mistake about what the DFL wants to do. Their goal is to run St. Paul … again. The last time the DFL held the majority in the Minnesota House and the Minnesota Senate and there was a DFL governor, taxes were raised on small businesses, then partially repealed and property taxes skyrocketed. We were told by Rep. Thissen that the DFL’s House Education Omnibus Finance bill “calls for historic investment in education.” The DFL made that boast before the Princeton School Board raised property taxes by 25.16%. The DFL made that boast before the St. Cloud School Board raised their levy by 14.75%.
Gone is any pretense about finding middle ground. The DFL wants to shove another item from their ideological wish list down Minnesotan’s throats. The DFL isn’t interested in serving the people. The DFL is interested in winning one ideological victory after another. TakeAction Minnesota, an arm of the DFL, stated things quite clearly how they anticipate passing their ideological checklist in this fundraising appeal:
Notice that TakeAction Minnesota named 4 politicians, essentially telling us that they are hard left ideologues, aka true believers. The names of those true believers include the ethically challenged Ilhan Omar, Alberder Gillespie (who wants to be “a powerful, progressive voice for her community on education funding, paid sick leave and other issues”, Zach Dorholt (who voted for forced unionization of in-home child care providers, the tax increases mentioned earlier and for the $90,000,000 Senate Office Building when he was part of the 2013 DFL legislature) and Lindsey Port. Mrs. Port thinks that government should tell businesses what they should do.
The candidates mentioned in TakeAction Minnesota’s fundraising appeal are as hard left and as anti-jobs as they get. They aren’t capitalists, either. This quartet thinks that the government solutions are the best solutions and that private citizens, acting in their own self-interests, are a danger to their social engineering plans.
Minnesotans need to ask themselves this question: do they want legislators that a) ignore the will of the people and b) think that people making their own decisions are a threat to the DFL’s social engineering agenda? If they’d rather make their own decisions, they need to vote for Republicans. It’s that simple.
If anyone needs proof that the DFL hates laborers (the L in DFL supposedly stands for Laborer), they should look at this map of the new alternative route that Enbridge will use to get their Bakken oil to market:
I wrote this post to highlight the DFL’s indifference to pipefitters and other blue collar workers. The metro DFL environmental activists threw up hurdle after hurdle to prevent the Sandpiper Pipeline. The DFL won. The Sandpiper Pipeline won’t be built. Enbridge decided to avoid Minnesota and route their pipeline through North and South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.
The oil will flow. The commodity will still make it to market. The DFL ‘won’, if you consider losing hundreds of high-paying heavy equipment jobs to other states winning. (HINT: The Metro DFL thinks this is a victory. Since the Metro DFL runs the party, the DFL considers this a victory.)
The DFL isn’t the party of the blue collar workers. This is who they are:
Today’s DFL is led by a trust fund governor who’s lived a life of carefree luxury. It’s led by a House Minority Leader who lives in a tony Minneapolis enclave and pays more in property taxes than some people make in a year. It’s led by a clownish U.S. Senator who made a fortune playing the fool in Hollywood, writing vacuous trash while doing dope. All three live in Minneapolis and consider walking down to the farmer’s market to pick up some kale to be “farming.”
That isn’t all. Think of this:
Of course, the antidote for this malaise would be to get more mining jobs up and running, especially for those minerals, ferrous and non-ferrous, that have recovered in price point. But the urban elites who run the DFL won’t allow it. Instead, they engage in a cynical game of stringing people along, claiming that there’s just “one more” environmental regulation to clear.
Years later, miners are still waiting for good jobs. They won’t be coming, at least so long as Mark Dayton is governor. You see, there is no intention to allow this mining to start up. It’s all a smoke screen to cop some more votes out of Iron Rangers for the next election.
It’s about the false hope. The DFL party has delayed considering a resolution to oppose mining. It wasn’t defeated. Only delayed until after the election.
The DFL abandoned farmers, the F in the DFL, when Gov. Dayton vetoed a tax relief bill that would’ve provided hundreds of farmers property tax relief. Gov. Dayton didn’t fight for farmers. Instead, Gov. Dayton fought for the SWLRT project.
When it was decision time, Gov. Dayton and the DFL fought farmers, laborers and other blue collar workers. They fought for environmental activists and the metro.
Glenn Reynolds’ USA Today article highlights some points of peril that elitists haven’t paid attention to.
In the opening paragraph to his article, Reynolds writes “So the post-Brexit number-crunching is over and it turns out that the decisive support for Britain’s leaving the EU came not from right-wing nationalists but from working-class Labour voters. This offers some lessons for British and European politicians — and for us in America, too.”
This is potentially significant if you’re Hillary Clinton. The American equivalent to Labour voters are what used to be called Reagan Democrats. Eventually, they stopped being Democrats because the Democratic Party stopped being the party of the little guy. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the first unabashed friends of ‘Too Big To Fail’ banks. Later, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama caught on and started cashing in with Wall Street.
Meanwhile, it’s impossible to highlight this part of Dr. Reynolds’ article too much:
The result, Mandler writes, is that “For the rest of the country has felt more and more excluded, not only from participation in the creativity and prosperity of London, but more crucially from power. . . . A majority of people around the United Kingdom are feeling like non-people, un-citizens, their lives jerked about like marionettes by wire-pullers far away. In those circumstances, very bad things indeed can be expected.”
Given a chance, these people seized an opportunity to give the wires a yank of their own. A lot of people felt powerless, and the political system not only didn’t address that, but seemed to glory in it.
These Brits’ votes were their way of saying this:
It was their opportunity to tell their country’s elites that they weren’t going to get talked down to anymore. Think of it as the British people’s visceral reaction to the elitists’ control over their lives.
America, of course, faces the same kind of division, as Dana Loesch writes in her new book, Flyover Nation: You Can’t Run A Country You’ve Never Been To. Every once in a while, she notes, a publisher or a newspaper from a coastal city will send a reporter, like an intrepid African explorer of the 19th century, to report on the odd beliefs and doings of the inhabitants of the interior. But even the politicians who represent Flyover Country tend to spend most of their time, and, crucially, their post-elective careers, in Washington, DC.
Simply put, DC and New York have viewed Heartlanders like aliens from outer space. They’re insulated from reality. While he was a presidential candidate, Gov. Walker had it right when he called Washington, DC “68 square miles surrounded by reality.”
Whether Heartlanders experience their own version of Brexit remains to be seen. Is it possible? Without question. Will it happen? I’m hoping.
Pat Buchanan has been critical of the GOP for 25 years. After reading Buchanan’s latest article, it’s clear he won’t stop criticizing the GOP anytime soon.
Buchanan has fancied himself as a populist conservative. If that description sounds like it doesn’t fit, it’s because those words don’t fit together. Conservatism at its finest is governed by foundational principles. Populism is governed by mob rule. That’s Patrick J. Buchanan, though. Trying to make sense of the things he says is like trying to tracking the flight of a butterfly with a spotting scope. Good luck with that.
Buchanan’s latest eruption was triggered by people opposing Donald Trump’s becoming the GOP presidential nominee. Why that’s controversial is difficult to figure out but that’s Buchanan’s logic. (Personally, I always thought that the GOP presidential nominee shouldn’t be a Democrat but I’m quirky that way. That’s why I also believe that all primaries and caucuses should be closed.)
But it raises anew the question: Can the establishment stop Trump? Answer: It is possible, and we shall know by midnight, March 15. If Trump loses Florida and Ohio, winner-take-all primaries, he would likely fall short of the 1,237 delegates needed for nomination on the first ballot.
How could the anti-Trump forces defeat him in Ohio, Florida and Illinois? With the same tactics used to shrink Trump’s victory margins in Virginia, Louisiana and Kentucky to well below what polls had predicted. In every primary upcoming, Trump is under a ceaseless barrage of attack ads on radio, TV, cable and social media, paid for by super PACs with hoards of cash funneled in by oligarchs.
Buchanan omits the fact that the ads use Trump’s words against him. Buchanan omits the fact that these super PAC’s ads tell the story of how Trump funded the campaigns of Democrats, who then used those majorities to create Obamacare.
Let’s re-word this paragraph to fit reality:
But Trump, who is self-funding his campaign, has spent next to nothing on ads answering these attacks, or promoting himself or his issues. He has relied almost exclusively on free media.
It should read like this:
But Trump, who frequently claims that he’s self-funding his campaign even though his FEC report says otherwise, hasn’t needed to spend money to promote himself or his issues because he’s received tens of millions of dollars worth of free media.
Then there’s this:
Yet no amount of free media can match the shellfire falling on him every hour of every day in every primary state.
Mr. Buchanan, campaigns aren’t cheap. If Trump chooses to not spend money countering the ads, then that’s a campaign decision. It isn’t a particularly wise campaign decision but it’s a campaign decision. As for promoting Trump’s policies, he doesn’t have any. He’s used tons of slogans to outline his agenda but advertising slogans aren’t the same as detailed policies.
Trump hasn’t built a campaign organization. He hasn’t bought paid advertising. He’s run while trying to hide the fact that he’s a liberal. That’s quite a trick.
According to this NY Times article, Laura Ingraham wants the GOP to head in a populist direction. That isn’t leadership. That’s capitulation. That’s handing the nomination to Donald Trump. What’s worst is that it means our courts will be packed with activists whether Trump wins or Hillary wins.
Ms. Ingraham is famous for lecturing the DC insiders for their failures. It’s time to lecture her for her foolishness. Populism is what got this nation into this situation. Populism is liberalism with a different name. Populism isn’t rooted in constitutional principles. Populism is prone to mob rule, which is just a step away from anarchy. Does Ms. Ingraham really want to deal with a system of government where the mob rules? Does Ms. Ingraham prefer government of and by judicial fiat? That’s what populism will give us. In fact, populism will give us that sooner rather than later.
If she doesn’t, then she’d better stop being Trump’s apologist. It isn’t just Ms. Ingraham that’s making this tragic mistake, either. Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling and Sean Hannity are making the same mistake. That trio has bent over backwards rationalizing away Mr. Trump’s contradictory statements. This weekend, Hannity went so far as to tell Steve Hayes that Trump didn’t say that he’s in favor of the Obamacare mandate even though there’s video of Trump making that statement during Thursday night’s town hall meeting on CNN:
“The establishment G.O.P. is lying to itself. This election at its core is a rejection of their globalist economic agenda and failed immigration policies — and of rule by the donor class,” said Laura Ingraham, the conservative talk-radio host and political activist. “Millions want the party to go in a more populist direction.”
Ms. Ingraham isn’t really that stupid. You can’t be that stupid and be a Supreme Court law clerk. It’s possible, however, to misdiagnose the root cause of the problem. The economy isn’t failing because of globalism. It’s failing because our taxes are outrageous, the compliance costs of our regulations are crushing businesses and our regulations are designed to crush competition.
When Mr. Trump argues that companies are leaving the United States, he’s right. It’s just that his plan to fix that won’t fix anything. The type of tariffs that Mr. Trump is advocating for kill jobs. President Reagan and President Clinton are the 2 greatest job creators of my lifetime. They both thought that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act caused the Great Depression. Most economists agree with that.
Trump’s economic plans aren’t rooted in capitalism. They’re rooted in corporatism. Trump hasn’t talked a single sentence during the debates about helping small businesses create jobs. Trump certainly hasn’t said anything about regulatory reform.
William F. Buckley once famously said that “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ’Stop!’” It’s time this generation of conservatives stood athwart history yelling ‘Stop’! It’s imperative because American exceptionalism is what’s on trial.
Technorati: Donald Trump, Laura Ingraham, Populism, Liberalism, Anarchy, Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, Great Depression, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Free Trade, Capitalism, Conservatism, Supreme Court, Election 2016
Yesterday, the ISD School Board put its best happy face on during their interviews. Whether they believed that they were going to win or whether they knew a defeat was in the cards, the indisputable truth from Tuesday night was that taxpayers rejected the School Board’s proposal by a pretty significant margin.
Tuesday afternoon, School Board Chairman Dennis Whipple told KNSI’s Dan Ochsner that most referenda and special elections attract approximately 4,000-6,000 voters in St. Cloud. When all the ballots were counted, ISD742 residents cast 15,853 votes; 7,393 (46.6%) were yes votes while 8,460 (53.4%) were no votes.
It’s one thing to lose a tight race. It’s another to lose by 1,000+ votes.
Tuesday afternoon, I told Dan Ochsner that we would look at the Times’ Our View Editorial as the turning point if this bonding referendum lost. At the time, I wrote in this post that it’s “foolish to think that this group of “experienced leaders” is running an under-the-radar campaign because this is a terrific deal for St. Cloud. If this deal was that important and that well thought out, these “experienced leaders” would’ve canvassed St. Cloud at least 3-4 times.”
The fact that only 3 mailers were sent out and that few Vote Yes signs were put up around town indicates that the School Board didn’t put much effort into this campaign. In hindsight, I never saw anyone from EdMinn dropping lit or knocking on doors.
Whipple said that the School Board would “return to” listening to the people. Hint for Chairman Whipple: it’s time for the School Board to start listening rather than talking amongst the education community, then telling the taxpayers what their bill will be for the School Board’s plans.
Josh Earnest isn’t get paid enough to cover for President Obama’s foolish comments about private schools:
Here’s the transcript of Earnest’s interview with Joe Scarborough:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Were you, I am sure you will be asked this question many times in your next press briefing, but the president was critical of people who went to private schools and sent their children to private schools and plays at private clubs and well every alarm should be going off. Do you have that clip? Let’s play that clip first.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Those who are better and better, more skilled, educated, luckier, having greater advantages are withdrawing from, sort of the commons, kids start going to private schools. Kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks. An anti-government idea old disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together, and that, in part, contributes to the fact that there is less opportunity for our kids.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Obviously, the man that said it, went to the best prep school in Hawaii and went to the best private colleges in the United States, his children who I don’t think it’s anybody’s business where they send their children, but if the president is going to criticize people who send their children to private schools he has to recognize, obviously, that he sends his children to the best schools in Washington, possibly America. How does he, is there a self critique against himself, the mistakes he’s made? What was the president trying to get at there?
JOSH EARNEST: Joe, the point the president was making is it’s important for us to recognize it as a country. We all have an interest in investing in the common benefits that our country has to offer. His point is that even if you send your kids to private school, we all have an interest in making sure we have good high quality public schools available to everybody. It’s not that far from the White House that we do have some of the best public schools in the country over in Fairfax County, Virginia.
That is an example. That is also a more wealthy than average county in the country. That is an example of a society of a community that has invested in a common good for the benefit of their community and that’s the kind of thing that we need to see all across the country. Whether that is something as simple as investing in our national parks or local parks or public schools or making sure that every single American has access to quality health insurance.
JOE: So did the president consider sending its children to public schools? Again, none of my business unless he is criticizing Americans who send their children to private schools.
EARNEST: Again, I don’t think he’s criticizing sending people to private schools.
He’s suggesting all Americans need to keep in mind; it’s in our collective interest as a country and as citizens for us to invest in the common good, for us to invest and make sure we have good quality public schools available for everybody so that everybody has a fair shot. Everybody has a fair shake. Everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed and will let their ambition and hard work take them as far as it will carry them. That is what this country is all about. we start to lose sight of those basic values in this country the we start to retract into our own private clubs and schools and lose sight of the fact if we lose interest that we want those public schools to be good.
JOE: Please let the president also, I got a name of a couple public golf courses I’d like to show him. My comment is one of the best. I’d love to take him on a round out there. Public, beautiful.
Simply put, Josh Earnest must scratch his head and what his boss was thinking at times. Actually, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’ll help Josh with that. When President Obama starts feeling it, when he’s relaxed, he gets lippy. He starts reflexively criticizing Fox News and Republicans. It doesn’t matter if the facts are on his side. His ideology is all he needs to start a demagogic rant. It’s as predictable as the sun setting in the west.
On a serious matter, though, President Obama just explained why President Obama’s first budget ended the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. Fortunately, minority families loudly protested President Obama’s budget and got the DCOSP restored. There’s no denying that President Obama and his wife are elitists that lecturing people because they think they know what’s best.