Archive for the ‘DNC’ Category
There wasn’t much doubt about whether Rick Nolan would sell out the Eighth District on environmental issues. If there was any doubt about whether Rick Nolan was a sellout to the Eighth District, that doubt disappeared when he announced he’s supporting Bernie Sanders for president. There’s a Bible verse that’s forever true. It says that people can’t serve 2 masters.
Rick Nolan isn’t serving 2 masters. He’s just trying to pretend like he’s doing a balancing act. It’ll be difficult for him to pull that off the minute people read Bernie Sanders’ issue page on the environment. Simply put, Sanders’ views of the environment is the opposite of what the Eighth District believes.
For instance, Sanders said that he wants to “protect important watersheds and wildlife areas.” It’s impossible to imagine Bernie not including Superior National Forest, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageur’s National Park in his list of “important watersheds and wildlife areas” he’d want to protect. That certainly means a Sanders administration would prohibit mining.
Nolan issued this statement on his decision:
The Democratic Party is fortunate to have two qualified presidential candidates, both of whom offer substantive solutions to the problems facing Americans. I’ve considered a number of factors in making this decision, including the will of Minnesota caucus attendees, specifically those in the 8th Congressional District. Bernie’s message and his authenticity appeals to voters here, and it appeals to me. I’ll be proud to cast my vote for him in Philadelphia this summer.
Apparently, one of the things Nolan didn’t consider was whether his constituents agreed with Sanders. That wasn’t a high priority for him.
Technorati: Rick Nolan, Bernie Sanders, Voyageurs National Park, Superior National Forest, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Mining, Environmental Activists, Democratic National Convention, Democrats, Election 2016
This article isn’t surprising. What’s unfortunate is that the Democratic Party insists that they’re for campaign finance reform while taking tons of money from the special interests that they publicly criticize. This year, they aren’t even letting the democratic process determine their party’s presidential nominee.
Let’s stipulate something at the outset. Both political parties use superdelegates to determine their party’s presidential nominee. This article does a great job of explaining how superdelegates work in the Democratic and Republican parties. For instance, in “the Democratic Party, you’re a superdelegate if you’re a member of the official party apparatus. That includes all current Democratic governors and members of Congress as well as former presidents, former vice presidents, state party chairs, and that sort of thing. In the Democratic Party, superdelegates can vote for whichever candidate they wish regardless of how the state that they come from votes, and in total, superdelegates comprise about 15 percent of the total delegates that determine the nomination.”
That explains how Hillary has a 350 delegate lead over Bernie Sanders even though they tied in Iowa and Sanders annihilated Hillary in New Hampshire. It’s a different story for superdelegates in the GOP:
The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The national Republican Party ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that’s the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates.
Potentially, there are further complications for the DNC and their presidential nominee:
Like Ms. Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also accepts money from super PACs and corporate interests. Given Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s campaign financing strategies—in conjunction with the virtual bankruptcy the DNC is facing under her leadership—the rescinding of the ban on donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs should come as no surprise, but what it demonstrates is still sobering. Special interests have undermined the trust between the government and the American people to the extent that public outcry against corporate influences are resulting in regressing policies for campaign finance reform. As Mr. Sanders leads calls for politicians to ethically rid themselves of ties to wealthy individuals and corporations, the Democratic Establishment is doing everything possible to inoculate themselves from those calls to action.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz isn’t just corrupt. She’s inept, too. It isn’t just her fault, though. The Democratic Party is a dying party. That’s why their presidential candidates are both fossils. Many of their younger politicians have gotten defeated in 2010 and 2014.
During those GOP landslides, Democrats lost tons of seats in Congress, the US Senate and in state legislatures. Their bench is thinner than thin. It’s virtually nonexistent. The Democratic Party is heading for a massive shake-up after this election. If Hillary wins because the DNC rigged the rules, rest assured that the activists that fought for Bernie Sanders will lead a revolt against Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC.
It isn’t a stretch to think that campaigns plant questions at town hall meetings. It isn’t often, though, that these planted questions are exposed like it was this time. One of the questioners from the audience tossed Hillary a softball, asking “I just wanted to know which of our previous presidents has inspired you most and why.”
Unfortunately for Hillary, that isn’t the only thing Brett Rosenberg, the questioner and an undecided voter, said. He prefaced the inspirational president question by saying “Secretary Sander… Clinton… Oh, sorry. I can see why they gave you this question… I just wanted to know which of our previous presidents has inspired you most and why.”
Whether you say that the cat’s out of the bag or whether you say that CNN and the DNC are playing favorites, there’s no hiding the fact that someone, either the Clinton campaign, the DNC (pardon the repetition) or CNN (pardon the excessive repetition), planted the question.
I wrote here that Hillary was on the defensive the entire night. Sen. Sanders accused her of fighting the progressive fight only when it’s politically convenient. Sen. Sanders cited Hillary’s Johnny-come-lately approach to TPP and the Keystone XL Pipeline project as proof that she’s a calculating politician, not a progressive activist at heart.
Whether you’re talking about Hillary’s plant or the fact that she’s out of touch with the party she wants to lead, the truth is that she’s frittered away her air of invincibility.
When unions signed onto liberalism’s entire agenda, they signed onto some things that are hurting them now. That’s what this article is about. Unions have been among the most trustworthy parts of the DFL’s coalition. Their reward is getting frequently shafted.
The DFL has steadfastly defended the refugee resettlement program despite the national security risks it presents. The State Department’s refugee resettlement program doesn’t just give terrorists a free pass to move into the United States. It also hurts workers.
Last week, the St. Cloud City Council voted to rezone a former convent so it could be turned into an apartment unit that will house “seasonal workers from Ukraine, the Philippines and Mexico” who will work for GNP, formerly known as Gold’n Plump.
Now that it’s their ox that’s getting gored, the AFL-CIO is expressing its disgust with the program. Implicit in their complaint is their disgust with the DFL:
Jane Conrad, a union organizer with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, said GNP’s program will have a ripple effect in St. Cloud.
“It’s kind of opening a Pandora’s box that we really shouldn’t be going down,” she said. “When you have guest workers coming in from out of the area, they’re not staying here, they’re not invested in the community, the way those that live here are. And when we have the poverty rate that we have currently right now, we need everything we can get in this community.”
Ms. Conrad can thank the DFL for those refugees taking the place of her union workers. Then again, it’s fair to say that the AFL-CIO can blame themselves for empowering the DFL locally and the Democratic Party nationally.
The AFL-CIO and other major unions have gotten shafted by other Democratic Party agenda items. Think Keystone XL transcontinental pipeline and the Sandpiper Pipeline from the Bakken to Superior, WI. The unions got shafted on those good-paying jobs because today’s Democratic Party will always side with the environmentalists over the unions. Think, too, of the ACA demolishing the unions’ Cadillac health insurance plans, too.
I wrote this article to analyze the Democrats’ first presidential debate, which was moderated by CNN. I must confess that I made a mistake in considering last night’s DNC/CNN event a debate. It wasn’t a debate because nobody attempted to lay a glove on Queen Hillary. Whether that’s because the 4 males (I can’t call them men for obvious reasons) self-neutered, whether it’s because they didn’t dare cross DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or whether they want a cabinet post in a Hillary administration, the 4 males acted more like eunuchs than candidates.
The outcomes were predictable. First, CNN lost in the sense that 9,000,000 fewer people tuned into their non-event. Second, despite Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s spin to the contrary, America saw the pathetic cast of candidates the Democrats have. Third, Hillary wasn’t helped by the fact that she still hasn’t faced a legitimate challenge on a debate stage. Fourth, Hillary’s contention that she’s an outsider because she’s a woman running for president is getting tiresome to voters.
During the 2014 election cycle, Mark Udall ran a campaign focused on women’s issues. His campaign was all-women-all-the-time. It earned him the nickname of “Mark Uterus” from the Denver Post. Things didn’t end well for Sen. Udall:
It’s indisputable that Democrats captured lightning in a bottle in 2012 with their war on women campaign. Based on Hillary’s mediocre polling results, the lightning is gone. Hillary has certainly played up the fact that she’d be the first woman president at every opportunity. Still, Hillary’s polling is lackluster.
Pundits across the nation are chatting up how confident Hillary looked. My reply to that is simple: If you’re essentially in a competition-free zone, why wouldn’t you feel confident? The minute Bernie Sanders said that he’s tired of hearing about Hillary’s “damn emails”, Hillary lit up like a Christmas tree. It was the most genuine emotion she’s shown since marrying Bill Clinton. (Okay, that’s a bit of an exaggeration but it isn’t like most of her emotional displays aren’t contrived and calculated.)
The bottom line is this: a) Hillary is now all but officially the Democrats’ presidential nominee and b) some people are still waiting for the first Democratic Party presidential debate.
This weekend, Gov. Scott Walker, (R-WI), visited New Hampshire again. Thus far, Gov. Walker’s message is resonating:
Attendees at a New Hampshire Republican Leadership Summit on Friday offered plenty of reasons why Gov. Scott Walker sits atop a burgeoning field of potential 2016 GOP nominees in the latest Granite State polls.
But some cautioned that while Walker may check many of the right boxes, he is still a largely unknown quantity, and as voters get to know him better they may have concerns about his shifting positions on various issues, his lack of foreign policy experience or the divisive nature of his politics.
When you’re the frontrunner, it’s inevitable that people will criticize you. That’s already happening:
“There’s a lot of goodwill,” said Vernon Robinson, the director of a super PAC supporting retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson for president and a featured speaker at the event Friday. “Folks don’t know a lot about Scott Walker other than he beat the unions. As the vetting process goes forward, the good governor may have peaked too soon.”
That’s certainly mild criticism, far milder than Hillary and the DNC will throw at him if he’s the nominee. This mild criticism, though, tells me more about Dr. Carson’s team than anything else.
Criticizing a candidate in a crowded field often isn’t effective. Even if the criticism hurts the target, what often happens is that it hurts the candidate that did the criticizing. In the early stages of a presidential campaign, it’s best to just build your team while building enthusiasm and momentum.
Compare the Carson campaign’s criticism with this response:
Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for Walker’s political nonprofit group Our American Revival, declined to comment on polls. She said Walker would continue to talk to Americans about the principles he has promoted in Wisconsin and how he was able to win three times in four years.
That’s pitch perfect. It says that they won’t get drawn into silly tit-for-tat spats. Further, it emphatically states that Gov. Walker will take the high road by talking about his successes in Wisconsin.
That’s a smart approach. Gov. Walker has a lengthy list of accomplishments as the conservative governor of a blue state. Reminding people that your message and your conservative policies have won people over in Wisconsin is a great reminder to people that conservatism is a winning message.
No post is complete without Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s feeble attempt to criticize a Republican:
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz called Walker “one of the most divisive leaders in recent memory.” “The more voters get a close look at what Scott Walker’s actual policies are, the more they will be repelled,” she said.
That’s hilarious, especially coming from the woman that told Megyn Kelly that late term abortions are a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Rep. Wasserman-Schultz’s position isn’t just held by a minority of people. It’s a position that great liberals like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said was “too close to infanticide.”
If Ms. Wasserman-Schultz wants to promote a procedure that’s “too close to infanticide,” that’s her right. It’s just a foolish decision that a vast majority of women disagree with.
There are at least a dozen lifetimes between now and the first-in-the-nation primary, which means there isn’t a true frontrunner at this point. Still, if you’re Gov. Walker, you’d have to be pleased with the rollout thus far.
Technorati: Scott Walker, Reform Agenda, Our American Revival, Republicans, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC, Partial Birth Abortion, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Infanticide, Democrats, New Hampshire Primary, Election 2016
It was inevitable that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would weigh in on Marco Rubio’s presidential announcement. Here’s what she said:
Hours before his rally, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, criticized Rubio as just another establishment Republican with no new ideas. “He’s a follower, peddling the same tired Republican playbook,” she told reporters. “Marco Rubio has pandered to the Republican base throughout his whole career.”
You’d think that Democrats could find a more skilled leader of the DNC. Apparently, their bench for presidential candidates isn’t the only thin bench they’ve got. Apparently, their bench for DNC chairs is thin, too.
One thing that’s clear is that the DNC chair, like their presidential-nominee-in-waiting, isn’t particularly wedded to the truth. Saying that Sen. Rubio “has pandered to the Republican base” is a bit melodramatic. If Wasserman-Schultz wanted to be accurate, she could’ve said that Sen. Rubio holds views that many Republicans hold. That won’t work, though, if the goal is to vilify Sen. Rubio and turn him into a living, breathing Frankenstein.
As for Rubio’s beliefs, here’s what he rattled off as his agenda if he’s elected:
Now, the time has come for our generation to lead the way toward a new American Century.
If we reform our tax code, reduce regulations, control spending, modernize our immigration laws and repeal and replace Obamacare, the American people will create millions of better-paying modern jobs.
If we create a 21st century system of higher education that provides working Americans the chance to acquire the skills they need, that no longer graduates students with mountains of debt and degrees that do not lead to jobs, and that graduates more students from high school ready to work, then our people will be prepared to seize their opportunities in the new economy.
If we remember that family, not government, is the most important institution in society, that all life deserves protection, and that all parents deserve to choose the education that’s right for their children, then we will have a strong people and a strong nation.
And if America accepts the mantle of global leadership, by abandoning this administration’s dangerous concessions to Iran, and its hostility to Israel; by reversing the hollowing out of our military; by giving our men and women in uniform the resources, care and gratitude they deserve; by no longer being passive in the face of Chinese and Russian aggression; and by ending the near total disregard for the erosion of democracy and human rights around the world; then our nation will be safer, the world more stable, and our people more prosperous.
That’s a lengthy, substantive agenda, one that will appeal to voters. If that agenda gets signed into law, job creation will accelerate, wages will rise and the economy will consistently grow at a 3.5% rate. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if it exceeded that.
This isn’t just Sen. Rubio’s agenda, either. Gov. Walker lists these things as priorities, too.
EVELETH, Minn.— Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) Commissioner Tony Sertich today announced that New Partners Consultants, Inc. will operate a call center for its customers at Progress Park in Eveleth. The company is finalizing plans to lease the space that formerly housed Meyer Associates, Inc. New Partners will utilize some equipment from the Meyer operation, which is currently under IRRRB’s ownership. Staffing will begin as soon as all agreements are in place, possibly as early as next week.
“We are pleased to have played a role in facilitating the reopening of the center,” said Sertich. “This project will result in new job opportunities, particularly for those displaced by the Meyer closing.”
Sertich recognized Gilbert native Jerry Samargia of New Partners, stating, “I am thankful to Jerry for investing in the center and the people of the Iron Range.”
He also praised Virginia Eveleth Economic Development Authority representatives and Gary Owen, former owner of Meyer, for putting a deal together in such a short time.
New Partners isn’t well-known. I think it’s time it got some notoriety. Here’s what New Partners is in their own words:
New Partners is more than just a new firm with new people and new ideas. We also represent a new way of doing business. Whether the goal is to win an election, affect reputation, organize an advocacy campaign, raise money, or build a movement, our extensive expertise and groundbreaking strategies will get results.
We are all operating in a new environment based on a fundamental shift in how we organize, how we communicate and how we advocate. From the campaign that defeated President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security, and implementing Governor Howard Dean’s landmark 50 State Strategy, to spearheading an innovative and successful development effort for the One Campaign, and the unprecedented Iowa caucus campaign that led to President Obama’s breakthrough victory, the team at New Partners has been at the epicenter of that shift.
What we have learned from our experience is that no two issues, organizations or campaigns are the same. Each requires a unique approach based on new ideas and new strategies that will lead to new results.
That means that the IRRRB is spending taxpayers’ money on a company committed to electing Democrats. The list of New Partners’ leadership reads like a who’s who from the Obama campaign.
If the Democratic Party want to put an organization together, that’s their right. It’s just that this type of operation shouldn’t be paid for by taxpayers. And there’s no question it’s being funded by taxpayers. That’s the IRRRB’s way. The IRRRB hasn’t met a project benefitting the Democratic Party that they didn’t like.
The DNC should finance this operation. Minnesota taxpayers shouldn’t finance it. Having taxpayers finance the DNC’s operations is the definition of crony capitalism meeting single party government. That’s the definition of corruption.
God bless George Will for his insightfulness and brevity. Mr. Will nailed it again yesterday with this summarization:
Here’s what Mr. Will accurately stated:
MR. WILL: Tip O’Neill once famously stated that “all politics are local.” In 2014, no politics will be local. This has already nationalized the 2014 elections, which will be about the chaos Nina described.
While Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz insist that they’ll “run on Obamacare and win”, the rank-and-file Democrats are running away from the Affordable Care Act faster than their feet will take them.
That wasn’t Mr. Will’s only witticism. This video is an instant classic, too:
Democrats will undoubtedly attempt to avoid talking about the Affordable Care Act during the campaign. Without a doubt, they’ll attempt to change subjects. They’ll attempt to say that things are fantastic at a time when new cancellations and higher insurance premiums will be getting people’s attention.
It’s premature to talk about a possible wave election but discontent with Democrats is building. That doesn’t guarantee a landslide victory for Republicans but it’s predicting that Democrats won’t retake the House. It’s indicating that it’s quite possible for Democrats to lose their Senate majority, too.
It isn’t far-fetched to think that Democrats will attempt to talk about everything other than the Affordable Care Act disaster. This election won’t be determined by what Democrats want to talk about or what they want to avoid discussing. The 2014 elections will be determined by people insisting on talking about the Affordable Care Act.
People want to vent about this disaster. There’s an old axiom that says “When the people want something badly enough and scream loudly enough for a long time, the leaders will follow.” The Democrat leadership insists that everything’s fine, that Democrats will win by talking about the Affordable Care Act.
The Democrat leadership team is either stupid beyond belief or they’re lying through their teeth. Though it’s difficult to tell at times, I don’t think they’re stupid.
Based on this report, I’d say there’s better than a 50-50 shot that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is defeated Tuesday night:
This past Saturday, Wasserman Schultz personally lambasted a longtime Democrat supporter from Miami-Dade County who was caught talking to Harrington. This same individual further annoyed Wasserman Schultz by refusing to display a “Wasserman Schultz for Congress” sign and then told Debbie that he had already voted for Harrington instead of her.
This longtime Democrat leader, who shall remain anonymous for purposes of this report, indicated that he was disgusted and said that had never been so insulted in his life.
On Sunday, the Shark Tank visited one of the strongest Democrat precincts in Congressional District 23- the City of Hollywood’s main public library- and in speaking to Democrats waiting in line as wells as those who just voted, many of them said that they voted for Harrington over Wasserman Schultz.
What a night Tuesday might be. It starts, of course, with Mitt defeating President Obama, ending this neverending economic nightmare. Defeating Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would be a nice bonus for Republicans nationwide who are tired of Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s lippy behavior.
This information is potentially enlightening:
Coincidentally, Harrington herself was working voters in the line, she indicated that she was receiving extraordinary support from Democrats and Independents who were waiting in line to vote. There’s no doubt that there are many disaffected Democrats throughout the district are irritated with DWS’s partisan rhetoric and her neglect of congressional responsibilities as the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.
DWS’s district has lots of Jewish voters. It isn’t a stretch to think that a healthy portion of the Democrats that are voting for Ms. Harrington are Jewish. Considering the possibility DWS spent considerable time defending President Obama’s harsh treatment of Israel, it’s entirely possible that Jewish voters are taking their frustrations out on DWS.
The recent Harrington v. Wasserman Schultz polling has the incumbent congresswoman with a 4.5% lead over there challenger, and some local politicos believe that not only is the race competitive, but also that an upset is possible.
This year’s polls haven’t been that trustworthy. That’s especially true if they’re basing their polls on 2008 turnout models. If people really have tired of DWS’s boorish behavior, then I’d bet the polling is essentially irrelevant.