Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘DNC’ Category

This article highlights how Democrats deny what’s happened the last few election cycles. Hidden in James Oliphant’s article is the sentence that “Republicans also command 32 state legislatures and have full control — meaning they hold the governor’s office and both legislative chambers — in 24 states, including swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. When President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, they controlled just nine.”

After that, we’re told that “Party insiders are reluctant to blame the popular Obama but cite plenty of reasons for the decline. These include a muddled economic message; an overemphasis on emerging demographic groups such as minorities and millennial at the expense of white voters; a perception the party is elitist and aligned with Wall Street; a reluctance to embrace the progressive populism of Senator Bernie Sanders, the former presidential hopeful; and failure to field strong candidates in key states.”

Embracing “the progressive populism of Sen. Bernie Sanders” isn’t a path back to the majority. It’s a path to oblivion. This paragraph is delusional, too:

As a result, a poor performance by the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections gave Republicans control of statehouses across the country, allowing them to redraw legislative maps to fashion districts that would help ensure their long-term electoral success.

Democrats didn’t lose 63 seats in the House in 2010 because their candidates performed poorly. They lost because they voted for the ACA. What happened in 2010 actually started in 2009. Democrats didn’t listen to their constituents. They listened to President Obama instead. Democrats didn’t listen to their constituents when they held their townhall meetings in August, 2009. It didn’t require a rocket scientist to notice that people were upset during their meetings.

The people spoke. The politicians ignored the people. In November, 2010, the people spoke again. This time, they spoke with a loud, disapproving voice. They essentially told Democrats that they were getting punished because Democrats didn’t listen to We The People. Now in 2016, the people were heard again. They said that they don’t care about income inequality as much as they care about businesses creating good-paying middle class jobs. The people said they don’t care about transgender bathrooms in schools as much as they care about students getting a great education in school. We The People said that the EPA has gone too far and that it’s time to stop the EPA’s abusive behavior.

From a structural standpoint, it’s wise to re-implement Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy. That won’t put Democrats back in control, though. That’s because Democrats have a huge millstone hanging around their neck. The name on that millstone is Obamacare. If Democrats don’t admit that Obamacare was a mistake to implement, they’ll wander through the desert for a long time.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats should follow Robert Reich’s blueprint to revitalize the Democratic Party. One of the parts of the article that’s interesting reading the part when Reich starts talking about insiders. Specifically, he said “the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy, it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren’t going to happily relinquish their power and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich.”

The Democratic Party has always been the party of party insiders. That’s their identity. It’s their DNA. That being said, Reich has a point in saying “It must harness the energies and idealism of young people across the nation who were drawn to Bernie Sanders’s campaign because of its promise to get big money out of politics; reverse widening inequality; turn the nation’s wildly expensive and baroque healthcare complex into a single-payer system; reverse climate change; end the militarization of our police and the mass incarceration of our people and stop interminable and open-ended warfare.”

If that’s what you think the Democratic Party needs to return to political relevance, then Keith Ellison is the perfect fit for DNC chairman. Part of the Democrats’ problem is that they all sound alike. Here’s what Rep. Tim Ryan, the man who’s opposing Nancy Pelosi, said:

If Donald Trump’s going to defund Planned Parenthood, privatize Medicare, just simply cut taxes for the top 1 percent and throw people off their health care, he’s going to be in a street fight with a kid from the Youngstown area, and that’s how that’s going to work.

Considering the fact that Democrats have presided over the most pathetic economic growth since the Great Depression, it probably isn’t wise to sound like Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Back to Reich’s plan. This video is a lengthy pep talk to the troops:

Reich spend most of his time talking about climate change, bragging about the (supposedly) positive accomplishments of the EPA and advocating a Medicare for all health care plan. How will that connect with the pipefitter working on a pipeline infrastructure project? How will those things tell the electrician that you understand them? This won’t connect with voters. At this point, people don’t trust Washington, DC. They think DC doesn’t understand them, probably because Washington, DC hasn’t understood them for years.

What’s especially delicious is listening to Reich saying that Democrats have to do a better job of listening to the people, then saying “particularly sensitive to widening inequality, particularly sensitive to the corruption that widening inequality generates. When you have huge wealth at the top that is being channeled and used in order to gain influence to get even more wealth.” That isn’t in touch with America.

People don’t think in terms of income inequality. People just wish they had a secure job in a growing economy. Income inequality is an abstract concept. A secure job in a vibrant economy is something people can relate to.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Salena Zito’s latest column deals with the Democrats’ problems connecting with voters. In the article, she quotes “Bruce Haynes, founding partner of Purple Strategies, and a GOP strategist.” Haynes is right in stating that the Democrats’ “challenge is they have lost their connection with the American voter. In short, they have a macro problem.” Haynes is essentially saying that improving their messaging might help around the margins but it won’t fix their biggest problem.

Apparently, “Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist also at Purple Strategies”, didn’t get that memo. In the article, he’s quoted as saying “there was no screaming, no partisan attacks; the tone was neither shrill nor harsh, just simple messages that began with ‘Are you tired of …’ or ‘Think about this …'”

Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy produced positive results electorally. What it didn’t do, though, was produce positive results for the American people policywise. That’s the important metric by which things are getting measured.

The Democrats’ newest difficulty is that Dean’s 50-state strategy eventually led to the Democratic majorities that created the ACA. The Democrats’ worst nightmare possibility is that Trump’s agenda is as successful as Bill Clinton’s in terms of economic growth and job creation. The Democrats will have to answer why they should be given access to power after they’ve passed Obamacare and let the EPA run wild while mining jobs disappeared.

The Democrats’ biggest problem is that they’re the radical party. If their agenda doesn’t change from income inequality, raising the minimum wage and insisting that climate change is the biggest threat to American society, they’ll wander this self-inflicted desert for a decade or more.

Electing Keith Ellison as chairman of the DNC would help cement the Democrats’ image of being the radical party. This interview cements Ellison’s image as being a back-bench bomb-thrower:

Dennis Miller got it right about Ellison:

The Democrats’ biggest problems are that they’re hyperpartisan and their policies haven’t worked. Put differently, they aren’t that likable and their policies either hurt families (think Obamacare) or people ignore their far-left agenda (think $15 minimum wage or transgender bathrooms).

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This past Sunday, Chris Wallace’s panel broke things down beautifully why Hillary Clinton lost. One of the eye-popping exchanges came when Chris Wallace asked “You know, George, one of the things that, and we’ve been around too long probably, we shouldn’t tell people that, but one of the things I’m always amused by is at the end of a campaign, the winning campaign, they were all geniuses. The losing campaign, they were all dopes. The winning party, they’re on the course to building a permanent majority in the country. The losing campaign is in tatters. How much of that is actually true?”

Will’s response was “Well, the losing party here is in tatters. The Republican Party is as strong as it’s been since the 1920s and probably more. Broad and deep. Sixty-nine of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by the Republicans. Twenty-four states, they have the Republican governor and the entire control of the legislature. Only six states have Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. Thirty-four Republican governors. That means if you’re looking for a deeper bench for presidential candidates for the Democratic Party, you have to start with 16 governors is all they’ve got. Furthermore, one-third of the House caucus of the Democratic Party are from three states, Massachusetts, New York and California.”

Think about that set of statistics in terms of its implications to the Democratic Party and its ability to regain control of the US House of Representatives. A total of 24 states with 185 congressional districts are controlled by Republican governors working with GOP majorities in their legislatures. With Republicans totally controlling the redistricting process in those 24 states, the odds of Democrats regaining control of the US House in the next 3-4 election cycles are slim at best.

Then there’s this:

WILL: They were united by Barack Obama. They were united by an agenda. Chuck said people felt forgotten by — no, I think they felt condescended to. And there’s something about progressivism that just is condescension. We know what your healthcare ought to be, be quiet and take your medicine. We know how much water should come through your shower head. We know what kind of toilets you ought to have. We’re going to change your light bulbs, be quiet and take our direction, and people are tired of it.
LANE: Yes. Well, I — I have to say, I’ll take that as a friendly amendment, George. And I also think, just when we’re talking about factors here, I think environmentalism in a usual way worked against the Democratic Party this year. I did a little back of the envelope coalition about the most coal dependent states in terms of electricity generation in this country. There are 25 most dependent, 20 of them Trump carried. He carried Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, which are the three most coal dependent states in terms of electricity generation. That power plan to focus on global warming and stuff that he pushed with a relatively thin legal basis might have provided the small — a part, at least, of the small margin that contributed to his defeat.

Think about what Charles Lane hinted at. He essentially said that the Democrats’ siding with the environmental activist wing of their party finally caught up with them. Trump identified these blue collar voters as swing voters, then courted them, telling them that he’d be their voice in DC. Mr. Trump promised to take on the EPA if elected. He promised to be their champion.

Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he didn’t promise to retrain coal miners who lost their jobs due to her eliminating their jobs in favor of green energy jobs. That’s when Pennsylvania and Ohio knew that they’d have a champion in the White House.

The Democratic Party is so indebted to the environmental activist wing of their party that it’s almost inconceivable that they’ll be a majority party in the House in the foreseeable future.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article in The Hill points to the Democrats’ uncivil war within the ranks. What’s important to highlight is the fact that both sides are right.

For instance, The Hill reports that Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Labor Secretary, said “This has been a huge refutation of establishment politics and the political organization has got to be changed…if the Democratic Party can’t do it, we’ll do it through a third party.”

Later in the article, an unnamed Democratic strategist said “The Sanders people should be mad at themselves. If they had come out to vote, Donald Trump wouldn’t be president. If they were trying to prove a point, all they’ve done is further damage everything they claim to be fighting for. It’s somewhat typical of that crowd.”

It’s indisputable that Hillary Clinton represented the establishment. It’s indisputable, too, that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don’t represent the establishment whatsoever. Anti-Establishment Democrats face a dilemma as do Establishment Democrats in that Tuesday night represented a refutation of anti-Establishment policies and a refutation of Establishment politicians.

Robert Reich definitely believes in the uber-left’s policies. It isn’t a secret that he’s a true believer. That being said, there’s no doubt that the unnamed strategist quoted earlier is right. Running farther to the left will hurt Democrats. I wrote here that Democrats of all stripes have been rejected. Typical Democratic policies like income inequality and minimum wage simply aren’t appealing to many people. The American people want pro-growth policies where people at the lower economic rungs have a chance of becoming the next Bill Gates, Michael Dell or Fred Smith.

The Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren wing of the Party is too focused on what I’d call the jealous wing of the Democratic Party. Similarly, the Establishment wing of the Democratic Party is in disrepair. In this article, Krystal Ball proclaims “Call me crazy, but I don’t think Wall Street’s favorite senator, Chuck Schumer, and San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi are the ideal people to address the economic anxiety of middle- and working-class Americans and credibly call for reform.”

She’s right. Schumer and Pelosi haven’t had a fresh idea in over a decade. They’re contributing nothing. It’s time to put them out of our misery. In the end, this picture symbolizes the upcoming Democratic Party’s uncivil war:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If pictures are worth 1,000 words each, then this election has given us a ton of words worth pondering. Before getting to the pictures, though, it’s important to establish a foundation for why these pictures happened. Victor Davis Hanson wrote this article, which explains, at least in part, why Hillary was doomed before the start.

Dr. Hanson correctly states “even as Obama left the Democrats with ideological and political detritus, he also had established an electoral calculus built on his own transformative identity that neither had coattails nor was transferrable to other candidates. Indeed, his hard-left positions on redistribution, social issues, sanctuary cities, amnesty, foreign policy, and spending would likely doom candidates other than himself who embraced them.” It doesn’t end there, though.

Dr. Hanson is right in stating “What then has the Democratic Party become other than a hard left and elite progressive force, which without Obama’s personal appeal to bloc-voting minorities, resonates with only about 40 percent of the country. The Democratic Party is now neither a centrist nor a coalition party.” This graphic helps illustrate Dr. Hanson’s point:

This graphic paints a bleak picture for the Sanders/Warren/Ellison wing of the Democratic Party:

It’s impossible to be a national party when you don’t control any levers of power in Washington, DC, especially when you control the governorship and legislature in only 2 states. Democrats hold only 15 governorships and 30 of the 99 legislative bodies (Nebraska is unicameral). It’s difficult to spin that into a picture of being a vibrant national party. That’s the picture of a decaying regional party at best.

These pictures illustrate the transformation Donald Trump brought to the GOP:

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

This summer, the Democratic Party faced a moment of truth right before their convention when they fired Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as their chair of the DNC. The woman picked to be the DNC’s interim chair, Donna Brazile, is apparently just as unprincipled as Ms. Wasserman-Schultz.

This article highlights the fact that the upper echelon of the DNC was on a mission to elect Hillary regardless of what they had to do. What’s telling is the paragraph that says “The Democratic National Committee is ‘clearing a path’ for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday’s primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it ‘early on.'”

Thanks to the Daily Caller’s article on the latest Wikileaks dump, we now know that Donna Brazile, the interim chair of the DNC, is corrupt, too:

Donna Brazile, the current head of the Democratic National Committee, appears to have tipped the Clinton campaign off to a question about the death penalty that was going to be asked during a CNN town hall in March, newly released emails show. “From time to time I get the questions in advance,” Brazile wrote in an email to Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri on March 12.

Clinton Syndrome is already setting in. The chief symptom of Clinton Syndrome is the feeling for the need to take a long, hot shower after listening to the Clintons or their Clintonistas speak. Donna Brazile is definitely a Clintonista because she’s been part of a cabal to do whatever it takes to get Mrs. Clinton elected. Further, I feel the need for a long, hot shower after reading what Ms. Brazile has done to get Mrs. Clinton elected.

First, Ms. Brazile, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz rigged the Democratic primaries and Democratic presidential debates so Bernie Sanders couldn’t win. They scheduled the debates on Saturday nights so Bernie Sanders couldn’t gain name recognition. Next, they limited the number of debates, which protected Hillary from gaffes. (A political gaffe is, by definition, when you “accidentally tell the truth.”)

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are right. The system is rigged. What they didn’t get right, though, is that it’s the Democrats that rigged their presidential primaries so they didn’t have a chance. That’s thank directly to the actions Ms. Brazile and the DNC took.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This morning, Hillary Clinton appeared on Fox News Sunday. During the interview, Chris Wallace asked her about Patricia Smith’s statement at the Republican National Convention. That’s where Mrs. Smith said “I blame Hillary Clinton — I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son. That’s personally.”

Mrs. Clinton’s reply was “As other members of families who lost loved ones have said, that’s not what they heard — I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.”

To provide proper context, Chris Wallace said “She and the father of Tyrone Woods both say that on the day that their sons’ bodies were returned to the United States, that you came up to them and you said it was all because of a video, not terrorism. Now, I know some of the other families disagree with this, and I know you deny it.”

I won’t mince words. Hillary Clinton is a liar. It isn’t that Patricia Smith doesn’t recall Hillary’s statements correctly. It isn’t that Tyrone Woods’ father recalls Mrs. Clinton’s statements incorrectly, either. Days after the attack, Hillary was still pretending that an obscure internet video caused the attack in Benghazi:

It’s clear that Mrs. Clinton’s mission was to insist that an obscure internet video caused the terrorists’ attack. Here’s what Mrs. Clinton said days after Christopher Stevens’ body had been returned to the United States:

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious that the United States’ government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.

There’s no need to rely on Patricia Smith’s recollection or Charles Woods’ recollection. Hillary’s statements have been captured on video and they’re quite revealing. So are Susan Rice’s statements:

This article highlights Mrs. Clinton’s dishonesty. Here’s the date on the article:

Updated 5:51 AM ET, Sat September 15, 2012

Here’s the opening paragraph of the article:

The remains of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans landed on U.S. soil Friday afternoon in flag-draped caskets.

On Sunday, September 16, 2012, Susan Rice went on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows to deliver a simple message. Here’s what she said on CBS’s Face the Nation:

Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is of the present is, in fact, it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had happened hours before in Cairo, where, as you know, there was a violent protest in front of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.

The video captured Mrs. Clinton’s statements accurately. There’s no mistaking that she’s lied repeatedly about the internet video being the cause for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.

Therefore, Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she doesn’t “hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not recall everything that was said or wasn’t said” is insulting. There’s nothing wrong with Patricia Smith’s or Charles Woods’ hearing. What’s wrong is Mrs. Clinton’s repeated dishonesty.

The video doesn’t lie. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Rice lied repeatedly. What kind of politician hints that grieving parents are wrong when the politician knows what she’s said is utterly dishonest?

Finally, J.C. Watts gave the perfect definition of character during the 1996 Republican Convention when he said that “character is doing the right thing even when nobody’s looking.” Mrs. Clinton apparently fails that test.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simply put, Kevin Sorbo is my new hero. He’s my hero for writing this post that questions why Michael Brown’s mother was invited to Hillary’s convention and that ridicules the entire Black Lives Matter movement and the hand-up-don’t-shoot myth. Considering the fact that he’s a Hollywood actor, that took courage.

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “Whatever questionable choices were made at the Republican National Convention last week, I didn’t hear of a single speaker whose sole accomplishment was raising a delinquent who attacked a cop. But as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.”

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “It would be a lot easier if they were not being targeted for assassination and mass murders by homicidal nuts ginned up by BLM. (Shooting deaths of police are up 78 percent so far this year.) And it would be a lot easier without a group, officially supported by the Democrats, leading marches down city streets, chanting, ‘What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!’ Why does the Democratic platform endorse Black Lives Matter? And, most importantly, why was Mike Brown’s mother on stage at the Democratic National Convention?”

That’s a great question, Mr. Sorbo. Why was Mike Brown’s mother invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention? What did she contribute to the convention other than to gin up the African-American vote? This is an even better question:

However half-heartedly, Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?

It’s obvious that Hillary isn’t pro-cop. If she were, she would’ve told Al Sharpton off for perpetuating the myth of hands-up-don’t-shoot. The Democratic Party isn’t pro-cop. Gov. Dayton accused a Hispanic police officer of being racist while insisting that Philando Castile would likely still be alive if he was white. Sorbo wasn’t done:

Because of the despicable lies put out by BLM agitators, Wilson had to give up his career, move his family and will be forced to live in fear for the rest of his life. The town of Ferguson was destroyed, businesses burned to the ground, police officers attacked, people injured, the National Guard called in, and massive taxpayer money expended to contain the riots. But at the Democratic Convention, Lezley McSpadden (mother of Mike Brown) was wildly cheered.

Sorbo closed by sticking in the dagger, figuratively speaking:

Donald Trump, along with every other Republican ever to run for president, is required to repeatedly “disavow” David Duke — someone he’s never met, never mentioned, never thought of— and certainly didn’t invite to speak at his convention.

But Hillary invites to her convention the mother of a man whose criminality destroyed a police officer’s life, tore the country apart and gave birth to a murderous cop-hating movement. Will a single reporter ask Hillary to disavow that?

In terms of rhetorical questions, that’s one of the smartest I’ve ever heard. The answer, of course, is that Hillary won’t get questioned about inviting the mother of a thug to speak at her convention, much less be asked to disavow that decision.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Democratic Party’s platform doesn’t mince words when it comes to energy. The Democratic Party’s platform calls for the elimination of all fossil fuels by 2050. That means that Hillary’s statement in May that she’ll try to put coal workers out of work isn’t just campaign trail happy talk. It’s the stated goal of the Democratic Party.

Political parties’ platforms aren’t often followed and can be frequently ignored. This time, it’s different. When was the last time that Democrats sided with labor over the environmental activists’ agenda? Let me know when you get back to the 1980s. BTW, Bill Clinton put millions of acres of federal land off limits for oil exploration. Now his wife is running for office. Anyone that thinks that Hillary isn’t as prone to pandering as Bill is kidding themselves. She isn’t as subtle or charming about it as Bill was but she’s still a world-class panderer. This wasn’t one of her finer moments, though:

Hillary talked quite openly about “clean, renewable energy” energy in that speech. It’s possible that Hillary thinks that she’s just pandering to the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party. If that’s what she’s thinking, she didn’t do her homework.

This isn’t the old Democratic Party. When it comes to today’s Democratic Party on energy, these environmental activists are fascists. They aren’t interested in walking a mile in someone else’s shoes. They’re willing to take half-a-loaf but that doesn’t mean that they’re reasonable. They’re totally willing to shut down fossil fuels with a steadfast progress towards eliminating fossil fuels.

Voters in Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania need to ask themselves if they’re willing to cast a vote for a Democratic candidate who wants to cripple their state’s economy and hurt their neighbors or their relatives. That’s what’s at stake in this election.

During her acceptance speech, Hillary said that “we all do better when we all do better”, a phrase first coined by Paul Wellstone. I’d like to hear Hillary’s explanation on how this helps miners do better. It’s likely that Hillary used that line without meaning it. It’s even likely that she doesn’t care if everyone does better as long as she’s elected.

It’s time to reject the Democratic Party’s politics of division and their divisive candidate.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,