Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the DNC category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘DNC’ Category

When Politico published excerpts of Donna Brazile’s book, they set off a media firestorm. That firestorm required pushback by the Clinton-Media Complex. Glenn Greenwald’s article highlights the Clintons’ dishonest tactics in fighting against the truth by writing about 4 viral falsehoods.

The first viral falsehood is “The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the General Election, not the primary.” Greenwald’s article exposed that by saying “The following day, NBC published an article by Alex Seitz-Wald that recited and endorsed the Clinton camp’s primary defense: that Brazile was wrong because the agreement in question (a copy of which they provided to Seitz-Wald) applied ‘only to preparations for the general election,’ and had nothing to do with the primary season.” Greenwald then wrote “The problem with this claim is that it is blatantly and obviously false. All one has to do to know this is read the agreement. Unlike the journalists spreading this DNC defense, Campaign Legal Defense’s Brendan Fischer bothered to read it, and immediately saw, and documented, how obviously false this claim is.”

Hillary’s media, like her, can’t be trusted. They’re as willing to ignore the truth as she’s been all her life. Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy still rates as her biggest fabrication but it isn’t her only fabrication. Another attack made against Brazile is equally dishonest:

Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.
Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article reporting on various claims made in Brazile’s new book. The headline, which was widely tweeted, made it seem as though Brazile delusionally believed she had a power which, obviously, she did not in fact possess: “Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee.”

This fabrication was killed by reporting the facts:

But the entire attack on Brazile was false. She did not claim, at least according to the Post article being cited, that she had the power to unilaterally remove Clinton. The original Post article, buried deep down in the article, well after the headline, made clear that she was referencing a complicated process in the DNC charter that allowed for removal of a nominee who had become incapacitated.

This isn’t my attempt to rehabilitate Ms. Brazile’s reputation. I wrote this post to highlight how corrupt she is. This post’s goal is to highlight how dishonest the Clinton media is. Greenwald’s closing paragraph is good advice:

It can certainly be menacing for Russian bots to disseminate divisive messaging on Twitter. But it’s at least equally menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using that platform constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public’s mind.

Amen to that.

Technorati: , , , ,

This op-ed is this morning’s water cooler conversation in DC. That’s because Donna Brazile wrote it to criticize Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Ms. Brazile even took a swipe at President Obama, saying “My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt.” But that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The op-ed continues, saying “The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt. ‘What?’ I screamed. ‘I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.’ That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016.”

That isn’t the worst of it. Here’s some additional important details:

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged. “No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers. Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

I can’t understand why Ms. Brazile is surprised. I published this post last October. According to an article in UK Daily Mail, “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.'”

The woman that helped rig the Democratic Party’s nomination in favor of her friend is surprised that her friend is controlling the DNC? Isn’t that rich? Who’s the culprit? Is this woman the culprit?

If not her, who?

Her?

Personally, I’d choose ‘All of the above.’

Byron York’s article might be the most politically devastating article written recently. In his article, York wrote “Investigators looking into the so-called ‘Trump dossier’ were not surprised when news broke Tuesday night that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, working through the Democrats’ law firm, Perkins Coie, financed the ‘salacious and unverified’ compilation of allegations of Trump collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign. (The ‘salacious and unverified’ description comes from former FBI Director James Comey.)”

As explosive as that is, it pales in comparison to the next part of York’s story, which says “Sometime in October 2016, that is, at the height of the presidential campaign, Christopher Steele, the foreign agent hired by Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier, approached the FBI with information he had gleaned during the project. According to a February report in the Washington Post, Steele ‘reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.’ It was an astonishing turn: the nation’s top federal law enforcement agency agreeing to fund an ongoing opposition research project being conducted by one of the candidates in the midst of a presidential election. ‘The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends,’ wrote Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.”

Then there’s this:

The deal began in the spring of 2016, when Elias was approached by Fusion GPS, and lasted until right before Election Day. When Fusion approached Elias, it had already been doing research work on Trump for an unnamed client during the Republican primary. But the dossier itself was funded entirely by Democrats, using Elias as a middle-man. After the DNC and the Clinton campaign started paying, Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to do the dirt-digging. His work later resulted in the dossier.

If this story had a title, that title might be ‘As the bubble bursts.’ Another title might be ‘Multiple seismic events recorded at DNC.’

Easiest prediction of the day: things will get much worse for the DNC before they get better. Brit Hume sums that line of thought up perfectly during this interview:

This is the best that the DNC could come up with:

To read Politico’s article on the DNC, you’d think they’re in a world of hurt. That’s the only logical conclusion to be reached after reading “The Democratic National Committee is reeling, facing a turnaround that’s proving a much bigger lift than anyone expected as it struggles to raise enough money to cover its basic promises. Many donors are refusing to write checks. And on-the-ground operatives worry they won’t have the resources to build the infrastructure they need to compete effectively in next year’s midterms and in the run-up to 2020.”

It’s tough to read quotes that attempt to paint over the DNC’s difficulties. According to the article, “Donors, small and large, are so over the party,’ said Nebraska party chair Jane Kleeb, summing up the problem facing DNC chairman Tom Perez and his counterparts in the states. Kleeb, who is working on grassroots fundraising efforts for the committee, said she believes the money will come eventually.” That sounds like spin to me. What has Kleeb seen that makes her think that donor enthusiasm will increase? Or is that statement wishful thinking? It’s most likely wishful thinking.

Much of the immediate anxiety centers on the State Party Innovation Fund, a planned $10.5 million competitive grant program that DNC leadership has made available to interested state parties over the next year. The money is meant to pay for organizing, ground operations and other mechanics seen as essential to countering Republican National Committee investments that helped elect Donald Trump and a slew of other Republican candidates in 2016, leapfrogging Democrats in the process.

Desperation is setting in. This video highlights the outlandish statements Perez is becoming famous for:

In Las Vegas, Minnesota party chairman Ken Martin, the president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, went out of his way while speaking to a gathering of state party executive directors to assure them the grant program was on schedule, since the money will be doled out over the course of a year and so doesn’t have to be raised yet, said one Democrat in the room.

All the wishful thinking in the world won’t solve the DNC’s problems. While it’s a stretch to think the DNC is listening to its death knell, it isn’t a stretch to think that they’re in trouble.

A generation ago, the Democratic Party was a legitimate political party. It isn’t anymore. Today’s Democrats have gone so far around the bend that even lifelong Democrats have started backpedalling … fast. Jim Geraghty’s column illustrates just how foolish the Democratic Party is. What caught my attention is the paragraph that says “The Democratic party’s leaders haven’t changed their methods, either. They denounced Trump and his ‘Deplorables’ and the rest of the Republican party in the most furious terms in 2016, but that didn’t produce the results they wanted. In 2017, Democrats decided to just keep on doing that, but with more profanity.”

Later, Geraghty wrote “After 2016, one might have expected Democrats to reconsider their full embrace of identity politics. Instead they’ve doubled down. Instead of examining why so many voters in so many states rejected their arguments and philosophies, many within the academy and universities greeted 2017 by insisting even more adamantly that freedom of speech is dangerous and that you should be threatened or violently assaulted if you express a view they disagree with. Instead of giving the lecturing speeches at awards shows a break, Hollywood celebrities are becoming even more politically outspoken and strident, and even more openly contemptuous of roughly half their audience.”

Rational people wouldn’t think that Sending rioters to a congressman’s front steps isn’t a way to prove you’re rational, either:

These tactics might help fire up the Democratic Party’s bi-coastal base but they won’t help flip any of the districts or states that they’ll need to retake the House, Senate or the White House. Republicans will increase their margin in the Senate, thereby marginalizing John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul. Republicans will maintain their House majority, too. Most importantly, they’ll have net gains in terms of governorships, state legislators and total control of state governments.

This isn’t because Republicans are doing a great job. I’ve repeatedly said that they aren’t. It’s because Democrats are doing a great job frightening people, either with violence or unaffordable ideas like Medicare for All.

Next November, Democrats will gather somewhere to question what went wrong … again. The Media Wing of the Democratic Party won’t accept the fact that they’re hurting the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party won’t figure it out that their policies don’t appeal to many people. Instead, they’ll think that the enthusiasm that their supporters show are proof that they’re on the right track. They’ll be wrong … again.

The Democrats won’t retake the majority in the US House of Representatives. They won’t because Democrats have a Martha Plimpton problem. As usual, Salena Zito identified the problem in her latest column. The opening paragraph of Ms. Zito’s column says “A clip of Martha Plimpton’s exuberance over the ‘best’ abortion she ever had played out on the television overhead of a gas-station counter somewhere along U.S. Route 422 between Ohio and Pennsylvania.”

To the average person, that’s a little too cold-hearted sounding. That image is amplified in this article. The opening paragraphs say “The days of abortion advocates calling abortion “rare” and “unfortunate” are clearly over. So are the days of being able to claim, “No one is really pro-abortion. No one actually likes it.”
Enter self-proclaimed ‘Christian’ abortionist Willie Parker and actress Martha Plimpton. Sadly, these (and other) abortion advocates do openly celebrate the violence of killing a preborn child. Between movements like #ShoutYourAbortion and Planned Parenthood fighting for abortion like it’s saving someone’s life instead of taking it, abortion has become a symbol of pride for many. Actress Martha Plimpton, however, has taken the pride of having an abortion to an incredulous level.”

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton famously said that abortions “should be safe, legal and rare.” That Democratic Party doesn’t exist anymore. Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren killed that Democratic Party.

Ms. Zito’s column continues:

After saying Seattle was the home of some of her family, she went on to cheer what she did in her teens: “I also had my first abortion at the Seattle Planned Parenthood. Yay!” With equal exuberance, she also revealed that her Seattle abortion wasn’t her last.

Later, she writes:

“Democrats used to debate the legal right to have one, and that was a point of view that was shared by most voters,” said Michael Wear, a theologically conservative evangelical Christian and Democrat who served in Barack Obama’s faith outreach office in the White House. “I don’t understand why, 14 months before a midterm election, why would you push 20 percent of voters who would love to support Democrats out the door? Better yet, why would you speak of pro-life Democrats as though they were some extraterrestrial who just landed on earth?” he said.

It is rare that anyone who has had an abortion celebrates it — Plimpton seems to fail to understand few in this country do. Maybe the privileged class celebrates abortions? Even if they did, that won’t help the Democratic Party win back voters. Or is it the intellectual class that celebrates them? Even if they did, that doesn’t win back majorities either. Or maybe it’s the celebrity class that does? If so, there’s not enough of them to win back the House or Senate.

In short, this is not the message you want to win every down-ballot seat the party has let waste away under the thrust of identity politics.

When Republican strategists talk about San Francisco liberals or tie candidates directly to Nancy Pelosi, that’s the image they’re trying to plant. It’s the image of a heartless, machine-like woman. (Barbara Boxer fit that image, too.)

Between driving away Catholics with these pro-abortion fanatics and blue collar workers in the Midwest and Rust Belt with their love of environmental activists, Democrats have ceded America’s heartland. That’s why the Democratic Party is a bi-coastal, urban political party.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Here’s hoping that Democrats take Al Hunt’s article seriously. The title of Hunt’s article is “Democrats Need a Message, Not a Program.” It starts by saying “Democrats are in terrible shape. Republicans control all three branches of government in Washington, 34 of 50 governorships, and 68 of the 99 state legislatures. As they plot a comeback, Democrats have one obvious asset: the reckless presidency of Donald Trump. That’s not enough to close such a huge gap. And the battles that have started to rage inside the party over policies to promote and strategies to pursue are mostly missing the point.”

Thanks for the pep talk, Al. There’s nothing that’ll get a crowd excited faster than telling people they’re failing miserably. Hunt went wrong when he said “Most other political-party comebacks also were marked not by some innovative policy agenda but by connective messages and powerful personalities like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump. It’s not about ideology or 17-point policy prescriptions.” Hunt is partially right in that political comebacks require a powerful personality to lead them. He’s wrong, though, in saying that it isn’t about ideology or policies.

President Trump won the presidency because he connected on policies with coal miners and other blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and, to a lesser extent, Wisconsin. Winning those states had everything to do with the policies Trump advocated.

Most other political-party comebacks also were marked not by some innovative policy agenda but by connective messages and powerful personalities like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump. It’s not about ideology or 17-point policy prescriptions. State governments also often serve as farm clubs to develop candidates for higher office and national prominence. Before they start quarreling about policy papers, Democrats need to restock their Triple-A teams.

After 8 years of getting pounded at the local level, Democrats don’t just need their Triple-A rosters. It’s that they need to stock their Double-A teams, too, because they’re depleted. It doesn’t help to have this politician as one of the chief faces of the Democratic Party:

With messengers like Keith Ellison, why would anyone think that the Democratic Party is a legitimate political party?

Technorati: , , , ,

This article certainly will help raise Keith Ellison’s profile in DC. That’s the good news for Ellison. The bad news is that it’s shining a spotlight on the idiotic things that Ellison’s saying these days.

When Ellison sat down with the Fix, he said “I think you have to put it in context. You know, it happens within the context of a president that is knocking down every check and balance on the presidency. He’s attacking the press, which is one of the elements of our democracy that shines a light on government to hold him accountable. He’s pushing through members of the judiciary based on them promising to support certain things, and by escaping the normal rules Supreme Court justices have to follow.”

I didn’t hear Ellison criticize President Obama spied on the AP and FNC’s James Rosen. If Ellison is the civil rights warrior he claims to be, then a president investigating journalists should be something to speak out about. It isn’t surprising, though, that he didn’t speak out.

As for Ellison saying that President Trump is “pushing through members of the judiciary based on them promising to support certain things”, what proof does Rep. Ellison have of that? Is it possible that Rep. Ellison doesn’t have proof but is trying to gin up hatred against President Trump for purely partisan political reasons?

Here’s a perfect example of the media’s bias:

FIX: White supremacists used to hide behind hoods — now they’re showing their faces and giving interviews. Why do you think they feel so emboldened?

In baseball terms, that’s what’s known as a belt-high hanging slider. Here’s Rep. Ellison’s reply:

I think the white supremacists are feeling emboldened because they received the signal from the president of the United States that it’s all right for them to be active, to be aggressive, to be threatening. They feel greenlighted.

Rep. Ellison thinks that President Trump “greenlighted” racists. I don’t have to guess about this Ellison statement:

At the event, Ellison told the Pioneer Press he believed the prosecution of Olson was political. In his speech, Ellison noted he didn’t know much about the SLA and he thought Olson was being prosecuted in the court of public opinion because of some of her political beliefs.

“I’m a supporter of anybody who’s subject to political prosecution based on their being in a vilified group,” he told the Pioneer Press. “Your chances of getting a fair trial are low. I’ve been waiting for the evidence against her. I don’t think they would not cheat to prosecute this woman.”

I don’t have to guess what Rep. Ellison meant about this statement, either:

Ellison also spoke favorably of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur and expressed his opposition to any attempt to extradite her to the United States from Cuba, where she had fled after escaping prison.

“I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they’re going to get Assata Shakur, they’re going to get a whole lot of other people,” Ellison said at the event, which also included a silent auction and speech by former Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn. “I hope the Cuban people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”

It’s fair to say that, in those speeches, Rep. Ellison greenlighted the killing of police officers. Ellison’s statements weren’t veiled threats against police. Ellison’s statements were quite explicit. How dare he call our president a racist after exhorting crowds to kill police officers.

Here’s Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, in her own words:

That’s who Rep. Ellison has fought for.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The Political Wilderness Party, aka the Democratic Party, won’t be returning from Lewis & Clark territory anytime soon, at least if Elizabeth Warren has a say in the matter.

Speaking at this weekend’s Nutroots Convention, Sen. Warren said “If we’re going to be the people who lead the Democratic Party back from the wilderness and lead our country out of this dark time, then we can’t waste energy arguing about whose issue matters more or who in our alliance should be voted off the island. We aren’t a wing of today’s Democratic Party. We’re the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party.” Later, Sen Warren took a shot at the Clintons, saying “The Democratic party isn’t going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill. It is not going to happen.”

I’d be a bit dishonest if I said that, each time I pray, I thank God for foolish people like Elizabeth Warren. Sen. Warren apparently doesn’t understand what people hear when she makes statements like that. The Clinton administration had an impressive job creation record. If people have to choose between President Clinton’s economic record and President Obama’s economic record, that isn’t a fair fight. President Clinton will win that fight every time with voters 40 years of age and older.

Sen. Warren is right, though, in saying that the Warren/Sanders/Obama wing of the Democratic Party is “the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party.” That’s why this is music to my ears:

Warren’s speech at the conference, which is viewed as a testing ground for prospective presidential candidates, further fuels buzz that Warren plans to run for president in 2020. The Times reported that the Massachusetts lawmaker made little attempt to dismiss the bid speculation.

Last November, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. If he’s running against Warren in 2020, expect that to increase to 328 or 332 electoral votes. I’d be surprised if President Trump didn’t add Virginia and Colorado if his 2020 opponent is Sen. Warren. New Hampshire would be a possibility, too, though a bit of a longshot compared with Virginia and Colorado.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If there’s anything that comes through clear in Kim Strassel’s latest article, it’s that Democrats have returned to being national security appeasers. The Awan family is living proof that Democrats don’t take national security seriously.

One of the first points from Ms. Strassel’s article that’s disturbing comes when she wrote “Mr. Awan, 37, began working for House Democrats as an IT staffer in 2004. By the next year, he was working for future Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Over time he would add his wife, two brothers, a brother’s wife and a friend to the payroll—and at handsome sums. One brother, Jamal, hired in 2014 reportedly at age 20, was paid $160,000. That’s in line with what a chief of staff makes—about four times the average Capitol Hill staffer. No Democrat appears to have investigated these huge numbers or been asked to account for them.”

For the Awan family to get hired by 38 Democrats is outrageous enough. That the Awan family got hired at high salaries is more outrageous. That that isn’t the worst that the Awan family did is what’s most frightening. Ms. Strassel’s article continues, saying “The family was plenty busy elsewhere. A litany of court documents accuse them of bankruptcy fraud, life-insurance fraud, tax fraud and extortion. Abid Awan, a brother, ran up more than $1 million in debts on a failed car dealership he somehow operated while supposedly working full time on the Hill. One document ties the family to a loan from a man stripped of his Maryland medical license after false billing. Capitol Police are investigating allegations of procurement fraud and theft. The brothers filed false financial-disclosure forms, with Imran Awan claiming his wife had no income, even as she worked as a fellow House IT staffer.”

What’s cute is what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said in defending her decision to keep Imran Awan on her staff:

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz made this foolish statement:

If there’s one thing that I’m going to make sure and maintain, it’s maintain my integrity.

That’s hilarious, especially coming from the woman who rigged the Democratic primaries to guarantee that Hillary Clinton won the nomination. The thought that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz thinks she’s got an ounce of integrity left is gut-busting laughable. This isn’t laughable:

Yes, it is weird that Ms. Wasserman Schultz continued to shield Imran Awan to the end. Yes, the amounts of money, and the ties to Pakistan, are strange. Yes, it is alarming that emails show Imran Awan knew Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s iPad password, and that the family might have had wider access to the accounts of lawmakers on the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees.

It’s sad that people elected to represent us chose to protect fraudsters.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,