Archive for the ‘DNC’ Category
It isn’t surprising that the AP is reporting that Keith Ellison will miss Friday’s inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump. That’s as surprising as reports that Donald Trump is rich.
What makes this information newsworthy, in my opinion, is Rep. Ellison’s statement on why he isn’t attending. The AP quotes him as saying “I will not celebrate a man who preaches a politics of division and hate.”
Presumably, that’s said after offering the ‘I supported Louis Farrakhan’ exemption. This article hits Ellison right between the eyes, saying “In Ellison’s attempt to distance himself from past actions and move up in the Democratic Party he has said that he has ‘long denounced’ Farrakhan and called him ‘a hater,’ but Muhammad said that this is not the Ellison that he knew. Muhammad said that he met with Ellison personally during his years of association with the Nation of Islam and that there was ‘no question’ that Ellison, who at the time went by Keith Ellison-Muhammad, supported Farrakhan’s work.”
This might be the most lucid thing David Schultz has said as a political commentator:
Schultz says the last time the United States had a significant number of lawmakers boycott the presidential inauguration was in March 1861 when Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office. Schultz adds boycotting Trump is a win-win for Ellison specifically because his district is so overwhelming only democratic and because of his goals to become the next Democratic Committee Chair. “I suspect by boycotting this he integrates himself with the real liberals of the party and with the people who are saying what the Democrats really need to do is fight,” said Schultz.
Democrats come across as petty by skipping the inauguration:
Technorati: Keith Ellison, John Lewis, Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam, Democrats, Donald Trump, Peaceful Transition of Power, Inauguration Day, Republicans
If anything’s painfully obvious about Brian Fallon, it’s that he’s using this transition period to audition for a new job at one of the Democratic Party’s alphabet organizations. (Think of the DNC, the DCCC or the DSCC.) His TV appearances aren’t particularly impressive. The only thing noteworthy about Fallon’s appearances are his flashing his pearly whites and his constant whining about the election. If you think that’s bad news for him, think again. That’s virtually guaranteeing him a job at one of these mean-spirited organizations.
The thing you’ve got to understand is that the DNC and the DCCC peddle negativity for a living. That isn’t just what they do. That’s who they are.
This article highlights that fact. In the second paragraph of the article, S.A. Miller wrote “Brian Fallon, a former spokesman for the Clinton presidential campaign, has said there’s ‘too much evidence’ that Mr. Trump was in league with Russian spies trying to rig the election.” I haven’t seen any evidence of that. In fact, it’s quite the contrary. Has Fallon seen top secret or confidential documents that haven’t been made public? That’s certainly possible, especially considering who his former boss is.
This video is from his appearance on the opening installment of Martha MacCallum’s terrific new show “The First 100 Days”:
Saying that Fallon was filled with criticism is understatement. If you took out all of his whining, that 4:45 video could’ve been reduced to 28 seconds, if that. It’s all whining all the time. Then there’s this:
Mr. Fallon said in a Twitter post Sunday that Americans can’t trust Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s denial that the Trump team was in contact with Russia during the campaign. “Sorry, but we cannot take their word for it on this. There is too much evidence suggesting otherwise,” he tweeted.
Says the chief spokesman for the woman who blamed the assassination of a US ambassador on a Youtube video in public, then told her daughter it was a terrorist attack. Fallon shouldn’t talk about people without credibility. He was employed by a person who didn’t have credibility or integrity.
This Washington Post article didn’t highlight what’s actually happening. Abby Phillip’s article starts by saying “A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift between the two parties.”
What’s actually happening is that the most hyper-partisan parts of the Democratic Party have jettisoned any spirit of bipartisanship. People like Sen. Manchin will be just fine. In Washington, DC, Rep. Lewis is seen exclusively as a civil rights hero. He’s certainly earned that distinction. Outside the Beltway, though, he’s seen as a partisan hack with a short list of accomplishments. When he told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he didn’t think that Mr. Trump was a legitimate president and that he wouldn’t attend Mr. Trump’s inauguration, he solidified that image. He did nothing to soften his image as a partisan. This video will become what a new generation of Americans will think of Rep. Lewis:
The truth is that the hardline left (think Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Harry Reid, Keith Ellison, John Lewis, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi) has become totally unhinged. They aren’t capable of rational thinking at this point. When that’s the leadership of the Democratic Party, bipartisanship is virtually impossible. What’s yet to be determined is whether the DLC wing of the Democratic Party will reassert itself and save the Democratic Party from itself. At this point, I’ll predict that will happen but not until after a lengthy civil war for the soul of the Democratic Party.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-SF), and Sen. Kamala Harris, (D-Calif.), attacked Donald Trump after Rep. John Lewis said that Mr. Trump wasn’t the legitimate president. Here’s what these California dimwits tweeted:
After saying that Mr. Trump wasn’t the legitimate president-elect, Rep. Lewis said “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I don’t plan to attend the inauguration.”
Good riddance. I won’t miss him. Rep. Lewis was a civil rights hero a half-century ago. He’s never been a noteworthy legislator. He’s lived his entire legislative career relying on his civil rights reputation. He’s been a bitter man most of that time.
Contrary to Rep. Lewis’s opinion, “the Russians” didn’t help get Mr. Trump elected. The people who were most responsible for getting Mr. Trump elected were the lazy media, the DNC leadership and, most of all, Hillary Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton was the worst presidential candidate in US history. She insisted on running essentially the same campaign as Mitt Romney did. Rather than relying on boots on the ground, Mrs. Clinton relied on analytics and top-down-know-it-all management. Further, Mrs. Clinton was so arrogant that Mrs. Clinton wrote off Wisconsin despite the fact that Wisconsin had been trending red for years. Then Mrs. Clinton ignored the reports from Michigan that things weren’t going so well there.
Finally, let’s be blunt about something. Donald Trump won the way all other presidents have won: by winning the most electoral votes. This isn’t a mystery. President-Elect Trump won more states (by far) than Mrs. Clinton did. Mrs. Clinton won California, New York, Illinois, the northeast and the Left Coast. She got clobbered in the battleground states.
Bitter partisans like Rep. Lewis aren’t helping bring this nation together. They’re doing their best to tear it apart.
Perhaps, he should retire rather than divide the nation.
Years ago, the joke was that the most dangerous place to be in Washington, DC was between Sen. Schumer and either a microphone or a TV camera. The truth is that he’s a politician with an oversized ego (by politicians’ standards) who’s about to get trampled by a guy with a 140-character megaphone.
Sen. Schumer talks tough but he isn’t tough. Since taking office as the Senate Minority Leader for at least the next 8 years, he’s talked about delaying the confirmation hearings for 8 of President-Elect Trump’s cabinet officers. This past week, he said that he’d do whatever it takes to stop the confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. It’s time for him to sit down and shut up. He’s enhancing his reputation as a blowhard.
Sen. Schumer’s recent appearance on Rachel Maddow’s show didn’t hurt his reputation with the far left. While appearing on Maddow’s show, Sen. Schumer said he’d do his best “to hold the seat open.” That’s coming from a guy who’s insisting on people in his political mainstream. Don’t forget that he’s endorsed Keith Ellison to be the next chairman of the DNC. Ellison isn’t known for being a moderate, meaning we shouldn’t trust Sen. Schumer’s definition of mainstream. Apparently, Sen. Schumer’s definition of mainstream is someone from the far left.
Technorati: Chuck Schumer, Rachel Maddow, Merrick Garland, Supreme Court, Confirmation Hearings, Democrats, Donald Trump, Supreme Court Nominee, Twitter, Republicans
Keith Ellison is hoping to turn his support of Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton, into a winning message in his bid to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). At this point, outsiders think Rep. Ellison is the leader to succeed Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as the full-time chair of the DNC. Whether DNC insiders think that is another matter.
Outsiders think that he’s the leader because he’s been endorsed by “Harry M. Reid (NV), who announced his support on Sunday, and Reid’s expected successor, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY). On Monday, Ellison’s list of endorsers also included Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.”
The article portrays Ellison as a team player, saying “Longtime Clinton aide Neera Tanden, who runs the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, worked with Ellison to help draft the Democratic Party’s platform in meetings where she represented Clinton and he Sanders. “I saw him as a very constructive voice in the platform process. And it was very apparent he was working hard to unite the party,” said Tanden, who is staying neutral in the DNC Chair race and not endorsing any candidate.”
I don’t doubt that Ellison has the ability to unite the Democratic Party. That isn’t the Democratic Party’s problem. The Democrats’ biggest problem is that they’re far off the left end. Their other major problem is that they’ll do anything that the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party wants. That why they’ve alienated blue collar workers like miners and pipeline builders. Until blue collar Democrats insist that the Democratic Party incorporate their agenda into the Party’s agenda, they should make clear that their votes will go to the party that listens to them. Period.
Politics should be, to a certain extent, about which party has actually listened to that constituent group. On that note, it’s impossible to picture Keith Ellison guiding the Democratic Party to be ideologically inclusive. It isn’t difficult picturing the DNC being more ideologically rigid under Ellison, though.
Technorati: Keith Ellison, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Raul Grijalva, Hillary Clinton, Neera Tanden, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC
If this article is right, then it’s right to call Harvard law professor Larry Lessig a liberal anarchist. According to the article, Prof. Lessig “is claiming 20 Republican members of the Electoral College are considering voting against President-elect Donald Trump.” Specifically, Prof. Lessig “announced earlier this month he would offer free legal assistance to electors who want to vote against Trump but live in states where it’s illegal to do so.”
According to Wikipedia, Prof. Lessig “is an American academic, attorney, and political activist. He is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the former director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Lessig was a candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but withdrew before the primaries.”
Hillary Clinton threw a hissy fit during the final presidential debate when Donald Trump refused “to say whether he’d accept the election results.” That was Trump’s response to a hypothetical question. What Lessig is doing is implementing a plan to knowingly break the law. More importantly, if successful, it would thwart the will of the people.
When George W. Bush defeated Al Gore, Democrats attempted to persuade some Republican electors to vote for then-Vice President Gore. This time, they’re doing the same thing. I don’t doubt that the DNC and the Clinton campaign will deny any involvement in this attempted theft of the election. If the DNC and the Clinton campaign deny participating in this evil scheme, ignore their statements.
Thanks to Wikileaks, we know that the DNC rigged the Democratic primary so that Hillary Clinton would win. Further, we know that Donna Brazile, the current acting chair of the DNC, emailed specific CNN debate questions to Hillary Clinton and that the Clinton campaign was totally happy to skirt the rules.
It’s important to remember that Hillary Clinton once said that she had a public position and a private position:
Hillary Clinton told top banking executives that she has “both a public and a private position” on Wall Street reform and is reliant on wealthy donors to fund her campaign, leaked excerpts of the former first lady’s speeches seem to show, fueling claims of hypocrisy on the part of Mrs. Clinton at a crucial moment in the presidential campaign.
The point is that Mrs. Clinton isn’t an honest person. She’s publicly implied that thwarting the will of the people was anarchy. Connecting the dots, people have a right to question if this is one of those times when Mrs. Clinton’s private policy is significantly different than her public position.
After passing a budget and repealing and replacing Obamacare, Congress should pass a federal law that prohibits electors from voting for anyone other than the winner of that state’s presidential election. It’s time we eliminated this electoral chaos once and for all.
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazile, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, Anarchist, Electoral College, Al Gore, DNC, Rigged Primaries, Wikileaks, Democrats, Donald Trump, Republicans, Election 2016
This morning, House Minority Leader For Life Nancy Pelosi issued this statement calling for a bipartisan investigation into the Russians allegedly interfering with our presidential election.
True to Ms. Pelosi’s nature, her statement starts by saying “The U.S. intelligence community has determined that Russia interfered in U.S. elections. There must be no equivocation or ignoring the seriousness of the intelligence community’s conclusion about Russia’s actions. Regardless of the outcome of the election, the American people deserve to know the truth and a commitment to protect our democracy from foreign meddling.”
It’s amazing that Democrats are suddenly interested in cybersecurity. They weren’t interested in it when hackers accessed federal employees’ personal information. That wasn’t the first time hackers accessed government information. This article talks about how disinterested the Obama administration was about the threat hacking posed:
The Office of Personnel Management database penetrated by Chinese hackers didn’t use encryption or other technology to protect the Social Security numbers of federal workers, despite such measures being industry best practice. The massive data breach there affected the records of 4.1 million current and former federal employees and may be linked to a Chinese state-backed hacker group known as “Deep Panda,” which recently made similarly large-scale attacks on the health insurers Anthem and Premera.
Encryption and data obfuscating techniques “are new capabilities that we’re building into our databases,” Donna Seymour, the OPM chief information officer, told POLITICO.
Now that Mrs. Clinton lost, Democrats are interested in cybersecurity. It’s important to separate these issues. It’s entirely possible that the Russians hacked into the DNC’s computers. It’s entirely possible, though, that Mrs. Clinton’s defeat didn’t have a thing to do with what the Russians might’ve or might not have done. To quote Reince Priebus, “the Russians didn’t tell Hillary Clinton to ignore Wisconsin and Michigan.”
It’s entirely different, though, to talk about the issue of cybersecurity. That’s something that the Obama administration gets a failing grade on. There’s no justifying anything else. It isn’t surprising that Ms. Pelosi didn’t mention that the last 3 years.
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.
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.