Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Election 2020 category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Election 2020’ Category

I’ve paid attention to Amy Klobuchar’s Senate career with equal parts admiration and confusion. I genuinely admire her ability to get re-elected without doing anything noteworthy. Seriously, what significant legislation has she led on? Hubert Humphrey’s signature achievement was teaming with Everett Dirksen in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Sen. Klobuchar’s signature accomplishment is virtually impossible to define. Paul Wellstone’s signature accomplishment was being the lead author of the Motor Voter bill.

One time, Klobuchar issued a statement saying that she’d worked with Roy Blunt to get additional money put into the federal budget for advertising tourism. Somehow, that pales in comparison with being the chief author of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What does Amy Klobuchar bring to the 2020 presidential race? Will she put in place better economic policies than are in right now? That’s doubtful. The economy is already running strong. Would Sen. Klobuchar bring sensible-minded environmental policies to the Oval Office? Certainly not, especially since she’s endorsed AOC’s Green New Deal, which is really socialism on steroids.

Let’s be clear about this. Sen. Klobuchar isn’t a moderate. She’s a partisan hack. Her voting record proves it. When Democrats debated the ACA, Sen. Klobuchar could’ve been a leader and insisted on incorporating Minnesota’s MCHA provisions into the bill. She didn’t. Instead, she did what Harry Reid told her to do.

We need leaders, not partisan shills. Klobuchar is the latter, unfortunately, not the former.

When President Trump ended the shutdown, Democrats crowed that Pelosi had stood up to the bully and defeated him. I won’t pretend that she didn’t defeat him in this round. I’m with Kevin McCullough, though, who insists that Democrats have a long-term problem:

To see leftwing activists so eagerly cheer the defeat (even temporarily) of some of the most broad-based (and in many instances—Democrat initiated) objectives as it pertains to common sense border security was disheartening.

Why Congressional and Senate Democrats would refuse the opportunity to take partial credit of creating an orderly border process is mystifying. Especially so when 78%-90% of Americans seek tougher border measures. Most of whom also believe that a border barrier is a key component to the multi-lateral security strategy.

Democrats have a spine problem. They don’t have one when it comes to standing up to Pelosi. Democrats insist that they elected a bunch of moderates in 2018. That’s BS. They’re moderates when Pelosi doesn’t need their votes. If she needs their votes, then they’re as far left as she needs them to be.

Why didn’t Seth Moulton or Tim Ryan challenge Pelosi? A: They’re spineless. My point is simple. Until Democrats stand up to Ms. Pelosi, they’ll be a far left party. I don’t care how many so-called moderates they elect. With her at the top, they’re a far left party.

The hard left has such hooks into the party’s base that they have literally forced leadership to completely abandon policy that they supported under President Obama. Remember in 2013 Senator Schumer got the entire Democrat caucus to vote in lock step approval for a $40 billion border security package that included upwards of $8 billion in building additional miles of barriers

Democrats worry more about what Tom Steyer says than what their constituents say or what’s best for America. They should be punished for that in 2020.

It’s becoming clearer each day that Democrats aren’t interested in good-faith negotiations. It’s pretty clear that Democrats are ‘the Party of No.’ President Trump invited Democrats to the White House multiple times, including Tuesday, when they failed to show up:

Congressional Democrats on Tuesday rejected President Trump’s invitation to a lunch meeting at the White House to discuss border security, in the latest sign that both sides of the government shutdown standoff remain entrenched in their positions with no compromise in sight.

A senior administration official told Fox News that the president had invited Democrats to join his lunch with members of Congress in the Roosevelt Room shortly after noon. But moments before the session, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that nobody took them up on the offer.

Shifting from offering no money to offering to spend $1 to build the barrier, which is what Speaker Pelosi did, isn’t negotiating in good faith. Meanwhile, President Trump has offered Democrats several different options in exchange for barrier funding. That’s the definition of good faith negotiating.

I can’t picture this lasting much longer. If Democrats stay away from the negotiating table while not making a substantive counter-offer, I’d recommend President Trump use his emergency powers. The faster the Democrats’ lawsuit gets filed, the faster the Supreme Court hears the case. Imagine the Supreme Court ruling in President Trump’s favor in June, 2020. That’d guarantee his re-election. It’d also an uphill fight for House Democrats to retain their majority.

Based on this article, it’s apparent that Democrat senators haven’t read Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. That clause prohibits religious tests, saying “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Sen. Hirono, (D-HI), and Sen. Harris, (D-Calif.) recently sent questions “to District Court judge nominee Brian Buescher, [challenging] his suitability for the bench because he belongs to” the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization:

Sens. Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris, in written questions to District Court judge nominee Brian Buescher, challenged his suitability for the bench because he belongs to this charitable Catholic group. Hirono claimed that the Knights have taken “extreme positions” such as affirming Catholic belief in traditional marriage and even asked Buescher, “If confirmed, do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?” In today’s Democratic Party, the new McCarthyism asks, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Knights of Columbus?”

It isn’t difficult to make the case that Sen. Hirono hates men. This video uses Sen. Hirono’s own words to make the case that she hates men:

This isn’t the first time Democrats have used a religious test:

Last year, during confirmation hearings, Sen. Dianne Feinstein noted the devotion of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her family to the Catholic Church and admonished that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.” Sen. Feinstein’s devotion to ignoring the Constitution speaks loudly about what’s her highest priority.

It’s great to hear that “34 caravan members [had been arrested] for drug possession, public intoxication, disturbing the peace and resisting police, and they would be deported to their home countries.” What’s surprising is that Tijuana law enforcement are making the arrests.

These thugs should be deported because they didn’t think that the laws applied to them. They crashed through the fencing at Mexico’s southern border. They thought about crashing through the fencing of the US-Mexico border until the military installed razor wire to reinforce the border.

It’s becoming a difficult situation in Tijuana, with Mexican residents growing tired of the invasion. (That’s the Mexicans’ words, not mine.) Check out how testy the situation has gotten in Tijuana:

Now that things are reaching critical mass in Tijuana, perhaps it will pressure the Democrats into actually eliminating immigration loopholes. I can’t wait until the Democrat House helps put together funds to build President Trump’s wall.

If Democrats want to be known as the all-investigations-all-the-time Party, that won’t be difficult. They’re already on their way to that status. If House Democrats don’t work with Senate Republicans and President Trump, their time in the majority will be short-lived.

Just when I didn’t think Democrats couldn’t get nuttier, they prove me wrong. This time, Sen. Kamala Harris, (D-Calif.), showed her nuts-beyond-belief credentials while questioning Ronald D. Vitiello, who is President Trump’s nominee to become the permanent ICE director.

Here’s the exchange between Sen. Harris and Director Vitiello:

Minutes later Ms. Harris, a California Democrat who’s eyeing a 2020 presidential bid, said there are “many” people who perceive ICE officers as similar to KKK thugs in using violence and intimidation. “I’m very specific about what I’m asking,” she said. “Are you aware that there’s a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?”

“I see no perception that puts ICE in the same category as the KKK,” Mr. Vitiello retorted.

What type of grandstanding jackass thinks that ICE and the KKK are perceived the same way? This isn’t a serious interrogation because ICE is nothing like the KKK. First, the KKK tried striking fear in the hearts of minorities because they wanted the US to stay segregated. Next, the KKK hated the people that they intimidated. They thought that African-Americans were subhuman, which gave the KKK permission to torment them. Finally, the KKK intimidated African-Americans while breaking the law and while hiding their identities.

ICE enforces the law. They don’t hate illegal aliens and they certainly don’t hide their identities. Other than that, they’re nothing like the KKK.

Sen. Harris is disgusting. She’s grandstanding and she knows it. She’s trying to stand out from the other nobodies running for the Democrat presidential nomination.

The Democrats have an impeachment problem. Worse for them, it isn’t going away before the election. That’s because billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer is “growing his impeach-Trump operation.”

According to the article, “liberal billionaire Tom Steyer claims to be building a juggernaut political operation in support of impeaching President Trump, rallying the base and creating a ‘digital army’ for the cause even as Democratic lawmakers remain publicly divided over the issue. ‘We’re not going away,’ Kevin Mack, the lead strategist at Need to Impeach, told Fox News. ‘We’re going to hold President Trump accountable.'”

The worst part of this is that it’s happening in the closing days of the campaign and Nancy Pelosi doing everything she can to tamp down talk of impeachment until after the election. Pelosi’s ‘Democrat base’ problem is that she can’t turn this off without hurting turnout.

Further, this is precisely the type of thing that’ll be used to create new ads that’ll turn independents away from the Democrats. The NRCC will likely use this in ads in virtually every swing district in America. I’m definitely thinking it’ll be used in MN-8, where President Trump is especially popular.

Democrats are in God’s Little Acre — east of the rock, west of the hard place. They can’t afford not to do what Steyer wants. If they reject him, they lose north of $100,000,000 per cycle in contributions. If they accept, voters reject them. That isn’t a great position to be in.

Nostradamus isn’t required to find out what will happen in 2019 if the Democrats get control of the House and/or the Senate. The policies that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other Democrat Socialists will destroy the positives that President Trump and the GOP have put in place.

I’ll stipulate that Republicans like John McCain, Jeff Flake and Susan Collins haven’t been a great help to President Trump’s agenda. With that said, there’s no disputing that replacing McCain with Jon Kyl, Flake with Martha McSally, Bob Corker with Marsha Blackburn, then replacing Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester, Heidi Heitkamp and Claire McCaskill with solid conservatives would be a major step in the right direction.

We’ve seen what happens when environmental activists and socialists get their way. You get a lost decade like we had under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, then Barack Obama. Companies left the US. Income inequality increased. Economic growth stagnated. Is that the future you want?

Fast forward to January, 2017. President Trump took over. With the help of the Republican Congress, President Trump rolled back billions of dollars of anti-coal and anti-mining regulations that the Democrats had installed. Though Sen. McCain sunk our attempt to repeal and replace the ACA, President Trump and the Republicans revamped the tax code, unleashing the animal spirits of an economy stalled for too long.

The result? Small business and consumer confidence soaring. Capital investment increasing for the first time in years. In other non-economic areas, we’re confirming solid judges that think it’s a sin to act like legislators but who see interpreting the Constitution as their primary function.

This past week, Democrats showed that they’re only interested in obstructing everything that President Trump stands for. Will Republicans fight with President Trump? Or will we let evil triumph? As for myself, I plan on fighting until I drop.

Republicans, it’s time to get fired up and kick some electoral ass.

What’s fascinating about President Obama’s list of 8 candidates running for election across the United States isn’t who’s on the list. It’s who’s omitted from the list. What’s fascinating is that the article starts by saying former “President Barack Obama weighed in on behalf of 81 candidates for federal and state offices on Wednesday, his first major batch of endorsements for the 2018 midterm elections.” Then the article states “I’m proud to endorse such a wide and impressive array of Democratic candidates – leaders as diverse, patriotic, and big-hearted as the America they’re running to represent. I’m confident that, together, they’ll strengthen this country we love by restoring opportunity that’s broadly shared, repairing our alliances and standing in the world, and upholding our fundamental commitment to justice, fairness, responsibility, and the rule of law. But first, they need our votes — and I’m eager to make the case for why Democratic candidates deserve our votes this fall.”

What’s noteworthy about President Obama’s statement is that he didn’t mention anything about creating jobs or strengthening the economy. That isn’t surprising. It’s just noteworthy. President Obama didn’t put a priority on creating jobs while he was president. Why think that he cares about building a strong economy now? Here’s the tweet with President Obama’s endorsements:


Attached to the tweet are the candidates he’s endorsing. It’s rather fascinating that he didn’t endorse any Democrats in Minnesota. It’s fascinating that he didn’t endorse Dianne Feinstein or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This was a fun interview to watch:

Here’s something that I just thought of that’s worth considering. President Obama didn’t endorse a single DFL candidate in Minnesota. He didn’t endorse Keith Ellison. He didn’t endorse Tina Smith. Question: Is that because they’re both Bernie followers? Also, as I said earlier, President Obama didn’t endorse Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s a Bernie candidate, too. Question: Is this the start of a fight between the establishment and the Bernie wings of the Democratic Party? Only time will tell but I can’t rule it out.

RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel made a great point in her interview with Harris Faulkner when she asked if Democrats would highlight the fact that President Obama had endorsed them. I’m betting they won’t highlight it.

Karin Housley’s optimism is infectious. Reading through this article, it’s obvious that she sees her campaign as the right elixir at the right time. It’s equally obvious that she thinks that Tina Smith is Sen. Schumer’s shill. She’s right about that, BTW. Sen. Smith has opposed everything that President Trump is for. New York already has 2 senators. They don’t need another one.

In an interview with the Brainerd Dispatch Editorial Board, Sen. Housley said “I had been in the Minnesota Senate for the last six years and seen the failures of the Dayton-Smith administration and I thought, ‘There’s no way that woman represents everyone in Minnesota or what we really stand for in Minnesota.’ I decided to jump into the race and fight for Minnesotans.”

Sen. Housley is right. Sen. Smith doesn’t represent Minnesota’s priorities. Contrary to Smith’s beliefs, there’s much more to Minnesota than the Twin Cities. In her brief time in the US Senate, Tina Smith has traveled often outside the Twin Cities. Unfortunately, she’s brought her Twin Cities beliefs with her. Rather than listening to Minnesotans’ worries, Smith has tried selling the Twin Cities’ priorities. That’s disrespectful.

By comparison, Sen. Housley has met with (and listened to) lots of groups from Owatonna to Bemidji to Walker. As she says in this interview, she and her husband have had a cabin in the Walker area for several decades:

That means they understand rural Minnesota. That isn’t all. They know that Washington’s policies have made life difficult for rural residents. Then there’s this:

By replacing Smith, Housley said she hopes to help break the deadlock in the nation’s upper house—750 bills left on the debate floor, undebated and not voted upon because of rigid partisan lines. Sen. John McCain’s absence leaves the Senate in a state of limbo, a razor-thin 50-49 Republican majority.

In doing so, Housley said, she’ll look to restore a kind of representation that actually represents the interests of everyday Minnesotans—not blind dogmatism, not run-of-the-mill Capitol Hill and not an out-of-touch Democrat who favors big government and the big problems that brings.

Smith is a not-so-bright radical. Don’t forget, she’s a Berniecrat:

People can’t seriously think that Tina Smith isn’t a Twin Cities-centric socialist. Further, let’s ask this simple question: Are you better off today than the day before President Obama left office? Honest people would emphatically say they’re better off today. Business investment is improving quickly. Consumer confidence is sky-high. Unemployment for blacks and Hispanics are at all-time lows. Unemployment for women is at a 65-year low. The energy sector, which President Obama tried to intentionally kill, has turned around so dramatically that we’ve gone from importing oil to being a net exporter of energy. We’re so strong with energy that President Trump struck a deal with the EU to export Liquefied Natural Gas to them.

Tina Smith is a closet environmentalist who hates fossil fuels. She’s also (quietly) anti-mining. She has to pretend that she’s pro-mining because she needs lots of Iron Range votes but she isn’t a big fan of mining. By comparison, Karin Housley is enthusiastically pro-mining. This is the type of straight talk that Minnesotans insist on:

Since 2003, Housley has been a small business owner and is also a real estate agent by trade—though, she admitted, she almost closed up shop in 2010 because of restrictive policies by the state at that time. “It got to a point where you’re working so hard and everything you’ve earned is going to the government, but the government is spending your hard-earned money not on things you want it spent on,” Housley said. “That’s the reason I ran. We’re just starting to reverse that. People are keeping more money in their pockets, and so are our business owners, so we just have to continue that trend.”

Tina better buckle up for a tough campaign. Thanks to her mistake-riddled campaign, she’s earned a tough campaign.