Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category
Apparently, Brian Fallon didn’t get beat up enough during the election when his candidate, Hillary Clinton, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. After defending the worst presidential candidate in recent history, Fallon has decided that he’d like to match constitutional wits with Alan Dershowitz. Fallon wrote this op-ed to spin the Democrats’ BS that President Trump’s firing of an insubordinate acting AG was scandalous.
Fallon’s lightweight arguments aren’t persuasive. In the op-ed, Fallon said “It is an entirely appropriate exercise of the attorney general’s authority to determine whether, and how, to defend a president’s executive orders in the face of legal challenge. In this case, while Trump’s executive order may avoid explicit mention of banning Muslims or assigning preference to Christian refugees, the order will certainly have that discriminatory effect.”
Meanwhile, Prof. Dershowitz wrote that “Sally Yates is neither a hero, nor a villain. She made an honest mistake when she instructed the entire Justice Department not to defend President Trump’s wrong-headed executive order on immigration. The reasons she gave in her letter referred to matters beyond the scope of the attorney general. She criticized the order on policy grounds and said that it was not ‘right.'”
Firing Sally Yates wasn’t just proper. It was essential. She disagreed with President Trump’s policy. Prof. Dershowitz said that that’s wrong:
There are significant differences between the constitutional status of green card holders on the one hand, and potential visitors from another country who are seeking visas. Moreover, there are statutory issues in addition to constitutional ones. A blanket order to refuse to defend any part of the statute is overkill.
If she strongly disagreed with the policies underlying the order, she should have resigned in protest, and left it to others within the Justice Department to defend those parts of the order that are legally defensible.That’s what happens when you send a boy king to do a man’s job.
Elizabeth Warren has been bitchy for a couple weeks. First, she was bitchy about President Trump’s cabinet picks. Now, she’s upset that President Trump is protecting Americans instead of welcoming in terrorists. This article highlights Sen. Warren’s part in “The Resistance.”
The article starts by saying “Facing a crowd of protesters at Logan International Airport on Saturday night, US Senator Elizabeth Warren denounced President Trump’s recent immigration order, proclaiming, ‘we will not turn away children. We will not turn away families,’ said Warren, as the crowd repeated the words back to her. ‘We will not turn away people who try to help Americans. We will not turn away anyone because of their religion.'”
Elsewhere, Mrs. Clinton tweeted “I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are.”
In one sense, Mrs. Clinton is right. Protecting Americans isn’t who the Democrats are. President Obama is famous for frequently reminding “his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do.”
As for Sen. Warren, she said “persecuting anyone ‘for their religious beliefs is an attack on the very foundation of democracy.'” This article highlights this interesting fact:
The Order Suspends Visas From “Nationals of Countries of Particular Origin.” The Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence, are tasked under the order with determining the standard necessary for visa entry within 30 days. All entry into the United States is suspended, “as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” This isn’t unprecedented – Jimmy Carter issued a cancelation of visas for Iranian citizens in 1980.
It’s pretty apparent that Sen. Warren isn’t good with facts or history. The only other explanation is that she’s bitch with a political agenda who doesn’t care about the truth.
Nah. That can’t be it.
If there was ever a doubt about whether Senate Democrats would be obstructionists, this article should shout ‘Democratic obstructionism’. President Trump announced today that he’ll announce his SCOTUS nominee next week sometime. Democrats are feeling bitter that Republicans give Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick to replace Antonin Scalia, a committee hearing.
It isn’t surprising to hear that “Democrats and their allies remain furious that Senate Republicans refused to even consider Judge Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the high court, with 10 months remaining in Mr. Obama’s second term. That deep resentment is certain to color their handling of Mr. Trump’s choice just as it has contributed to their resistance to moving quickly on Mr. Trump’s cabinet selections.”
I respectfully disagree with that last statement. Democrats aren’t just upset with the fact that Republicans didn’t hold a hearing on Judge Garland. They’re also upset that Hillary lost. They’re upset that they didn’t retake the majority in the Senate, too. They’re upset that their coalition was demolished by ‘blue collar billionaire’ Donald Trump.
That’s their fault. Democrats hitched their wagon to Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s stars. The DNC leadership team was corrupt to the point that they, not voters, picked Hillary Clinton to be their presidential nominee. Mrs. Clinton ran the worst campaign in the last half-century.
All indications are that they see the forthcoming nomination as a chance to take a strong stand against the new president, since they still have the power to filibuster a Supreme Court choice — at least for now.
Democrats now think that resisting the newly-sworn-in president is their path back to power. What they’re really doing is paving the way for his re-election.
People won’t agree with Senate Republicans not granting Garland a hearing but they definitely won’t agree with Democrats acting like spoiled brats, either. That’s what the Democrats’ ‘resistance’ looks like to apolitical people.
Top Democrats say they don’t intend to play “tit for tat” with the nomination. But they say they will insist on what they consider to be a mainstream candidate capable of securing at least the 60 votes needed to thwart any filibuster. Otherwise, they promise to do whatever they can to block the nominee.
The Democrats are being stupid. If President Trump nominates Judge Gorsuch, he’ll be nominating a solid judge whose opinions are well-written. Do Democrats really want to put up a big fight against an articulate judge? It’s their option but I wouldn’t advise them to do that. That’s wasting tons of political capital on a lost cause. If Democrats filibuster President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, they’ll put the Supreme Court off-limits for a generation. This is the face of Democratic senators:
This is rich:
“We are not going to do what the Republicans did,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, “but if the candidate’s out of the mainstream, I can tell you I will fight and my caucus will fight tooth and nail against them.”
That’s coming from the liar who sabotaged Mike Pompeo’s confirmation vote.
The topic that didn’t get discussed often enough after the election is the viability of the so-called Obama Coalition. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira wrote a book titled “The Emerging Democratic Majority” that was based on the belief that demographics pointed to a permanent Democratic majority.
Part of the description for their book says “In five well-researched chapters and a new afterword covering the 2002 elections, Judis and Teixeira show how the most dynamic and fastest-growing areas of the country are cultivating a new wave of Democratic voters who embrace what the authors call ‘progressive centrism‘ and take umbrage at Republican demands to privatize social security, ban abortion, and cut back environmental regulations. As the GOP continues to be dominated by neoconservatives, the religious right, and corporate influence, this is an essential volume for all those discontented with their narrow agenda — and a clarion call for a new political order.”
The Obama Coalition was built, in large part, on identity politics. The book’s description isn’t accurate. In fact, it isn’t close. What we’ve learned since this book was written is that Obama’s coalition isn’t transferrable. It’s his. Since he’ll never be on the ballot again, it’s time to admit that significant parts of that coalition have switched allegiances to President Trump. Other parts of former President Obama’s coalition decided to sit this election out because neither candidate excited them.
Putting it briefly, there’s a reason why it’s called Obama’s Coalition. It’s Obama’s coalition because it doesn’t work for candidates who aren’t Barack Obama. Bernie Sanders put together his own coalition. Admittedly, it was significantly smaller than Obama’s but at least he realized he couldn’t rely on former President Obama’s coalition.
While Democrats don’t have to start from scratch, they have to rethink their identity. They’ll have to rethink their policies, too. If they don’t, they won’t win back white working class voters. Without them, they can’t win states like Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.
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.
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.
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
Paul Krugman’s latest column is proof positive that he’s exceptionally dishonest.
In his opening paragraph, Krugman wrote “If James Comey, the F.B.I. director, hadn’t tipped the scales in the campaign’s final days with that grotesquely misleading letter, right now an incoming Clinton administration would be celebrating some very good news. Because health reform, President Obama’s signature achievement, is stabilizing after a bumpy year.” If Krugman wants to think that FBI Director Jim Comey ripped the election away from Mrs. Clinton, that’s fine. That doesn’t mean he’s dishonest.
When he states as fact that the ACA “is stabilizing after a bumpy year”, though, that’s dishonest. First, there’s no proof that prices are stabilizing. There’s proof that prices aren’t stabilizing. It’s impossible to honestly reach the conclusion that prices are stabilizing.
Then Krugman wrote “This means that the huge gains achieved so far — tens of millions of newly insured Americans and dramatic reductions in the number of people skipping treatment or facing financial hardship because of cost — look as if they’re here to stay.” That’s frighteningly dishonest. Out-of-pocket expenses (health insurance premiums plus deductibles or co-pays) are unaffordable. In October, I wrote this post about Mary Katherine Ham’s experience with the ACA:
Like many other Americans, I got a letter last week. This letter is becoming an annual tradition, arriving on my doorstep in October to inform me of my Obamacare insurance premium hike. Last year, the letter said my Bronze plan, purchased on the marketplace formed by the, ahem, Affordable Care Act, would increase by almost 60 percent. This year, my premium is going up 96 percent. Ninety-six percent. My monthly payment, which was the amount of a decent car payment, is now the size of a moderate mortgage. The president refers to these for thousands of citizens as “a few bugs” when to us it feels like a flameout.
What part of that sounds affordable? That doesn’t sound like it’s stabilized. It sounds like a system spiraling out of control, which is what’s happening.
Check out this video of Ed Morrissey’s interview of Speaker Kurt Daudt:
Prof. Krugman, you’re a disgusting person who’s devoid of integrity. I could write a longer post if I wanted to but I won’t. I’ve proven that your article isn’t honest. If the NY Times had any integrity, they’d fire you. Unfortunately, they don’t have integrity.
Technorati: Paul Krugman, Jonathan Gruber, Economists, Affordable Care Act, Hillary Clinton, Democrats, Health Insurance Premiums, Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Mary Katherine+Ham, Kurt Daudt, Election 2016
Salena Zito’s article turns the spotlight on the MSM, aka the Agenda Media, to highlight why the media got this election badly wrong. Early in the article, Salena wrote about the NY Times, saying “Take The New York Times’ public editor’s laudable call for more diversity in the newsroom. ‘The executive editor, Dean Baquet, is African-American,’ Liz Spayd wrote. ‘The other editors on his masthead are white. The staff with the most diversity? The news assistants, who mostly do administrative jobs and get paid the least.'”
Then she made the important recommendation (I’d argue it’s essential) that reporters “need more people who come from a blue-collar background, who perhaps didn’t go to Brown and can be found in a pew on Sunday on a fairly regular basis.”
Yesterday, I wrote this post to highlight the absurdity of E.J. Dionne’s column. He’s totally certain that a Trump administration will be a disaster with a silver lining for Democrats. Last night, on the Kelly File, Nomiki Konst ‘debated’ Marc Thiessen and Guy Benson about whether Democrats were learning the lesson of this election. Konst insisted that it was all drive about the economy.
While there’s no doubt lots of people voted for Donald Trump because they think a billionaire might know a thing or 2 about reviving this pathetic recovery, it’s more than that. Mr. Trump promises to clean up the VA scandal, build a wall on the US-Mexican border, simplify the federal tax system and rein in the out-of-control EPA. In other words, he promised to make their lives better.
Voters didn’t just reject Mrs. Clinton’s message. In battleground state after battleground state, they essentially said ‘are you out of your flipping mind? We’ve suffered through 8 years of this crap and we’re tired of it.’ But I digress.
Benson and Thiessen both talked about how the Democratic Party is incapable of talking to people of faith or blue collar workers. It’s clear that they haven’t learned their lesson because the people who are the 2 ‘finalists’ for DNC chair, Keith Ellison and Thomas Perez, are incapable of connecting with those voters.
Paul Krugman thinks the Trump economic policies will tank. Thomas Friedman thinks that the Obama administration is the best friend Israel has ever had. Other inside-the-Beltway columnists missed the fact that miners and farmers are fed up with the EPA’s regulatory overreach.
It isn’t surprising why some of the biggest punchlines in Mr. Trump’s stump speeches were criticisms of the corrupt media. That was a galvanizing message. It’s what tied the blue collar workers together with the millionaires who built their companies from the ground up.
The journalist who didn’t miss what was happening this election was Salena Zito. This video illustrates why Salena got it right:
This weekend, I spoke with Ed Morrissey. Admittedly, neither of us predicted Trump winning. We both, however, gave Trump a shot at winning going into Election Night. When I told Ed that the common denominator for both of us is that we both listened to Salena Zito, he quickly agreed. We didn’t know that he’d win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but we knew that Trump’s message resonated with those economically disenfranchised voters.
If newsrooms don’t start sending their reporters out into the real world, if they don’t put a high priority on building a newsroom with cultural diversity, they’ll continue missing the big stories.
Finally, it’s time to thank Salena for her fantastic reporting. If she doesn’t win a slew of awards for her political reporting, it’ll prove that political editors are clueless.
Technorati: Mainstream Media, Agenda Media, Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, New York Times, E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, Elitists, Salena Zito, Guy Benson, Marc Thiessen, Cultural Diversity, Donald Trump, Republicans, Keith Ellison, Thomas Perez, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2016
After reading just a couple paragraphs of E.J. Dionne’s latest humorfest, it’s difficult to take the left seriously anymore. I can’t say that Mr. Dionne’s opinions are representative of the left’s worldview. Unfortunately, I can’t say that they aren’t commonplace, either.
For instance, Dionne wrote that “It is this spirit that began to take hold almost immediately after Trump’s election. Americans in large numbers, particularly the young, quickly realized that the coming months and years will require new and creative forms of political witness and organization. Trump’s ascendancy is already calling forth social and political initiatives aimed at defending the achievements of the Obama years (particularly Obamacare), protecting the environment, standing up for immigrants and minorities, preserving civil liberties, civil rights and voting rights, and highlighting how Trump’s policies contradict his promises to working-class voters. Here is a bet that the mobilization against Trump will rival in size and influence the tea party uprising against Obama.”
I can’t identify the types of drugs Mr. Dionne is using but they’re undoubtedly expensive. I don’t doubt that progressives’ morale is lower than a snake’s belly. That doesn’t mean that they’ve got the right to totally ignore reality. Since President Obama’s inauguration, Democrats have gotten utterly devastated. They’ve literally lost 1,000+ legislative seats. They’ve gone from having a majority of the governorships to having less than one-third of the governorships. After the 2008 election, Democrats had a 257-seat majority in the House. After the 2016 election, Democrats controlled 194 seats in the House of Representatives, a drop of 63 seats.
From the outline of his policies so far and from the right-wing Team of Billionaires he has chosen to run large parts of his government, it’s hard to see how Trump will advance the material interests of those who voted for him.
If you’re an elitist, it’s impossible “to see how Trump will advance the material interests of those who voted for him.” If you aren’t an elitist, then it isn’t difficult to see how President-Elect Trump’s agenda will advance the agenda Trump ran on.
EJ Dionne Jr.’s delusional thinking aren’t helping him connect with voters. Rather than listening to the DC Echochamber, he should listen to real people. If Dionne listened to more people, it isn’t likely he’d say this:
Lastly, it’s hard to imagine a president more likely to inspire Obama Nostalgia than Donald Trump.
Obama’s agenda never was popular after 2009. We voted in 2010, 2014 and 2016 to kill it. It isn’t like people are insisting on more pathetic economic growth or overregulation or stabbing allies.