Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

Jim Geraghty’s post, titled If You’re Explaining, You Los- Eh, No, Wait, You’re Doing Your Job., demolishes Donald Trump’s fanatical rant that voters were disenfranchised. When Geraghty wrote “You vote for delegates at your precinct March 1; the delegates you elect vote among themselves for delegates to district and statewide conventions; at the district and statewide conventions, those delegates vote on who goes to Cleveland. Boom. Done.” he gutted Trump’s whining complaints with the greatest of ease.

Still, I’d add that Trump’s done something much more disgusting than just lie about the process. By saying that “one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined,” Trump essentially said that the 65,000 people that participated in Colorado’s precinct caucuses on March 1 don’t count as real Republicans. Shame on Mr. Trump. They did something he wasn’t willing to do. They participated in the political process. They didn’t just whine about how awful America is. They stepped forward. They offered solutions for fixing the mess left by 8 years of Barack Obama. By now, they’re working hard getting legislative and congressional candidates elected.

By comparison, Mr. Trump has flown around the country, held rallies where he complained about being treated unfairly, told people that they should punch protesters if they acted up and bragged about how he’s doing in the polls.

If saying outrageous things and lying are qualifications for being president, talk radio is filled with qualified presidential candidates.

Mr. Trump complains about the power brokers who’ve rigged the game in their favor while pretending to fight for working people. That’s another myth worth dispelling. Trump is for Trump. Period. If Trump cared about voters, he wouldn’t be disparaging them for their participation in the political process. Why isn’t he working as hard as they are in getting conservatives elected?

If Trump wants to make America great again, here’s a suggestion: don’t contribute to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Here’s another suggestion: stop supporting single-payer health care. Stop supporting tax increases. Stop supporting economic isolationism.

Comparatively speaking, Trump isn’t a patriot. In fact, Trump doesn’t fit the dictionary definition of patriot:

  1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
  2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

Standing behind a podium and complaining isn’t defending “his nation and its interests with devotion.” That’s what whiners do. Here’s the definition of whiner:

to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way

It’s stunning that a man who’s received $2,000,000,000+ worth of free air time on TV and radio think that he’s being mistreated.

When Trump isn’t bragging about how good he’s doing in the polls, he’s complaining about getting mistreated. I can’t wait until we don’t have to deal with Trump’s complaining.

Comparing the GOP activists in Colorado with Trump isn’t fair. The activists work hard to make America the best it can possibly be. Trump complains, then passes the buck for his lack of leadership.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Based on what his campaign manager just said, Rick Nolan isn’t living in northern Minnesota. Based on Joe Radinovich’s statement, it’s more likely that Nolan’s current neighbors include the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and some unicorns.

After the Tarrance Group released its first poll of the campaign, Radinovich said “The real takeaway from this poll and others we’ve seen is that, despite seemingly favorable conditions for Republicans, Congressman Nolan’s integrity, effectiveness and strong leadership is recognized by voters across the district and is reflected in his strong performance in this and other polls.”

Radinovich’s statements show that the Nolan campaign will rely on class warfare to win again. Radinovich also said “This poll also seems to show that voters remember Stewart Mills III and his support for tax breaks for the wealthy, while also believing that Congress should be ‘putting all options on the table’ when it comes to Social Security. Even in favorable conditions for Republicans, Mills can’t buy a lead.”

The poll that Radinovich is talking about shows some interesting things. For starters, it “has Nolan with 49 percent and Mills at 46 percent.” It also shows this:

The survey also showed 8th District voters supporting both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz over Hillary Clinton — Cruz by 49 percent to 40 percent and Trump 43 percent to 40 percent.

This isn’t good news for Hillary but it isn’t surprising either. This isn’t a tangential issue, either. If Cruz is the nominee and he’s able to maintain this lead, Nolan would have to run 10 points better than Hillary. That’s a daunting task for any candidate.

Put differently, if the presidential race tightens, which is inevitable, to a 5-point Cruz lead, Nolan would have to run 5 points better than Hillary. Another way of looking at it is to say Hillary will be a drag on Nolan.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Leon Wolf’s post over at RedState highlights Donald Trump’s pampered mentality. The newest argument that they’re making is that their voters will have been disenfranchised if he’s the leading vote-getter in the primaries and caucuses but doesn’t get the nomination.

Trump’s argument, as stated on CNN, is that “I think we’ll win before getting to the convention, but if we didn’t and we’re 20 votes short, or we’re, you know, a hundred short, and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, ’cause we’re way ahead of everybody, I don’t think you can say we don’t get it automatically. I think you’d have riots”, adding “if you disenfranchise those people … I think you would have problems like you’ve never seen before.”

RedState states things exceptionally clearly, stating “this is very simple; the RNC’s rules very clearly state – as they have from the beginning – that you have to have a majority of delegates in order to win the nomination. If no candidate gets that majority on the first ballot, then there’s a process for selecting a nominee that leaves the ballot results behind. There’s no rule that says that the top delegate-getter in the first ballot has to be the choice; if there were such a rule, then whoever got a plurality of the delegates would just automatically win per the rules.”

It isn’t like Trump hasn’t known this from the start. He’s known it. What’s happening is that Trump thought he didn’t have to build a campaign organization, that his fame would carry him to the nomination. That still might happen but Trump’s definitely discovering some challenges now that the field has finally narrowed.

Imagine that Hillary gets 230 electoral votes, Trump gets 170, and Perry gets 140. The election would then go to the House of Representatives. If they chose Trump, then Hillary’s voters haven’t been “disenfranchised.” There just weren’t enough of them for her to win the election per the clearly stated rules.

Without question, Hillary’s people would complain but that’s life. The Constitution spells things out clearly. For someone to be elected president, they need a majority of electoral votes. If nobody gets a majority, then the House of Representatives decides the election.

This article isn’t surprising. What’s unfortunate is that the Democratic Party insists that they’re for campaign finance reform while taking tons of money from the special interests that they publicly criticize. This year, they aren’t even letting the democratic process determine their party’s presidential nominee.

Let’s stipulate something at the outset. Both political parties use superdelegates to determine their party’s presidential nominee. This article does a great job of explaining how superdelegates work in the Democratic and Republican parties. For instance, in “the Democratic Party, you’re a superdelegate if you’re a member of the official party apparatus. That includes all current Democratic governors and members of Congress as well as former presidents, former vice presidents, state party chairs, and that sort of thing. In the Democratic Party, superdelegates can vote for whichever candidate they wish regardless of how the state that they come from votes, and in total, superdelegates comprise about 15 percent of the total delegates that determine the nomination.”

That explains how Hillary has a 350 delegate lead over Bernie Sanders even though they tied in Iowa and Sanders annihilated Hillary in New Hampshire. It’s a different story for superdelegates in the GOP:

The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The national Republican Party ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that’s the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates.

Potentially, there are further complications for the DNC and their presidential nominee:

Like Ms. Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also accepts money from super PACs and corporate interests. Given Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s campaign financing strategies—in conjunction with the virtual bankruptcy the DNC is facing under her leadership—the rescinding of the ban on donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs should come as no surprise, but what it demonstrates is still sobering. Special interests have undermined the trust between the government and the American people to the extent that public outcry against corporate influences are resulting in regressing policies for campaign finance reform. As Mr. Sanders leads calls for politicians to ethically rid themselves of ties to wealthy individuals and corporations, the Democratic Establishment is doing everything possible to inoculate themselves from those calls to action.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz isn’t just corrupt. She’s inept, too. It isn’t just her fault, though. The Democratic Party is a dying party. That’s why their presidential candidates are both fossils. Many of their younger politicians have gotten defeated in 2010 and 2014.

During those GOP landslides, Democrats lost tons of seats in Congress, the US Senate and in state legislatures. Their bench is thinner than thin. It’s virtually nonexistent. The Democratic Party is heading for a massive shake-up after this election. If Hillary wins because the DNC rigged the rules, rest assured that the activists that fought for Bernie Sanders will lead a revolt against Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has more egg on her face now that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have agreed to do 4 more debates. Though the details of the agreement are still being worked out, what’s clear is that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s iron-fisted statement that there would be 6 debates was thrown under the proverbial bus. This just additional proof that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has lost control of the party she supposedly leads.

When the article starts by saying “If the Democratic National Committee were to sanction a Democratic debate on Feb. 4 in New Hampshire, it would likely do so without being co-sponsored by the state’s largest newspaper, three sources familiar with the plans have confirmed,” that’s stating the DNC has essentially lost control. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s past statements can now be hung around her neck. She fought for keeping a lid on the debates.

Now that Hillary’s in trouble, Hillary wants additional debates. Sen. Sanders agreed but only if it was expanded to multiple debates. Mrs. Clinton wanted a single debate right before the New Hampshire Primary. Here’s a hint for Hillary. Additional debates might help in the short-term but they won’t help save her from the fact that she’s a terrible candidate.

It isn’t a stretch to think that campaigns plant questions at town hall meetings. It isn’t often, though, that these planted questions are exposed like it was this time. One of the questioners from the audience tossed Hillary a softball, asking “I just wanted to know which of our previous presidents has inspired you most and why.”

Unfortunately for Hillary, that isn’t the only thing Brett Rosenberg, the questioner and an undecided voter, said. He prefaced the inspirational president question by saying “Secretary Sander… Clinton… Oh, sorry. I can see why they gave you this question… I just wanted to know which of our previous presidents has inspired you most and why.”

Whether you say that the cat’s out of the bag or whether you say that CNN and the DNC are playing favorites, there’s no hiding the fact that someone, either the Clinton campaign, the DNC (pardon the repetition) or CNN (pardon the excessive repetition), planted the question.
I wrote here that Hillary was on the defensive the entire night. Sen. Sanders accused her of fighting the progressive fight only when it’s politically convenient. Sen. Sanders cited Hillary’s Johnny-come-lately approach to TPP and the Keystone XL Pipeline project as proof that she’s a calculating politician, not a progressive activist at heart.

Whether you’re talking about Hillary’s plant or the fact that she’s out of touch with the party she wants to lead, the truth is that she’s frittered away her air of invincibility.

Technorati: , , , ,

It’s bad enough when Hillary’s campaign spokesman tries spinning his way out of the predicament Hillary created. That’s what he’s paid to do. It’s quite another when the media, in this case CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, start playing the roll of Hillary apologist.

Toobin went straight to the ‘the government classifies too many documents’ card, saying “She is now suffering from that because people are saying there’s all this classified information she’s dealing with, but there is not a bright line between classified and unclassified, and you can see, at least to a certain extent, why she was not clear on what was what.” Hillary’s biggest problem thus far is that the Intelligence Community IG identified multiple emails that had the highest security clearance, that of SAP or special access programs. The only people with a security clearance high enough to read this information other than the President and Vice President are the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the director of the CIA and the director of National Intelligence and their deputies. That’s right. Only 10 people have a clearance to read SAPs in the entire government.

That’s because this information identifies drone deployments, submarine deployments and spies who have infiltrated terrorist networks and cells. If this information gets into the wrong hands, people will die. That’s why it’s tightly held information.

There’s no doubt that the federal government classifies too many documents. That isn’t what’s at issue here. What’s at issue is this nation’s most sensitive information. It isn’t unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to guard that information with her life.

If ever someone should tread lightly when it comes to criticizing corruption, it’s Hillary Clinton. Gabby Morrongiello’s article highlights some tweets that Hillary is going to regret. During the debate, Hillary’s staff tweeted a quote from Hillary about corruption. During the debate, Hillary said “There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail.”

The Twitterverse response wasn’t what Mrs. Clinton’s staffers were expecting. One tweet said “@HillaryClinton That includes you, Hillary.” Another tweet said “Does this include yourself? #possibleindictment” Still another said “‘No individual too big to jail’ – I can’t believe she just tweeted that with a straight face”

To that last tweet, this person must be young. When it comes to chutzpah, Hillary’s got more chutzpah than Mr. Trump’s got mean-spirited quips. Hillary’s tweet originated from a belief that the American people are either stupid, forgetful or both. When she was squashing bimbo eruptions during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, she could get away with statements like that. That doesn’t work because the universe has changed by orders of magnitude.

In 1992, the media universe essentially consisted of CNN (which was then nicknamed the Clinton New Network by Rush Limbaugh), NBC, ABC and CBS, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Talk radio was just getting started. Al Gore was just inventing the internet. Social media didn’t exist.

Chris Cillizza’s article certainly isn’t the type of review she was hoping for. Cillizza’s article put Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley in the debate’s winner category. It put Mrs. Clinton into the loser category.

Cillizza highlighted the fact that Sen. Sanders “got tripped up a few times during the debate on his voting record — especially on guns” before noting that “he was the prime mover in virtually every discussion from Wall Street reform to health care to climate change. He was on offense, accusing rival Hillary Clinton of half-measures and political caution at a moment when boldness is required.”

Of O’Malley, Cillizza wrote that Gov. O’Malley started the debate by whining about being ignored but then he “turned the corner on getting ignored and by the end of the debate was downright likable.” It’s nice that O’Malley came across as likable but it’s utterly irrelevant. He’s a total non-factor in the Democratic presidential nomination fight. That fight is between Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Sanders.

Here’s what Cillizza wrote about Mrs. Clinton:

So, why is she in the loser column? Because she did nothing in the debate to slow the momentum that Sanders is building in Iowa and New Hampshire. Aside from guns, where Clinton scored a clean win against Sanders, she was unable to effectively cast him as a pie-in-the-sky idealist and herself as the only person who could truly fight and win on for Democratic priorities. Time and again, she was boxed into defending a status quo that the American public, Democrats and Republicans alike, is dissatisfied with.

Simply put, Hillary is out of step with voters. At a time when the American people want to grab politicians by the short and curlies, she’s preaching the virtues of staying the course and continuity. This, of course, puts a smile on President Obama’s face but it isn’t what the American people want.

One of the disputable truths about politics is that politicians, generally speaking, aren’t leaders. They’re mostly followers. Bill Clinton had a vision for America, a destination he wanted to take people to. Hillary Clinton struggles with “the vision thing.” She’s mostly a check-the-right-boxes candidate. Environmental activists want this. Promise them what they want. Unions want unswerving loyalty. Hillary’s response is ‘you’ve got it.’ At no point does Mrs. Clinton tell people how all these separate promises create a vision that unifies the nation.

In fact, the only candidate with that type of vision in either party is Sen. Rubio. That’s why lots of Democratic strategists have said — off the record, of course — that Sen. Rubio frightens them the most.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Donald Trump’s ego got the better of him yesterday when he took credit for the Iran hostage release. Mr. Trump should’ve quit while he was behind. Later, in a totally bizarre change of direction, Mr. Trump criticized the terms of the swap.

In other words, Trump criticized the prisoner swap that he took credit for. Is that an example of New York values? I could certainly make an argument that wanting it both ways happens to lots of northeastern liberals. Hillary’s certainly tried having it both ways. Chris Christie supported strict gun control laws and Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court before categorically denying he’d supported either thing.

That’s before talking about John Kerry’s infamous “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” episode:

Only in the northeast would a person think that there’s nothing wrong with wanting things both ways. In fact, I’m betting that Trump would have a hissy fit if people called him on it. I’d bet the proverbial ranch on it, in fact.

It’s important that we take 2 things away from this. First, Mr. Trump didn’t actually do anything. His ego is too big, though, to admit that he didn’t have anything to do with the swap. Next, and more importantly, Mr. Trump’s behavior is, putting it charitably, unhinged. What type of people talk out of both sides of their mouth, then criticize people for when they call him on his manic behavior?

Mr. Trump is acting this way before a single vote’s been cast. Why shouldn’t people think that he’ll crack if he’s ever the president when he has real responsibilities? Right now, he’s just a loudmouthed candidate and former reality TV celebrity. If he’s that out to lunch now, why shouldn’t we think he’d crack when he’s given legitimate responsibilities?