Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category
It’s indisputable that 2 of the 3 biggest losers this election were Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. The DNC picked Mrs. Clinton essentially before their primaries or debates, mostly because they fell in love with her name ID and her fundraising ability. They also picked her out of fear of the Clintons’ retribution.
After another stinging defeat, House Democrats picked Nancy Pelosi to be their leader. Einstein’s cliché said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing again and again but expecting different results. Based on that definition, 134 House Democrats are insane. Salena Zito didn’t mince words in her latest column, saying “One-hundred and thirty-four House Democrats collectively lost their minds last week. That is how many of Nancy Pelosi’s colleagues it took to vote her back into power despite having lost her third consecutive chance at winning back the majority from the Republicans.”
Mrs. Pelosi is referred to as “a prodigious fundraiser.” Apparently, Democrats think that fundraising still win elections. Apparently, Democrats haven’t figured it out that fundraising isn’t the only thing that’s important to campaigns. Mrs. Clinton outspent Donald Trump in Florida by an obscene amount of money. She lost the state by 125,000 votes.
There’s a connection between Mrs. Clinton’s and Mrs. Pelosi’s fundraising abilities and their unflinching support for the environmental activists’ agenda. While it doesn’t make that connection, Holman Jenkins’ article highlights the futility of President Obama’s agenda:
Mr. Obama came in saying fossil fuels were running out and prices were destined to rise, and instead got the fracking revolution, whose related employment boost was arguably a factor in his re-election victories in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Yet he couldn’t stop looking this gift horse in the mouth.
Unshrewdly, in the name of satisfying his climate-change constituents, he needlessly launched a regulatory war against coal as cheap natural gas was already doing the job for him. Result: Democrats became the enemy in coal country.
He pandered to his green friends on the Keystone XL pipeline. Result: Mr. Trump is inheriting a rebound in natural gas fracking and an associated infrastructure boom that is just now heating up again in time for an incoming administration to get credit.
Then-candidate Obama insisted that he’d push a cap and trade plan that would make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket”:
Eight years later, Mrs. Clinton openly said that she was going to put lots of coal companies out of business:
At this point, I’m not certain that Democrats displayed insanity in being loyal to the environmental activists in their party. It’s possible they just displayed stupidity. Either way, Democrats won’t connect with the Heartland anytime soon if they don’t disappoint the environmental activists from time to time.
Democrats might lose some of their fundraising ability. Then again, it’s also possible that they might gain an appealing message to campaign on.
This article highlights the ever-growing fight for the Democratic Party’s soul. Throughout the article, the feuding factions are noticeable. It isn’t until the end that the disagreements boil over.
That’s when Nancy Larson, a member of the Minnesota DFL, is quoted as saying the “brilliant ones at top know better. And they come down and say, ‘This is what you do, this is what you say, this is what you have your candidates do, and don’t stray from this.'”
A couple paragraphs earlier, the article quotes Ted Sadler, a Democratic political operative from Georgia, as saying “People just love it when you show up. But for us, there was zero Democratic action in the 8th Congressional District.”
This indicates why Democrats won’t get out of their fight anytime soon:
In Georgia, Sadler said the party was instead obsessed with driving up turnout in Atlanta and its surrounding suburbs at the expense of Democratic-friendly areas in other parts of the state. It was a common refrain among the Democratic strategists interviewed for this story, all of whom said they saw a party that believed it no longer needed rural votes to win elections.
When Democratic officials did show up, Sadler and others said they were ill-equipped for the nuances of a campaign in rural America.
“When they do show up, it’s 22-year-old kids from the Ivy League,” Sadler said. “And they’re telling you what do, as opposed to stopping and listening.”
It isn’t surprising that Democrats lost the Heartland, especially rural America, often by lopsided margins. Democrats kept Nancy Pelosi as their leader in the House. They picked Chuck Schumer as their leader in the Senate. They do whatever Tom Steyer and the Sierra Club order them to do. Democrats are loyal, too, to Silicon Valley and the East and Left coasts.
The thing that the media is missing is that the earth shifted with the last election. In the past, Democrats could get away with saying they’re for high-tech jobs because Republicans didn’t emphasize the importance of blue collar jobs like mining and factory work. The mining industry and manufacturing jobs are getting strangled with regulations. The Democrats don’t know how to talk to those people because, to them, it’s like speaking a foreign language that they’d have to learn against their will.
Finally, the environmental activists’ agenda is the opposite of the mining industry’s agenda. They fit together like oil and water.
When Tucker Carlson interviewed David Cobb, Jill Stein’s campaign manager, about the Wisconsin recount, it quickly turned into a bad joke. Early in the interview, Cobb said that “most importantly, Tucker, what we’re seeing is voting systems that can’t be trusted. What we see is the use of technology that is highly problematic that have been proven to be hacked by security experts so all we’re asking for is a recount in order to confidence in the integrity of the election results.”
Later in the interview, Carlson asked “what is the core justification for putting the country through this”? Cobb replied “Well, what I’m telling you is that there is a legal right to secure confidence in the integrity of the election results. Recounts a very good way to do that.”
Some important points need to be highlighted at this point. First, other than a handful of nutjobs in the Green Party, nobody thinks that the voting systems employed in Wisconsin aren’t trustworthy. That’s verified by the fact that the other political parties didn’t mention election malfeasance or outright hacking. Next, the Wisconsin recount law should require eyewitness testimony that they saw election irregularities. During the interview, Cobb made clear that their complaint was based on professorial testimony saying that malfeasance was “possible.”
Third, recounts shouldn’t be granted if they’re the political equivalent of a fishing expedition. If the police asked a judge for a search warrant of a person of interest’s apartment based on a hunch, which is what Dr. Stein is doing, the judge would tell the detectives to return when they had more than a hunch.
Cobb’s pretending to be worried about election integrity. That’s dishonest. What thoughtful person thinks that possible misfeasance is justification for a recount. It’s my recommendation that states tighten up their recount statutes ASAP.
Technorati: Jill Stein, David Cobb, Wisconsin Recount, Fishing Expedition, Green Party, Hillary Clinton, Election Integrity, Security Experts, Democratic Party, Election 2016
Dr. Jill Stein’s campaign suffered a significant defeat in court Tuesday when a judge ruled that counties didn’t need to do a hand recount. Stein suffered that defeat when “Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn said the effort to force the hand recount” hadn’t met “the state’s legal standard for prohibiting the use of machines in the recount, saying that the two campaigns did not show a hand recount, though more thorough, was necessary or show there was a clear and convincing evidence of fraud or other problems.”
The lawsuit was destined to fail because it was based virtually entirely on hypothetical possibilities, not verifiable proof. According to the USA Today article, “Stein campaign brought forward a series of experts in statistics and computer science who argued for a hand recount by describing a series of hypothetical ways that computer hackers might reprogram voting machines.”
Stein’s attorneys tried putting their best spin on the ruling:
Debbie Greenberger, an attorney for the Stein campaign, said she was uncertain whether their side would appeal but said she hoped county clerks would heed the judge’s praise for a hand recount.
Fat chance with that. A hand recount would be lengthy. A machine recount would be significantly faster.
The Stein recount ‘machine’ just broke down.
Jill Stein insists that her petition for a recount in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is being done for the noblest of reasons. In this article, Stein is quoted as saying “We need peace of mind about our voting system in this election and going forward.” She reportedly said this with a straight face. It isn’t that we don’t “need peace of mind about our voting system in this election and going forward.” It’s that Stein’s requests are based on assumptions, hunches, a little incompetence and tons of litigation.
The tons of litigation comes partly from Dr. Stein’s missing Pennsylvania’s recount deadline. Part of the litigation comes from the fact that Stein didn’t get her way in Wisconsin. The litigation is also partly because of her campaign’s incompetence.
Dr. Stein’s incompetence is highlighted by the fact that she didn’t follow Pennsylvania’s recount laws. Whether she thought the laws didn’t apply to her or whether they just missed the deadline, the indisputable truth is that Dr. Stein missed Pennsylvania’s deadline. That’s the least of Dr. Stein’s problems.
According to this article, the fundraising is the easy part. Specifically, the article says “when it comes to the Keystone State, it turns out raising the money might have been the easiest step. As Stein points out herself in a video posted on Sunday, initiating a statewide recount of Pennsylvania’s vote is ‘especially complicated.'”
Speculation increases as to why Mrs. Clinton would join such a haphazard recount operation. Whatever her reasons are for joining, though, they aren’t helping her image. She’s acting like a spoiled brat who doesn’t like losing.
Ed Morrissey’s latest column about the “fake news” phenomena offers 2 points worthy of further exploration. In the final paragraph of Morrissey’s column, he writes “That contempt from elites in media and politics may or may not have produced the electoral results seen two weeks ago, but it certainly explains the shock that has resulted from it. That contempt is also reflected in the push to shut down commentary and pressure Facebook into editing their social media network to allow only those sources deemed acceptable by those in power, politically and culturally.”
Predictably, Democrat elitists are in denial. In this instance, the simplest explanation for why so many blue collar voters chose Trump is because the Democratic Party has abandoned them for years. This administration has sided with environmental activists rather than the miners, pipefitters and heavy equipment operators on major projects every time. The Keystone XL Pipeline is just one example of that. The Dakota Access Pipeline is another.
This is a classic case of ‘what have you done for me lately Syndrome’. If Democrats don’t figure out a way to satisfy both environmental activists and miners, they’ll lose miners and construction workers for a generation. It’s that simple.
In his opening paragraph, Morrissey wrote “Rather than acknowledge the obvious and prosaic answer — that voters in swing states chose change rather than the status quo — analysts have sought a Unified Theory of Donald Trump’s Success. Trump couldn’t possibly have won fair and square, the assumption goes, so all that’s left is to identify whatever went wrong and banish it so this never happens again.”
Other explanations are equally valid. First, Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate who ignored the most animated group of swing voters in this election. Mrs. Clinton didn’t just ignore Michigan and Wisconsin. She ignored voters in rural areas who demanded that they be heard. The other legitimate explanation for her defeat is simple: explosive ACA health insurance premiums caused people to demand a change from the status quo.
The Democratic Party is at a crossroads. They can continue to ignore blue collar workers and drive them into the GOP. If they don’t want that, then they’ll have to show that they aren’t anti-mining. Democrats can pretend that the ACA is a fine piece of legislation. That’s what Chuck Schumer did last Sunday. If that’s their strategy, they should prepare to not be taken seriously.
The left is determined to undermine the credibility of the Electoral College. It’s best to think of this as their latest childish hissy fit. The Democrats’ latest hissy fit is to convince 37 Republican activists to shift their votes to Hillary Clinton. The chances of that happening are less than my chances of getting struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket.
According to the article, the “presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths, and in some cases, state law, to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.” These renegades admit that they don’t have a chance of changing the outcome. That isn’t their goal.
These Democrats’ goal is to undermine the Electoral College’s credibility. Instead, they’re demolishing the Democrats’ credibility because it’s coming across as them being sore losers. Hillary lost because she’s a terrible candidate. Rather than accept the defeat, these Democrats would rather throw another hissy fit.
Rather than worrying about creating mining jobs in Pennsylvania and Ohio or repealing and replacing Obamacare, which is collapsing under its own weight, these Democrats are fighting a fight nobody’s paying attention to. If the American people put together a list of their top 25 priorities, Electoral College reform wouldn’t make the top 50.
Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they’re unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump, the number they’d likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.
But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.
Take a lengthy look at these Democrats. They’re what sore losers and intemperate lefties look like. These are the Democrats that preach inclusivity to the right but don’t practice what they preach.
It isn’t a secret that Steny Hoyer is a partisan hack who doesn’t have consistent principles. That’s apparent in Hoyer’s latest statement to the press. Monday morning, Hoyer issued a statement, saying “One of the basic principles that safeguards our democracy is the separation of the personal business interests of our leaders from the government business with which they are entrusted while in office. That is why I am deeply concerned by reports over the past few days that Donald Trump is continuing to promote his personal business ventures as he prepares to assume the presidency. Reports of his meeting with Indian business representatives and reports that he used a phone call with Argentinean President Mauricio Macri to lobby on behalf of a Trump-branded building project are, if accurate, unacceptable behavior for the incoming President of the United States.”
Don’t mistake my opinions with defending Donald Trump. I won’t defend the indefensible. Another thing I won’t do is tolerate political hacks that use situational principles. I define situational principles as principles that are used on political opponents but aren’t used on political allies.
I checked Hoyer’s Whip webpage to see if he’d issued any statements criticizing Hillary Clinton’s pay-for-play scheme through the Clinton Foundation. Thus far, I haven’t found anything resembling that. This statement, however, complains about the House Oversight Committee’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation. While Hoyer stopped short of defending the Foundation, that didn’t prevent him from launching a blistering political attack against Republicans:
With their barrage of unwarranted attacks through subpoenas and letters, House Republicans are engaged in a blatant and partisan campaign to discredit Secretary Clinton at the expense of American taxpayers and Congressional resources. Investigation after investigation has found no wrongdoing, and Director Comey made clear that there was no criminal activity. House Republicans’ attacks against Secretary Clinton have become an obsession, and they have been dragging the American people along with them on a political witch hunt while ignoring critical challenges that ought to be the focus of Congress’s attention instead.
Apparently, the American people thought the Clinton’s pay-to-play disturbing. First, every poll released in the final month noted that the American people didn’t trust Mrs. Clinton. Next, I think it’s interesting that Hoyer thinks investigating the Clinton Foundation’s self-enrichment plan isn’t using Mrs. Clinton’s official governmental responsibilities for personal enrichment.
Clearly, donors thought that donations to the Clinton Foundation bought them additional access to Mrs. Clinton. That’s what this article indicates:
Foundation officials delayed release of the quarterly report of its latest donors on its website until the after the Nov. 8 presidential election, which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost to Republican rival Donald Trump.
The low number of new donors may indicate potential contributors were frightened away by repeated news reports that the Clinton charity is under FBI investigation regarding multiple allegations of “pay-to-play” influence-peddling schemes involving both Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, as well as their key political aides.
The thing that this election taught us is that people are tired of DC insiders being hypocrites. I suspect that people think of Hoyer as being a classic DC hypocrite. This video is proof of that:
Technorati: Steny Hoyer, Hillary Clinton, Clinton Foundation, Pay for Play, Democrats, Donald Trump, Mauricio Macri, Conflict of Interest, Republicans, Election 2016
This NY Times editorial highlights why the NY Times editorial page isn’t taken seriously anymore. For instance, they wrote “Mr. Sessions has been the Senate’s most ardent opponent of fixing the immigration system. In 2015 he proposed a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone re-entering the country illegally after being deported. That could increase the federal prison population by as much as 30 percent. As Mr. Trump’s chief law enforcer, he is likely to fully support efforts to enlist local law enforcement in a widening dragnet for people without papers. He also, during the campaign, endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants.”
The horror of that. Sen. Sessions actually thinks that laws should be enforced. What that quote shows is that the NY Times noticed that the Obama administration didn’t enforce this nation’s immigration laws. It’s long past time to enforce the laws already on the books. Further, why wouldn’t Sen. Sessions enlist the help of local law enforcement?
As for the NY Times’ statement that Sen. Sessions “endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants”, the reality is that he supports stopping the refugee resettlement program. Sessions’ thinking is that it isn’t smart letting in people whose identity can’t be verified from nations with problems with terrorism.
What’s frightening is that the NY Times apparently thinks that enforcing the laws on the books and protecting this nation’s citizens against potential terrorist attacks.
Count Mr. Sessions, as well, among those Trump allies calling for a special prosecutor to continue investigating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, a decision that, if he is attorney general, would be his to make.
Why shouldn’t the Clinton Foundation’s pay-for-play practices be investigated? Based on what WikiLeaks exposed, there’s certainly justification for investigating the Clintons. Shouldn’t the Clintons live by the same rules as everyone else?
We expect today’s senators, like their predecessors in 1986, to examine Mr. Sessions’ views and record with bipartisan rigor. If they do, it is hard to imagine that they will endorse a man once rejected for a low-level judgeship to safeguard justice for all Americans as attorney general.
I guess this means the NY Times isn’t undecided on Sen. Sessions. While that isn’t surprising, it is disappointing.
This article in The Hill points to the Democrats’ uncivil war within the ranks. What’s important to highlight is the fact that both sides are right.
For instance, The Hill reports that Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Labor Secretary, said “This has been a huge refutation of establishment politics and the political organization has got to be changed…if the Democratic Party can’t do it, we’ll do it through a third party.”
Later in the article, an unnamed Democratic strategist said “The Sanders people should be mad at themselves. If they had come out to vote, Donald Trump wouldn’t be president. If they were trying to prove a point, all they’ve done is further damage everything they claim to be fighting for. It’s somewhat typical of that crowd.”
It’s indisputable that Hillary Clinton represented the establishment. It’s indisputable, too, that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don’t represent the establishment whatsoever. Anti-Establishment Democrats face a dilemma as do Establishment Democrats in that Tuesday night represented a refutation of anti-Establishment policies and a refutation of Establishment politicians.
Robert Reich definitely believes in the uber-left’s policies. It isn’t a secret that he’s a true believer. That being said, there’s no doubt that the unnamed strategist quoted earlier is right. Running farther to the left will hurt Democrats. I wrote here that Democrats of all stripes have been rejected. Typical Democratic policies like income inequality and minimum wage simply aren’t appealing to many people. The American people want pro-growth policies where people at the lower economic rungs have a chance of becoming the next Bill Gates, Michael Dell or Fred Smith.
The Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren wing of the Party is too focused on what I’d call the jealous wing of the Democratic Party. Similarly, the Establishment wing of the Democratic Party is in disrepair. In this article, Krystal Ball proclaims “Call me crazy, but I don’t think Wall Street’s favorite senator, Chuck Schumer, and San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi are the ideal people to address the economic anxiety of middle- and working-class Americans and credibly call for reform.”
She’s right. Schumer and Pelosi haven’t had a fresh idea in over a decade. They’re contributing nothing. It’s time to put them out of our misery. In the end, this picture symbolizes the upcoming Democratic Party’s uncivil war: