Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Harry Reid’ Category

John Hinderaker’s post doesn’t mince words. John questions whether Republicans have acted as disgustingly as Democrats have. Here’s a hint: they haven’t. John writes “when has a Republican proudly displayed the severed, bloody head of Nancy Pelosi? Or Chuck Schumer? Or Barack Obama? When have Republicans thrown bricks through store windows or assaulted Democrats on the street? When have Republicans rioted to prevent Democrats from speaking on college campuses? When have Republicans accused Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer of treason? When have Republicans sent provocateurs into Democratic presidential rallies to start fights? When have Republicans urged ‘Resistance’ against a Democratic president who they claim is a Nazi?”

The answer to John’s questions is simple. It’s never happened. Period. Everyone remembers Kathy Griffin’s blood-drenched head. Some people have seen the video of Donald Trump being assassinated (as Caesar). How many people remember Alan Grayson’s speech displaying the Republicans’ health care plan:

Lots of youngsters don’t remember Ted Kennedy’s speech that started the term Borking:

That’s before considering how nasty Harry Reid was on multiple occasions over several years.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Eugene Robinson’s latest article is proof that there aren’t many great strategists left in the Democratic Party. A topnotch political strategist wouldn’t say “In the two weeks since, Trump has only piled outrage upon outrage, as far as progressives are concerned. He took the first steps toward building his ridiculous wall along the southern border, but with U.S. taxpayers’ dollars, not Mexico’s. He squelched government experts who work on climate change. He weakened the Affordable Care Act in the hope that it would begin to collapse, which would make it easier for Congress to kill it.”

That’s because they’d know that the ACA started collapsing a year ago. Its collapse is inevitable because it’s terrible legislation. A relatively healthy person is better off not buying insurance because the ACA’s out-of-pocket expenses (premiums plus deductibles) in some states are so high that families are better off paying the penalty rather than buying the insurance. As I’ve written before, the ACA is catastrophic coverage at Cadillac plan prices.

And I can’t help thinking back to 2009. Republicans made an all-out effort to stop the Affordable Care Act. Their motives were purely political; some GOP senators railed against policies they had favored in the past. Ultimately, they failed.  Obamacare became law.

But this losing battle gave tremendous energy and passion to the tea party movement — which propelled Republicans to a sweeping victory in the 2010 midterm election. It is hard not to see an analogous situation on the Democratic side right now.

Democrats haven’t learned the TEA Party lesson, which is that politicians better listen to We The People or else. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t listen to people and lost 12 seats and 63 seats respectively. Chuck Schumer isn’t listening to the people, either. The chances of Democrats picking up Senate seats is remote at best.

Democrats cannot stop Gorsuch from being confirmed. But they can hearten and animate the party’s base by fighting this nomination tooth and nail, even if it means giving up some of the backslapping comity of the Senate cloakroom. They can inspire grass-roots activists to fight just as hard to win back state legislatures and governorships. They can help make 2018 a Democratic year.

This is delusional thinking. Democrats will lose more governorships and legislative seats because they’re owned by special interests. They haven’t talked about doing what’s best for the people. President Trump constantly talks about putting people first. Democrats reflexively side with environmental activists, which has alienated blue collar union rank-and-file.

Democrats in Illinois haven’t pressured Rahm Emanuel to actually crack down on Chicago’s crime-infested streets. New York City’s City Council hasn’t blasted Bill De Blasio’s sanctuary city policies. In both cities, people don’t feel safe. Former President Obama insisted that terrorism wasn’t a threat while ISIS killed people in shopping malls and at Christmas parties. The Obama administration insisted, too, that the borders were secured. Voters knew that wasn’t true.

Voters won’t vote for the party that won’t protect them. Right now, people don’t trust Democrats to handle the basic government functions. Until that happens, people won’t trust Democrats.

One of the questions that the supposedly MSM isn’t asking of Democrats concerns Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally straightforward. First, let’s inform people who’ve been comatose for the last 10 years that Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals with a 95-0 vote. That means Chuck Schumer voted for his confirmation. That means Joe Biden voted for him. That means Ted Kennedy voted to confirm him. That means Harry Reid voted for him.

One of the silliest arguments being made against confirming Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was made by Nan Aron, the founder of the Alliance for Justice. She told FNC’s Tucker Carlson that this time it’s different because the appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Ms. Aron’s reply is silly because appointments to all appellate courts are lifetime appointments. But I digress.

The questions that the MSM should ask Democrats that voted for Judge Gorsuch then and who are still in the Senate is this: Are you being dishonest now in calling Judge Gorsuch names? Were you that stupid when you voted to confirm him in 2006? If you’re being dishonest now, why should people trust your criticisms? If you were hoodwinked in 2006, why should people think that you aren’t getting it wrong this time?

Nan Aron’s opposition to Judge Gorsuch is simple: he wasn’t appointed by a Democratic president and because he’s wrong, in Nan’s opinion, on abortion. Aron’s litmus test, her religion really, is that everyone should ‘support a woman’s right to choose.’ Anyone who doesn’t hold that view is outside Ms. Aron’s mainstream.

Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker and Bernie Sanders won’t hesitate in filibustering Judge Gorsuch. That’s because they’re thinking about running for president in 2020. If they don’t filibuster, they’re toast in 2020. What’s still in question, though, is whether red state Democrats up for re-election in 2018 will filibuster, too. Sherrod Brown has announced he’ll vote against confirming Judge Gorsuch. The rest of the vulnerable Democrats are sitting silent.

Eventually, they’ll face a moment of truth. I don’t expect to see lots of profiles in courage at that point.

The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson is ancient history. The Democratic Party of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, aka The One-Man Pocket Veto, and (especially) Chuck Schumer can be described succinctly. They party of Obama, Reid and Schumer is all obstruction, all the time.

This article highlights just how unhinged today’s Democratic Party is. The article opens by saying “Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Monday predicted that Democrats would launch a filibuster against whoever President Trump picks for the Supreme Court. ‘This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,’ Merkley told Politico. ‘We will use every lever in our power to stop this. … I will definitely object to a simple majority.'”

This isn’t surprising. Democrats are upset because they thought they’d get former President Obama’s third term. They thought they’d win back the majority in the Senate, too, so they could confirm lots of liberal justices. Instead, they nominated a corrupt politician who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead, they gained 2 seats in the Senate when they needed 5.

The important point, though, is that today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in being public servants who listen to their constituents. Today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in putting America first. Today’s Democratic Party is mostly about complaining when they don’t get their way. Today’s Democratic Party is about obstruction when people say no to their ideological wish list.

Simply put, Sen. Merkley has passionately and emphatically stated that his fidelity is to the Democratic Party, not the people he was elected to represent or the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.

The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which has ties to McConnell, quickly sent out emails questioning whether the red-state Democrats would back Merkley’s filibuster.

Of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the group said: “Will he stand with the people of his state who overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump to be able to pick a Supreme Court nominee? Or will he stand with [Sens.] Elizabeth Warren [Mass.], Bernie Sanders [Vt.], and the rest of the Democratic caucus that only cares about its far left base of permanent protesters?”

If Democrats want to filibuster President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, let them. That will expose them as obstructionists who obstruct for the sake of appeasing their political base. Democrats don’t care about this:

Democrats only care about maintaining power.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , ,

The perfect Democrat is a toothless Democrat. These days, there’s lots of toothless Democrats in DC. House Democrats have been toothless since January, 2011. Now it’s the Senate Democrats’ turn to feel impotent. They’re feeling impotent because outgoing Democrat Leader Harry Reid went nuclear in 2013. Now that there’s a Republican administration forming, Democrats are finding out that they can complain a lot and little else.

For instance, Sen. Joe Donnelly, (D-IN), said “Tom Price has led the charge to privatize Medicare, and for this reason, I cannot support his nomination” this past week. His statement sounds tough but Price’s confirmation is all but official. Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would love to stop Jeff Sessions’ confirmation as Attorney General because Sen. Sessions will shut down illegal immigration. Thanks to Sen. Reid invoking the nuclear option, he’s toothless.

The best Sen. Schumer, (D-NY), can do is say that Sen. Sessions will get lots of touch questions during his confirmation hearing. It’s impossible to picture Sen. Sessions worrying much about the hearings. It’s difficult to picture any of Trump’s nominees worrying about the Democrats’ toothless trio:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., seemed to acknowledge that the only real weapon for Democrats is to try to make a good public case against Sessions, and hope the public starts calling for a new nominee. “We’ll be as persuasive as possible in what we say about it, hoping to reach and arouse as many people as possible.”

Good luck with that.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s impossible to think that the Nutroots lefties aren’t intent on holding onto their hold of the DNC after reading this article. These people aren’t willing to admit that most people think they’re nuts. For instance, when Katrina Vanden Heuvel spoke, she said the “people in South Carolina who run hotels, who understand — self-interest. They will be overrun by rivers and water if they don’t deal — deal with climate crisis.”

What idiot thinks that they’re going to win back coal miners and steel workers talking like that? I don’t doubt that Ms. Vanden Heuvel thinks that. Even if it’s true, which it isn’t, why would a coal miner support Ms. Vanden Heuvel’s policies? Hardline progressives like Ms. Vanden Heuvel simply don’t appeal to blue collar workers because their worship of the environment turns huge parts of the upper Midwest off politically.

Salena Zito highlights the Democrats’ disdain for blue collar workers in this article. Think of what the difference between the Democratic Party of LBJ, Hubert Humphrey and Pat Moynihan and the Democratic Party of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. Then read Ms. Zito’s column, which says “Since then white, traditional-values, working-class, predominantly male voters have been severed from their party so they could build an urban- and cosmopolitan-centered coalition of minorities, elites and women.”

For that matter, think of the difference between Mrs. Clinton’s disdain for Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin vs. President Clinton’s attention to those states. The contrast is stunning. Watch this video and tell me that this reminds you of the Democratic Party of 25 years ago:

If this is the new identity of the Democratic Party, they’d better prepare to lose lots of races in the 2018 midterms.

This NY Times article highlights the fact that liberals haven’t come to grips with the fact that the nation rejected President Obama’s agenda this past Tuesday night.

Dan Pfeiffer, a senior advisor to President Obama, said “It was not a rejection of Obama or Obama-ism. It was probably more about the two candidates running in this election.” It’s indisputable that Hillary wasn’t a good candidate. Still, this isn’t an either-or situation. Just like FBI Director Jim Comey didn’t lose this election for Hillary, it’s equally true that President Obama’s policies tied a millstone around Hillary’s neck, too.

Obamacare was something that Mrs. Clinton couldn’t avoid. With premiums skyrocketing right before the election, Hillary was essentially silent. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, Bill Clinton and Gov. Dayton criticized the ACA right before the election. From that point forward, Mrs. Clinton was trapped in an impossible situation. From that point forward, President Obama’s signature achievement was attacked. It will be largely dismantled, which is good news for families because it’s hurt more people than it’s helped.

President Obama’s aides are citing President Obama’s accomplishments:

Moreover, although Mr. Obama said that all of his progress would go “out the window,” advisers now argue the opposite: that many accomplishments cannot be overturned. He will be remembered, they said, for pulling the country out of the Great Recession, saving the auto industry, bringing home most troops fighting overseas, killing Osama bin Laden, enacting higher fuel efficiency standards and restoring relations with Cuba.

Killing bin Laden was something big that he’ll deservedly get credit for. I don’t think he’ll get credit for pulling the nation out of the Great Recession, though. TARP was enacted before the 2008 election. That pulled us out of the Great Recession. Further, Obamanomics never worked that well. Economic growth has been anemic for 8 years. (It’s difficult to claim that President Obama pulled us out of the Great Recession when economic growth was virtually nonexistent for 8 years.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to say that President Obama pulled us out of the Great Recession when voters elected Donald Trump. Trump specifically ran on a program that’s intent on reversing most of President Obama’s economic agenda. Trump plans on enacting tax reform, including the lowering of marginal tax rates, regulatory reform that’s killing the energy industry and repealing the ACA. I’m betting that this talking point will disappear once those things are enacted and the economy starts growing at a robust clip.

Bringing the troops home is something President Obama’s political base will appreciate but I don’t think the nation at-large agrees. They won’t agree because the price of bringing the troops home was the rise of ISIS.

This is President Obama from Fantasyland sounds like:

“When I think about the polarization that occurred in 2009 and 2010, I’ve gone back and I’ve looked at my proposals and my speeches and the steps we took to reach out to Congress,” he told the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in a pre-election conversation published by Vanity Fair. “And the notion that we weren’t engaging Congress or that we were overly partisan or we didn’t schmooze enough, or we didn’t reach out enough to Republicans — that whole narrative just isn’t true.”

First, Speaker Boehner didn’t reject President Obama’s stimulus plan out of hand. Second, it was President Obama that rejected the Republicans’ ideas without giving them serious consideration. He told Eric Cantor that “elections have consequences. You lost.”

When his policies get dismantled, which is inevitable, he’ll have nobody but himself, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to blame.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s endorsement isn’t like most political endorsements. You know that when you read “Few politicians can match Rep. Heck’s impressive resume. He is a medical doctor and is a brigadier general in the U.S. Army Reserve. Rep. Heck was last deployed to the Middle East in 2008 when he commanded a Baghdad-area combat hospital. He offers a moderate and sensible viewpoint on most issues and has made it a priority to improve health care in rural Nevada. His experience in the medical field and the military would be a welcome asset to the upper chamber, as would be his willingness to reach out across the aisle to find common ground.”

Most candidates would be thrilled to get such an enthusiastic endorsement. The LVRJ’s endorsement goes further, continuing with “Ms. Cortez Masto, meanwhile, shows no such inclination. She has long operated as a liberal partisan, even disobeying Nevada law when the governor directed her as attorney general to join a coalition of states opposed to Obamacare. During her time as the state’s top law enforcement officer, her decisions too often wreaked of politics, culminating in her indictment, eventually dismissed by a judge, of a sitting Republican lieutenant governor on the flimsiest of charges.”

Then comes the finishing blow:

Joe Heck is the far superior candidate.

Prior to that endorsement, Masto led Heck in the RCP average of polls 45%-44.5%. That’s a tight race. Let’s see if the LVRJ endorsement make a difference. If Republicans flip that seat, it isn’t likely that there will be a Democrat majority in the Senate.