Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Democrats category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

A generation ago, the Democratic Party was a legitimate political party. It isn’t anymore. Today’s Democrats have gone so far around the bend that even lifelong Democrats have started backpedalling … fast. Jim Geraghty’s column illustrates just how foolish the Democratic Party is. What caught my attention is the paragraph that says “The Democratic party’s leaders haven’t changed their methods, either. They denounced Trump and his ‘Deplorables’ and the rest of the Republican party in the most furious terms in 2016, but that didn’t produce the results they wanted. In 2017, Democrats decided to just keep on doing that, but with more profanity.”

Later, Geraghty wrote “After 2016, one might have expected Democrats to reconsider their full embrace of identity politics. Instead they’ve doubled down. Instead of examining why so many voters in so many states rejected their arguments and philosophies, many within the academy and universities greeted 2017 by insisting even more adamantly that freedom of speech is dangerous and that you should be threatened or violently assaulted if you express a view they disagree with. Instead of giving the lecturing speeches at awards shows a break, Hollywood celebrities are becoming even more politically outspoken and strident, and even more openly contemptuous of roughly half their audience.”

Rational people wouldn’t think that Sending rioters to a congressman’s front steps isn’t a way to prove you’re rational, either:

These tactics might help fire up the Democratic Party’s bi-coastal base but they won’t help flip any of the districts or states that they’ll need to retake the House, Senate or the White House. Republicans will increase their margin in the Senate, thereby marginalizing John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul. Republicans will maintain their House majority, too. Most importantly, they’ll have net gains in terms of governorships, state legislators and total control of state governments.

This isn’t because Republicans are doing a great job. I’ve repeatedly said that they aren’t. It’s because Democrats are doing a great job frightening people, either with violence or unaffordable ideas like Medicare for All.

Next November, Democrats will gather somewhere to question what went wrong … again. The Media Wing of the Democratic Party won’t accept the fact that they’re hurting the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party won’t figure it out that their policies don’t appeal to many people. Instead, they’ll think that the enthusiasm that their supporters show are proof that they’re on the right track. They’ll be wrong … again.

Michael Starr-Hopkins is an attorney. He’s also a world-class Democratic spinmeister and a frequent contributor to the Hill magazine. In this op-ed, Starr-Hopkins verifies as fact that he’s a world-class Democratic spinmeister, saying “What happened to any semblance of political consistency? Republicans shouldn’t have to add falsities into their arguments, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn’t have to play to insecurities and fears to drive their party’s agenda, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn’t be willing to trick and misinform voters to win a political battle, but they choose to. Republicans are making a choice.”

Hopkins’ op-ed opens by talking about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s pardon. Hopkins’ opening paragraph says “Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans continue to perpetuate the racially-tinged myths that have gridlocked our government. Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans choose to pontificate about the illegality of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), while simultaneously defending the unconstitutional racial profiling by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the unconstitutional Muslim ban by President Trump.”

First, let’s introduce some facts into this dispute. The Supreme Court has halted all other courts from issuing an injunction on President Trump’s travel ban because they’ll hear arguments on whether it’s constitutional when their term opens in a couple of weeks. Until then, it isn’t proper to say that President Trump’s travel ban is unconstitutional. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has rightfully deferred to the President on issues of national security. It isn’t a stretch to think that’s what they’ll do this time. Next, racial profiling isn’t unconstitutional. Depending on the state, it might be illegal but it isn’t unconstitutional. (Shouldn’t an attorney know the difference between statutes and constitutional principles?)

Check out this paragraph:

Rewriting our political and racial history using identity politics isn’t just immoral and dangerous, it’s a desperate choice. Identity politics are destroying our ability to have honest conversations. Identity politics are destroying our ability to govern. Identity politics are a tool for distracting away from actual policy debates.

That’s pretty stunning. Democrats, not Republicans, have used identity politics for at least the last dozen years. When Mark Udall ran for re-election to the US Senate against Cory Gardner, Udall talked about getting out the women vote so often that the Denver Post nicknamed him Mark Uterus. Then there’s Hillary Clinton surrogate Madeleine Albright, who famously told female voters that “There’s a special place in hell for women don’t help each other”:

But I digress. During his interview with Tucker Carlson, Starr-Hopkins was asked why Nancy Pelosi said that people that had broken the law (DACA-protected illegal immigrants) had done a great thing for this nation. Starr-Hopkins said that that wasn’t what Ms. Pelosi said. Starr-Hopkins insisted that Ms. Pelosi said that these illegal immigrants had done a great thing for their families. The tape verifies that Starr-Hopkins didn’t get it right:

Approximately 3:25 into the video, Ms. Pelosi said “Their families did a great thing for our country, bringing these kids here, who are working…” Ms. Pelosi wasn’t praising the parents for their heroism towards their families. She spoke specifically about how illegal immigrants had helped the United States.

My exhortation is to question everything that Starr-Hopkins says. I’d start with a disposition of distrust because he’s given me tons of reason for not trusting him. That’s just the truth.

Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp are 3 of the most vulnerable Democrats in the US Senate that are up for re-election in 2018. They’ve tried portraying themselves as moderates. The importance of Paul Mirengoff’s post is that it provides proof that this trio are phonies.

According to Mirengoff’s post, “President Trump chose Noel Francisco for Solicitor General. Francisco has a distinguished background. He clerked for Judge Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then for Justice Scalia.” Judge Luttig is J. Michael Luttig, one of the most distinguished conservative jurists of the last century or 2. Mirengoff then noted that “the Senate confirmed Francisco” by a vote of 50-47. Mirengoff noted that the vote “was strictly along party lines”, with Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp voting with Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Mirengoff then wondered whether this trio of so-called moderates would vote for a more moderate candidate for President Trump’s administration. This time, he talked about Rachel Brand, the Associate Attorney General. Mirengoff described her as “a center-right figure and thus, decidedly less conservative than Francisco.” Mirengoff then noted Brand’s confirmation vote, which was “52-46,” with “Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp all [voting] no.” Finally, Mirengoff compared these ‘moderates’ votes for Neil Gorsuch, the conservative jurist and the newest member of the Supreme Court. Here’s what he wrote:

Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp all voted to confirm Justice Gorsuch. What does this tell us? It tells us that in a high profile vote that might affect their reelection chances, these three Red State Democrats won’t oppose a very conservative nominee. On an under-the-radar vote, they will oppose not only a very conservative nominee, but also a center-right one.

It tells me they are phonies.

At one point, there was talk that Manchin would switch parties. It’s pretty apparent that won’t happen. The only way to get rid of these phonies is by defeating them in the 2018 midterm elections. It doesn’t bother me that they’re moderates. It’s that they’re dishonest. If people pretend that they’re moderates but then they vote with Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, then they can’t be trusted. It’s time to throw them out if they aren’t trustworthy.

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

When Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration was ending DACA, Planned Parenthood threw a world-class hissy fit. Cecille Richards said “here at Planned Parenthood, we firmly believe that every person has the right to live, work, and raise a family freely and without the threat of deportation or separation.” Within minutes, the Twitterverse reacted. Erielle Davidson replied “Irony is dead.” Cameron Gray tweeted “And PETA just endorsed bacon.” Steve Ahlers replied, saying “Sounds like PP is making a strong case against PP.”

The point is that Planned Parenthood, or more precisely, Cecille Richards, is a Democratic operative more than she’s an pro-abortion zealot. That isn’t to say Ms. Richards is a disinterested bystander on abortions. She isn’t. The point is that she’s a willing ‘soldier’ for the progressive cause. I suspect that she’s a climate change believer. Further, I suspect that she’s an anti-war activist that would fit perfectly with CODEPINK.

This isn’t uncommon with progressives. Groupthink isn’t just a byword with them. It’s who they are.

Richards continued, saying “I’m infuriated. I’m heartbroken. But I’m sure about one thing: Planned Parenthood stands with DREAMers, the young people in this community who are the future of this country, then adding that DACA has “helped so many young DREAMers access health care, get driver’s licenses, receive an education, and work to provide for their families — and without DACA, their fate and ability to remain in this country is unknown.”

Thanks to the flood of illegal immigrants into the US during the Obama administration, wages dropped in factories. The white working class got the message. The Democratic Party that fought for them had disappeared. The DNCC was mostly interested in attracting Hispanics, the newest growing demographic group. Democrats got so infatuated with Hispanics that they forgot (ignored?) the white working class.

Ben Shapiro criticized and mocked Richards’ statements in this interview:

Suffice it to say that Shapiro ripped Richards’ statement to shreds.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Keith Ellison’s strained logic just got him in trouble again. This time, Ellison compared DACA-protected illegal immigrants to Jewish victims in Nazi Germany. Before going totally off the deep end, Ellison started off by saying “heard today as many as 3 million DACA recipients live with someone who is a citizen of the United States. Add that to the people who work with DACA recipients. Add that to the people who are the parents of a DACA recipients. Add that to people who are parents to America citizens. You are literally talking about over 100 million Americans who are in some way—way more than 100 million, maybe well over that—who are deeply connected to people who have immigrated to the United States, some with official papers some with not. So this is not someone else’s fight. This is all our fight, but some are in the bull’s-eye, and others of us are not exactly the target. Therefore, it is our responsibility to stand up and fight and do the right thing.”

Had he stopped there, he might’ve been alright. He would’ve gotten criticized for his logic (or lack thereof) but he wouldn’t have gotten criticized like he’s getting criticized right now. That’s because Ellison continued, saying “I’m going to tell you right now, I’m one of the people who believe we should give our neighbors sanctuary. And if you ask yourself what I would do if I were a Gentile in 1941, if my Jewish neighbors were under attack by the—by—by the Nazis? Would I give them sanctuary? You might be about to find out what you would do. Will you pass that moral test or will you fail it?”

Ellison’s moral relativism is frightening. German Jews were just that — Jews who had been living in Germany for generations. How is that even slightly like Mexicans and OTMs who came illegally into the United States? Keith Ellison’s comparison is offensive. Illegal immigrants getting deported isn’t even slightly like Jewish victims sentenced to death chambers like Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, Sobibór, and Be??ec. To suggest otherwise is foolish.

The first part of this video is pretty contrived but it isn’t offensive like Ellison’s comparison of DACA-protected illegal immigrants to Holocaust victims. Still, it’s worth examining. First, there are reportedly 800,000 DACA recipients, not 3,000,000. Further, why should anyone think that people harboring illegal immigrants are worthy of sympathy?

This is Ellison’s first extended time on the big stage. Prior to this, he was just a back-bencher with a shtick. Now that the spotlight’s on him, we’re finding out that he’s months away from being ready for primetime. It isn’t unreasonable to think that he’ll never be ready for primetime.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Jazz Shaw’s post is today’s must reading for immigration hawks. In his post, Jazz cites this article. The highlight of the article comes when it starts citing statistics. Without further adieu, let’s get to those statistics.

The article’s opening paragraph says “Speaking on the second anniversary of the government’s move to seal Hungary’s border with Serbia — which is also an external border for the European Union — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Chief Security Advisor, György Bakondi, announced that the fences have caused illegal immigration to collapse from 391,000 in 2015, to 18,236 in 2016, to just 1,184 in 2017.” According to Jazz, that’s a 99% drop in illegal immigration. Actually, it’s a 99.7% drop in illegal immigration but what’s seven-tenths of a point amongst friends?

Jazz sums things up perfectly, saying “The math here should be a bit too much for any but the most willfully blind to ignore. In 2015 there were an estimated 390,000 illegal border crossings. Thus far this year the number is barely over one thousand. That’s not just impressive… it’s staggering.

The next time a wobbly Republican or a weak-on-law-and-order-Democrat start whining about the cost of building the wall or how walls don’t work or other BS, point them to this article, then ask them if a 99.7% decrease in illegal immigration is worth paying for. I’m betting that we’ll find that border security isn’t a priority with these politicians. It’s time to let them know that they’re in the minority. Yes, a majority of people want DACA-protected illegal immigrants to stay but it’s also true that they want the border wall built.

This information proves that walls work in keeping out drug cartels while stifling human trafficking in addition to stopping illegal immigration. Democrats and GOP fluffs like John McCain and Jeff Flake don’t support the wall. Is it because they want a deal so badly that they’re willing to ignore the other national security threats posed by lax border enforcement?

Here’s hoping that President Trump plays hardball with Democrats. This isn’t just another issue. To those living along the southern border, it’s a matter of life and death. Literally. Things have improved since President Trump took over, thanks mostly to Jeff Sessions’ work in taking border security seriously. What’s important, though, is noting that, without a wall, Democrats can stop taking border security seriously … again. and we’d be right back with floods of illegal immigrants again.

The wall will stop that flood forever. That’s the last thing that Democrats want, though minds are changing about that. As they settle into this country, lots of Hispanic immigrants start thinking of themselves as white. If that’s the case, then the political advantage for Democrats is overstated, which is a game-changer. At that point, enforcement becomes the most important issue. Once the fight moves onto that turf, Democrats, McCain and Flake lose.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Apparently, Julian Zelizer thinks that single-payer health care could be the thing that stops the Democrats’ losing streak. That’s foolishness. According to Zelizer, “Critics within the Democratic Party are warning that this is a move in the wrong direction. The party would be latching onto an idea that is far too radical. It would alienate moderate voters who don’t want bigger government and stimulate fierce opposition that would make the tea party look like kid’s play. But the critics are wrong. Medicare for All could be a winning political issue for the party. It does not need to turn out like the Republican’s failed attempts at repeal and replace.”

Dr. Zelizer is right. Single-payer wouldn’t “need to turn out like the Republican’s failed attempts at repeal and replace.” With single-payer estimated to cost almost as much per year as the entire federal budget, a failure the size of the Republicans’ repeal and replace fiasco would be insignificant. When the Speaker of California’s House of Representatives has to be pressured by California’s Nurses’ Union into giving their single-payer bill a single hearing, you know it’s a Titanic-sized disaster.

According to estimates, California’s single-payer plan would cost their state $400,000,000,000. Per year. Scale that out to paying for everyone in the United States and the total cost skyrockets to $3.000,000,000,000. Per year. Then there’s this:

The most important contribution that Sanders’ plan would make is to offer Democrats a clear and compelling idea to fight for at a time that the party has seemed aimless — other than in its hatred of President Donald Trump. After too many years of small ball, Sanders’s proposal would offer Democratic officials and candidates the opportunity to think big and to show that they have a concrete vision for making the lives of working-class Americans better.

There’s no disputing that people could accuse Democrats of playing small ball after that. People would be able to accuse Democrats of being insane but that isn’t anything new.

The thing that voters care about is whether ideas provide solutions. It isn’t just that single-payer isn’t a solution. It’s that it creates another set of problems to be saved from. There’s no way to pay for it!

Dr. Zelizer talked frequently about the Republicans’ repeal and replace efforts. He insisted that Obamacare couldn’t be replaced because too many people like it. That’s foolishness. Here in Minnesota, the legislature didn’t just let Obamacare ruin the individual market. They reformed it by implementing a reinsurance option. If HHS approves the program, health insurance premiums will stabilize.

The lesson to be learned is that people are open to change. It’s just that people demand that it be positive change.

I can’t say that I’m surprised that Keith Ellison has blocked me on Twitter. He talks trash but he doesn’t back it up. This evening, Rep. Ellison tweeted “Rep. Keith Ellison If you want to raise wages, then you must rebuild the Labor Movement. No two ways about it.” Of course, he didn’t explain how he’d rebuild the labor movement without actually building things.

Rep. Ellison, why doesn’t the DFL support replacing the Enbridge Line 3 Pipeline? Nationally, Democrats talk all the time about infrastructure projects. In Minnesota, the DFL constantly talks about the Bonding Bill as their jobs bill. The DFL is fantastic at building museums, arenas and civic centers. Their record is awful at building (or replacing) critical infrastructure that makes farmers’ lives easier.

The biggest point of this is to highlight the fact that Democrats, both locally and nationally, aren’t interested in rebuilding our nation’s (and our state’s) infrastructure if it has anything to do with improving people’s lives. When’s the last time we heard main street say that a new museum or civic center made their life better or had a multiplier effect on the economy? When’s the last time a new hockey arena created hundreds of long-term jobs that paid middle class wages? Sure, the cronies running those arenas make money but does anyone else get paid solid middle class wages?

This is the Democrats’ infrastructure plan:

The plan would provide billions of dollars in funding for road, bridge and sewer improvements, expanded broadband internet access in rural areas, railroad repair, public school construction and expanded port and waterway infrastructure. It includes a $200 billion “vital infrastructure fund” that would finance major projects such as rail lines and tunnels connecting New York City and New Jersey.

Noticeably missing are pipelines and refineries.

The US Senate must abolish their tradition of giving blue slips to senators in a judicial nominee’s home state. It must happen ASAP, too. This article illustrates how this quaint tradition is getting abused.

According to the article, “Scott Cottington lives and has been working in Minnesota as a political consultant for several years. When I asked for his opinion, as an observer of politics and Minnesotan he told me on the phone, ‘This is partisanship pure and simple. If you look at what Franken did to Gorsuch, between Gorsuch and Stras, he’s being intellectually so dishonest and he’s doing it for partisan posturing purposes.'”

Let’s be honest. Al Franken is a political hatchet man. He isn’t a man of integrity. Back when he hosted a radio talk show, he got embroiled in a most unsavory scandal. According to the article, “A month ago Al Franken claimed ignorance of the transfers. ‘I didn’t know anything about this until late last week,’ he told Air America listeners on Aug. 8. The network’s brass echoed this: Air America CEO Danny Goldberg told the New York Sun this week that the ‘on-air talent’ has ‘never had any responsibility for this loan.’ This seemed plausible at the time, since no one expects the talent to be arranging finances, so in our Aug. 3 editorial on the subject, we gave Mr. Franken a pass. Regrettably, it appears we shouldn’t have. In light of documents that surfaced last week, it looks to be the case that as of November 2004, and possibly earlier, Mr. Franken knew the amount of money, the money’s origins and the dates the transfers occurred. This came to light after a settlement agreement between former and current owners of Air America, a document which details the Gloria Wise transfers, was leaked to Michelle Malkin and Brian Maloney, who promptly posted the document on their Web sites. The document shows that Mr. Franken signed off on the settlement, and did so in the presence of a notary public, no less.”

This is the man that’s holding up a confirmation hearing of Justice David Stras? It’s frightening enough that he’s a US senator. It’s disgusting that he essentially holds a one-man veto power over a highly qualified jurist. It’s time for the Senate to rethink some of its traditions.

What’s the value of consulting senators from a judicial nominee’s home state? What information can they provide that isn’t already known by the Judiciary Committee? Another important question is whether blue slips are being used too frequently for purely partisan purposes. In this instance, it’s clearly being used for purely partisan purposes. This video illustrates how dishonest and mean-spirited Sen. Franken is:

At one point, Sen. Franken, the man who lied about knowing about a loan he signed off on, accuses a judicial nominee of lying. At another point, he accused the judicial nominee of letting her religious faith direct her judicial rulings:

This is why Senator Al Franken, (D-MN), asked Barrett about speaking honorariums she received from the religious-liberty nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, comparing the group to the late Cambodian leader Pol Pot. (The group was recently smeared by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group for pursuing religious-freedom cases in court.) “I question your judgment,” the former star of Stuart Saves His Family lectured the ‘mother of seven.

It’s disgusting that a liar would question a person’s judgment. Personally, I’ve questioned Sen. Franken’s character for years. It’s been proven that he’s lied about loans he’s signed off on. He’s an admitted cokehead:

He then he says that in his book, he writes “pretty frankly” about the fact that drugs were a regular part of life on the show, at least in those early years. Franken reveals how he did acid at Grateful Dead concerts and smoked dope and snorted cocaine.

But with regard to his own drug use, including of cocaine, Franken explained that he was careful to never abuse it, unlike cast mates such as Belushi, who died in 1982 of a drug overdose.

But I digress. Asking questions about a person’s religious beliefs is prohibited by the Constitution:

Since Durbin inquired in the form of a question, we can only assume that Barrett’s answer was pertinent to the confirmation. That is problematic, considering that the Constitution explicitly states that no religion, not even a belief in orthodox liberalism, should be a prerequisite for holding a federal office.

It’s apparent that the Constitution is just a set of suggestions to DC Democrats. It’s time to drain the swamp.

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

There’s no denying the fact that Bernie Sanders doesn’t believe in timidity. That doesn’t mean he believes in total transparency. It just means that he’s prone to proposing wild ideas.

Proposing the Medicare for All Act of 2017 fits into that category. Intelligent people don’t propose legislation like that. Intelligent people don’t co-sponsor legislation like that, either. Matthew Continetti’s article highlights how far left the Democratic Party has drifted.

According to the article, “‘Mr. Sanders did not say how he would pay for his bill,’ writes Robert Pear of the New York Times. ‘Aides said he would issue a list of financing options.’ The ‘options’ are not included in the bill—but they are enough to raise the hair on the back of one’s neck.”

Sen. Sanders didn’t include his financing preferences because his bill is unaffordable. According to this LA Times article, “A single-payer healthcare system in California — a galvanizing cause among the state’s progressive flank — would cost $400 billion annually, according to a legislative analysis released on Monday.” Later, the article states:

The analysis, released in advance of the proposal’s hearing in a key fiscal committee, fills in what has so far been the biggest unanswered question concerning the plan to dramatically overhaul California’s healthcare coverage. The analysis found that the proposal would require:

A total cost of $400 billion per year to cover all healthcare and administrative costs. Of that, $200 billion of existing federal, state and local funds could be repurposed to go toward the single-payer system. The additional $200 billion would need to be raised from new taxes.

California’s population represents approximately one-eighth of the US population. Multiply that $400,000,000,000 times 8 to get to the approximate annual cost of Sen. Sanders’ hoax. This isn’t a plan because Sen. Sanders all but officially admits that it’s impossible to fund his fantasy:

The Sanders bill would add hundreds of millions of people into an already financially-strapped program while making it more generous — within four years. At no point in the legislation does he describe how he would expect to pay for this ambitious idea or deal with massive disruption it would mean for businesses, workers, and those trying to access care.

Not dealing with a massive spending increase is like declaring war but forgetting to name who you’ve declared war on. That’s utter insanity. Here’s Bernie and his politically suicidal friends touting Bernie’s Medicare for All Act of 2017:

Technorati: , , , ,