Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category
Based on this article, Hillary’s attempt to capitalize politically on the Charleston Massacre is failing. Check this out:
Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered on Saturday her boldest remarks yet on race and gun violence, topics that have quickly become some of the most prominent and divisive in the presidential campaign, particularly after Wednesday’s mass shooting in Charleston, S.C.
“It’s tempting to dismiss a tragedy like this as an isolated incident, to believe that in today’s America bigotry is largely behind us, that institutionalized racism no longer exists,” Mrs. Clinton said in a speech in San Francisco. “But despite our best efforts and our highest hopes, America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.”
Invoking President Obama at times, Mrs. Clinton called for a “common sense” approach to gun laws, pledging to take swift action if elected. She did not, however, make clear how she would navigate the divide in Congress that has undercut Mr. Obama’s own efforts to pass gun laws. “The president is right. The politics on this issue have been poisoned,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But we can’t give up. The stakes are too high. The costs are too dear. And I am not and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common sense reforms.”
Mrs. Clinton, it’s easy talking about “common sense reforms” without explaining the details. Who isn’t for common sense reforms of whatever the subject is? The thing about “common sense reforms” without including the reforms’ details is that it sounds like a cheap politician repeating a focus group-tested message. That isn’t a solution. One thing that’s apparent is that Mrs. Clinton isn’t interested in leading.
Will Mrs. Clinton propose a ban on assault weapons like her husband passed? Or will she propose closing the non-existent gun show loophole? Will she propose things like they passed in Colorado and New York? Will Mrs. Clinton propose something entirely different? Proposing gun control legislation will fire up Hillary’s supporters. It won’t solve problems.
The important question that Ed Henry or other journalists with integrity should ask Sec. Clinton is how gun control would’ve made a difference at that church in Charleston last week. If she can’t answer that, then the next question should be why Hillary’s pushing gun control when it wouldn’t have solved anything.
It’s time reporters put Hillary on the spot. Let Hillary know that we’ll reject her if she isn’t offering solutions. Send Hillary the message that we won’t tolerate her chatting about checking off items from her ideological wish list.
Hillary’s panderfest on the Charleston shootings was a portrait of the type of ‘leadership’ she’d bring to the White House. Here’s what she said that’s dangerous:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton challenged the nation Thursday to take new actions to curb gun violence in her first reactions to the shooting inside a historically black Charleston, S.C., church that left nine dead.
“How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?” she asked, during a summit of elected and appointed Latino politicians meeting in Las Vegas. She began by saying that her thoughts and prayers were with the victims and their families in the shooting, before turning to a broader discussion of police. “So as we mourn and as our hearts break a little more, and as we send this message of solidarity that we will not forsake those who have been victimized by gun violence, this time we have to find answers together,” Clinton said.
That thinking is straight from the progressives’ surely-we-must-do-something chapter of their strategy handbook. It’s filled with emotion, which is understandable. Unfortunately, it’s equally devoid of constructive ideas, much less solutions.
This is essentially Hillary’s “I feel your pain” moment. That’s nice but saying that we have to curb gun violence, then not offering a solution is cruel.
Let’s unwind this a bit. The alleged murderer was a bigot who’d been in trouble with the law relatively frequently. That’s indisputable, verified fact. He’d gotten kicked out of a Charleston shopping mall and told never to return. Instead of never returning, he tried returning, only to get thrown out again.
His punishment for these actions? His father bought him a handgun for his birthday. There are laws already on the books that prohibit criminals from owning guns. Would another law covering the same thing matter? I’m betting it wouldn’t. BTW, I’d prosecute the father for supplying the weapon to his obviously deranged son.
Remember that the alleged murderer was a bigot. He read skinhead literature, too. One of his friends said that he’d planned this “for 6 months.” There’s another human failure. If this friend knew this, why didn’t he contact authorities?
Finally, what gun control legislation would’ve prevented this heinous crime? We know that gun control laws that’ve been proposed in the last 5 years wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook or Aurora or the shooting of Gabby Giffords.
The first step to solving these violence issues is for Democrats to stop blaming the guns. The people who’ve done these killings are violent individuals. Until you change people’s hearts, no laws will matter.
In typical progressive do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do fashion, Russ Feingold has exposed himself as just another typical career politician:
According to a report earlier this week by the Journal Sentinel’s Dan Bice, Feingold’s political action committee, Progressives United PAC, bought 100 leather-bound copies of the ex-senator’s 2013 book, along with 1,000 hardcover copies. Feingold also received $77,000 in salary from both the PAC and its nonprofit companion.
Of course, Feingold’s act for years has been not having an act. As a champion of campaign finance reform, he has consistently condemned the pernicious effects of money in politics. But evidently his distaste for campaign cash wasn’t enough to keep him from bathing his cronies in greenbacks.
The PAC was created with the stated goal of “directly and indirectly supporting candidates who stand up for our progressive ideals.” But instead, it appears it existed almost solely to support salaries for Feingold loyalists who lost their jobs after his 2010 loss to businessman Ron Johnson. Bice calculated that nearly 90% of the $7.1 million raised between January of 2011 and March of 2015 went to fundraising or staff salaries, including $317,823 to Feingold’s former chief of staff, Mary Irvine. All told, Feingold, Irvine and eight former staffers drew salaries or consulting fees from the fund.
We’re talking about the same principles as the Clinton Foundation except on a significantly smaller scale. The Clinton Foundation was essentially a holding spot for Hillary’s campaign-in-waiting:
The media’s focus is on Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, and whether she took official actions to benefit her family’s global charity. But the mistake is starting from the premise that the Clinton Foundation is a “charity.” What’s clear by now is that this family enterprise was set up as a global shakedown operation, designed to finance and nurture the Clintons’ continued political ambitions. It’s a Hillary super PAC that throws in the occasional good deed.
Other than in scale and the Foundation’s “occasional good deed”, how is Feigold’s PAC different than the Clinton Foundation?
This is a big deal. It isn’t that progressives will abandon Feingold. It’s that independents that thought of him as a straight shooter will abandon him. This will still be a featured race in 2016 but this Journal-Sentinel article will definitely hurt Feingold.
The last 2 nights, Megyn Kelly has featured Amherst University’s decision to expel a student after a woman accused him of rape. Here’s the video of Monday night’s segment:
There’s no excuse for what Amherst University did. First, the fact that a woman waited 2 years before ‘reporting’ a rape should’ve been a hint to Amherst that this case should be viewed with a healthy bit of skepticism. Second, after the alleged rape was reported, the female student’s texts were recovered from a third party. They showed that the female student did more than consent to having sex. The texts showed she initiated sexual contact. In fact, it went further than that. After having sex with the man she accused of raping her, she texted another male student and asked him to “entertain” her.
It’s disturbing is that Amherst didn’t reverse the male student’s ejection from Amherst after the texts were discovered. What’s more disturbing is that the accused student wasn’t allowed representation. Further, it was against US Department of Education rules to let that female student to be cross-examined by the male student’s attorney because it might be a traumatic experience for the accuser.
This unnamed male student has hired legal counsel. They’re likely to file a lawsuit against Amherst and the Department of Education for violating the student’s due process rights. If ever there was a slam dunk case, this is it. Amherst didn’t show any interest in the accused student’s constitutional rights. The accused student was stripped of his ability to defend himself. When exculpatory evidence was discovered and presented to Amherst, it was treated as if it didn’t exist.
This is the video of last night’s segment on the Amherst story:
That the US Department of Education put together these guidelines that leave students essentially defenseless against accusers is disgusting. Brit Hume is right. It’s an article of faith that there’s a culture of rape on college campuses. The studies that purport to show this epidemic have been thoroughly discredited. Another thing that’s disgusting is that the US Department of Education would implement a plan that ignores students’ constitutional rights. The DOE didn’t water down the accused students’ constitutional rights. The US DOE just threw these students’ constitutional rights out entirely.
Technorati: Amherst University, US Department of Education, Culture of Rape, Dear Colleague Letter, Due Process Rights, Rights of the Accused, Cross-Examination, Exculpatory Evidence, Brit Hume, Megyn Kelly
Hillary Clinton is running for president to be, in her words, the champion for everyday people. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells rubbing together knows that’s BS but it’s her campaign so she gets to pick the mantra, regardless of how pathetic it sounds. Condi Rice isn’t running for president but she’s light years ahead of Hillary in terms of dignity:
When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.
That’s typical Condi. It’s what people expect from a woman of such stunning dignity. Here’s what we can expect from Hillary:
Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings. Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.
The politician that supposedly wants to be the champion of everyday people apparently puts a higher priority on gouging charities and raking in the cash for her political operation/charity.
That’s quite the contrast between the elitist politician and the gracious diplomat.
Hillary’s making millions on the backs of charities doesn’t speak well of her, though it definitely gives a new meaning to the old cliché that charity begins at home.
Couple Hillary’s unquenchable thirst to be filthy rich with her paranoia with the media and you’ve got Richard Nixon in a pantsuit. Here’s what her campaign did to a reporter who wrote the unflattering truth about Clinton Inc.:
A DNC spinmeister later told Megyn Kelly that it was just a mix-up with the reporter’s credentials, something that Ms. Kelly didn’t believe. Mr. Zimmerman, a loyal DNC activist, said that the Clintons don’t have a history of banning reporters. While I don’t disagree with that statement, I know that the Clintons, Hillary especially, have a history of being vindictive and of paying their political enemies back for telling the unflattering truth about them.
Here’s the important questions that Americans must ask themselves about Hillary:
- Do we want a president that shakes down charities while lining the pockets of their own charity?
- Do we want a president that’s vindictive towards a reporter after that reporter writes unflattering truths about the politician?
- Do we trust a politician that has a history of being vindictive and secretive to be trustworthy and transparent if elected to be president?
I’ll answer that last question: I wouldn’t trust Hillary to be trustworthy if she achieves her ultimate ego trip of being president. She’d be like Nixon if that happened.
It’s clear that the DSCC will do everything possible to defeat Ron Johnson, (R-WI). Unfortunately for them, Russ Feingold is known for just one thing: the BCRA, aka McCain-Feingold. Russ Feingold is half of the dimwitted duo that wanted to restrict people’s ability to voice their worries about politicians during an election cycle. Let’s highlight that.
Russ Feingold thinks that government should have the right to restrict what citizens say and when they can say things. That’s because Russ Feingold is one of those politicians that think they know what’s best and that citizens have to be told what to do for their own benefit.
That’s the epitome of elitism. It’s breathtaking that elitists want to protect us uppity peasants from ourselves.
We need straight shooters like Ron Johnson in the Senate. Follow this link to contribute to Sen. Johnson’s campaign. Re-electing Sen. Johnson should be one of the Republicans’ highest priorities in 2016.
If there’s a central theme to David Schultz’s post, it’s that liberalism has died. If he would’ve called me, I could’ve told him that. Liberalism is dead in the Democratic Party. It’s been replaced by collectivism and progressivism. In the late 1970s, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared that the Democratic had stopped being the party of ideas. He was right. Prof. Schultz apparently is just noticing:
What the hell ever happened to progressive politics and liberalism in the Democratic Party?
When I first moved out here DFLers bowed to the memory of Humphrey, McCarthy, Freeman, and Mondale. Later they added to that Wellstone. But such homage is living in past, shallow in the sense that the DFL today lacks the courage of the convictions it once had. The same is true for Democrats at the national level.
It’s clear that Prof. Schultz is extremely agitated. Look at the number of punctuation mistakes that are contained in those 71 words. But I digress.
If Prof. Schultz hasn’t noticed that the DFL locally and the Democratic Party nationally have become political machines only, then I question whether he has the expertise to be a college professor. While there’s no question that Prof. Schultz is a lefty, there’s a question about whether he’s thought things through. In case he hadn’t noticed, machine politics has failed. Detroit and Baltimore are prime examples of machine politics failing nationally. Duluth and the Iron Range are perfect examples of how progressive machine politics has failed in Minnesota.
In Minnesota a governor who just a few months was heralded in the national media as the most liberal one in America who got the job done, just folded to the Republicans on almost any measure. The giveaways on the environment, gun silencers, gutting the State Auditor’s office, and retreating on universal pre-K send signals that Republicans can win if they hold long enough. And then there is Senate majority Leader Tom Bakk- why he is a Democrat is anyone’s guess. His leadership was deplorable, his messaging horrific, and his negotiating skills next to none. If he thinks that his capitulation will defend and protect Senate seats in 2016 he is simply wrong. His gaffes and missteps only make suburban DFLers more vulnerable and he has done nothing to convince rural voters to support Democrats. He made the classic mistake Democrats have made for so long, believing that by acting like Republicans they are more electable. The reality is that the more the Democrat brand is muddled and undistinguished the harder it is to win an election.
Actually, Gov. Dayton giving up on universal pre-K was mostly a matter of Republicans having the superior argument. (Apparently, public policy isn’t Prof. Schultz’s strong suit.) Ditto with the MPCA’s Citizens Board. There simply wasn’t a justification for what is essentially a patronage board with real life implications. The Citizens Board didn’t serve a useful function.
Prof. Schultz, when you fight for bad policies, don’t be surprised if you lose. This year, the DFL fought for one terrible idea after another. The DFL came into this session thinking that they could just force House Republicans into capitulating. That was a big mistake.
The politics that looks dead is good old-fashioned economic liberalism. The progressive politics that appears dead is that of Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Teddy Roosevelt. It is about the Great Society and the New Deal. It is about redistributive politics that sought to raise those at the economic bottom, narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and wrestle control of political power in the United States from corporations and plutocrats. It was a commitment to believing that the government had an important role in make sure we had a nation that was not one-third ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed, that kids should not go off to school hungry, and that corporations should not have the same rights as people.
That’s stunning. The Democrats sold their soul to the corporations. Think Christopher Dodd, Bill and Hillary Clinton, not to mention Barack Obama. They’re frequently feeding at the corporate trough.
That Prof. Schultz is just noticing these developments now says that he should’ve taken off his rose-colored glasses a generation ago.
Technorati: David Schultz, Academia, Mark Dayton, Tom Bakk, DFL, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, Machine Politics, Baltimore, MD, Detroit, MI, Iron Range, Duluth, Democratic Party
Based on Hillary’s speech Saturday, Hillary will need to relaunch the relaunch to her campaign. First, here’s the text of Hillary’s speech. The content of the speech was typical Hillary: tons of spin, tons of chutzpah and tons of identity politics. First, here’s a dose of Hillary’s chutzpah:
As a Senator from New York, I dedicated myself to getting our city and state the help we needed to recover. And as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I worked to maintain the best-trained, best-equipped, strongest military, ready for today’s threats and tomorrow’s. And when our brave men and women come home from war or finish their service, I’ll see to it that they get not just the thanks of a grateful nation, but the care and benefits they’ve earned.
I’ve stood up to adversaries like Putin and reinforced allies like Israel. I was in the Situation Room on the day we got bin Laden.
Hillary knows where she was when bin Laden was killed but she can’t tell us where she was when Christopher Stevens was killed on her watch. As for standing up to “adversaries like Putin”, this is closer to the truth:
Russia has felt free to threaten, then take, its neighbors. Crimea is just one example of Russia doing whatever it’ wanted to do. Let’s make another comparison that drives the point home:
A few short years later, the Berlin Wall crumbled, thanks in large part to President Reagan’s foreign policy, President Reagan’s robust economy and President Reagan’s willingness to push the USSR to the brink.
Hillary isn’t willing to push Putin to the brink. This administration’s foreign policy has highlighted red lines drawn and red lines erased. This administration’s foreign policy has highlighted underestimating our enemies, like ISIS and the Russians, then underreacting when they’ve laughed at us.
Next, let’s look at Hillary’s identity politics:
There are allies for change everywhere who know we can’t stand by while inequality increases, wages stagnate, and the promise of America dims. We should welcome the support of all Americans who want to go forward together with us.
There are public officials who know Americans need a better deal.
Business leaders who want higher pay for employees, equal pay for women and no discrimination against the LGBT community either.
There are leaders of finance who want less short-term trading and more long-term investing.
There are union leaders who are investing their own pension funds in putting people to work to build tomorrow’s economy.
Income inequality increases when progressives push a $15/hr. minimum wage. Hillary’s advocating for that. As for “business leaders who want higher pay for employees,” they’d pay more if they weren’t riddled with this administration’s strangling regulations that Hillary has supported. Hillary’s economic policies sound like they’re straight from the Obama handbook:
In the coming weeks, I’ll propose specific policies to:
Reward businesses who invest in long term value rather than the quick buck – because that leads to higher growth for the economy, higher wages for workers, and yes, bigger profits, everybody will have a better time.
I will rewrite the tax code so it rewards hard work and investments here at home, not quick trades or stashing profits overseas. I will give new incentives to companies that give their employees a fair share of the profits their hard work earns. We will unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing tax relief, cutting red tape, and making it easier to get a small business loan.
Businesses can’t create capital when tax compliance is expensive and regulations strangle capital creation. That’s what exists now. In this section of her speech, Hillary just proposed more of the same. With all due respect, that’s what has this economy ambling along. This is the weakest economic recovery in US history and Hillary wants to double down on it? No thanks.
QUESTION: Is there anything in Hillary’s speech that speaks to the future? ANSWER: No.
Hillary is so yesterday:
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Identity Politics, Foreign Policy, Vladimir Putin, Appeasement, Clinton Foundation, Democrats, Ronald Reagan, Tear Down This Wall, Mikhail Gorbachev, Election 2016
When Hillary relaunches her campaign this weekend, she’ll go personal:
At Clinton’s first official campaign rally this Saturday in New York City, aides say the Democratic presidential candidate will make her most extensive pitch yet on why she should be president. And her late mother, Dorothy Rodham, will play a central role. “No one had a bigger influence on my life or did more to shape the person I became,” Clinton wrote of her mother in her most recent memoir, “Hard Choices.” According to ABC’s LIZ KREUTZ, at Clinton’s rally this weekend, where Bill and Chelsea Clinton are expected to make their first official campaign appearances, Clinton will explain how her mother’s story has motivated her to run for president. http://abcn.ws/1Iy11oL
This is a feeble attempt to humanize Hillary. It’s destined to fail because she isn’t likeable. Putting lipstick on a pig might add color to the pig’s snout but the pig is still a pig.
The Clinton administration tried doing the same thing with Hillary’s ‘Pretty in Pink’ interview. Six months later, Hillary’s likability ratings had returned to where they were the day before her Pretty in Pink interview. It’s important to note that people were still forming their opinion about Hillary. They gave her the benefit of the doubt back then. Everyone knows her now. They won’t give her the benefit of the doubt this time.
“She is a well-known figure but when you’re asking the American people to support you as president, even if it is for the second time, there is no skipping of steps,” Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement. “If you want to understand Hillary Clinton, and what has motivated her career of fighting for kids and families, her mother is a big part of the story. The example she learned from her mother’s story is critical to knowing what motivated Hillary Clinton to first get involved in public service, and why people can count on her to fight for them and their families now.”
Hillary is a million miles removed from her late mother’s story. Remember her “I suppose I could’ve stayed at home” quote? She said it with the tone of being a mother was beneath her. Now she wants us to forget that? I don’t think that’ll work.
Earlier this week, I wrote this post about Greta van Susteren’s prediction of the King v. Burwell ruling. She predicted that the Supreme Court would rule against continuing the subsidies because the plain language is clear that only people who bought insurance through exchanges established by the state were eligible for subsidies. Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that that’s what happens.
Republicans fear that they’ll get blamed for the collapse of Obamacare. They shouldn’t. They should rejoice that the Supreme Court has struck down the heart of Obamacare. After a minute of rejoicing, they should then announce that they’re submitting a bill that includes the following features:
- The policies that people liked but couldn’t keep will again be considered QHPs, aka Qualified Health Plans.
- States would be given the option of either a) staying with Obamacare as it’s currently written, b) crafting their own version of a health care exchange or c) creating a hybrid that combines the best features that aren’t part of Obamacare with the best features of Obamacare.
- The new GOP bill would temporarily extend the subsidies 120 days so that states and the federal government can put something to replace Obamacare with.
Just saying that people can return to buying the policies that they were forced out of by Obamacare is reason for celebrating. Remember how upset people were when they got kicked off their policies that they liked? I do. They weren’t upset. They were furious and/or worried sick. Some saw it as a matter of life or death … because it was:
Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.
My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.
It’s time to parade victims of Obamacare in front of the cameras. Let’s start with Edie Littlefield Sundby, who sarcastically wrote that she had the “privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.” Next, let’s put Jim Hoft in front of the camera to tell his story about how his supposedly substandard policy saved his life.
President Obama will undoubtedly tell Congress that he won’t re-litigate the ACA. The RNC should start the ads described earlier in this post the minute President Obama essentially says it’s his way or the highway. Here’s what the first ad should say:
NARRATOR: President Obama says he won’t re-litigate the Affordable Care Act.
EDIE LITTLEFIELD-SUNDBY: Where do I go to get my old policy that I loved dearly and that literally saved my life? President Obama, will you really stand in the way of me getting my old policy back? Sign the Republicans’ bill that would let me buy my old policy again.
That ad alone would get Democrats wobbly. Even if President Obama would veto the bill, how many Democrats in the House and Senate that are up for re-election would vote to sustain President Obama’s veto?
It’s time that Republicans grew a pair. They’re playing 3 aces like a pair of deuces.