Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the blog archives for October, 2018.

Categories

Archive for October, 2018

I’m old enough to remember a time when Democrats knew how to substantively debate issues. I know that dates me but it’s worth mentioning. I even remember a time when Juan Williams was capable of participating in a substantive debate. Sadly, those days are gone.

Back in the good old days, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and even Bill Clinton were capable of participating in passionate, substantive debates. Juan Williams isn’t in Hitchens’ and Moynihan’s class. Greg Gutfeld is. Watch him utterly dismantle Williams’ shallow arguments in this video:

It was awesome watching Gutfeld say that he wouldn’t take criticisms about civility after Democrats ignored his book titled “The Joy of Hate” 5+ years ago. Gutfeld talked about how he warned that the pipe bombs would happen. He said that he “wrote 13 chapters on this. We talked about this on this show. I can’t take a lecture who ignored me about this concern.”

Greg Gutfeld’s argument was coherent. His predictions were right. Juan Williams’ arguments, by comparison, have utterly disappeared with time. The reason, in my theory, is that Democrats are great at reciting that day’s chanting points but they’re utterly inept at applying logic and data. The Democrats’ inability to grasp key principles is frightening.

This isn’t my dad’s Democratic Party. This bunch isn’t nearly as smart and considerably less patriotic.

This article is fascinating from the standpoint of exposing the next demographic group to exit the Democratic Party.

It starts by saying “Daniel Bonthius was never much interested in politics before Donald Trump came along. Both his parents are involved in the labor movement, but he earned a musical theater degree in Boston and moved to New York City to make it as an actor. Like many of the city’s aspiring actors, Bonthius, 33, was waiting tables and working for an event planner—and had been doing it for most of a decade when Donald Trump obliterated the political system in 2016. After the election, a shocked Bonthius invited friends over to his home in Sunnyside, Queens, a one-time Irish enclave that has seen an influx of new residents. “I just wanted to talk out what happened with people who felt the same way I did,” he says. That gathering eventually morphed into an Indivisible group, a grass-roots left-wing answer to the Tea Party, and in early 2017 it hosted a new candidate for Congress the first time she met with an organized group of voters: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”

What happened next is fascinating:

New York’s 14th Congressional District is more than 70 percent people of color, and 50 percent Hispanic. Ocasio-Cortez, who was born in the Bronx to a Puerto Rican mother, fit the district’s changing demographics, and neatly fit a larger narrative of a national Democratic Party in which increasing progressivism and diversity go hand and hand.

But a closer examination of the data tells a different story. Ocasio-Cortez’s best precincts were places like the neighborhood where Bonthius and his friends live: highly educated, whiter and richer than the district as a whole. In those neighborhoods, Ocasio-Cortez clobbered Crowley by 70 percent or more. Crowley’s best precincts, meanwhile, were the working-class African-American enclave of LeFrak City, where he got more than 60 percent of the vote, and portions of heavily Hispanic Corona. He pulled some of his best numbers in Ocasio-Cortez’s heavily Latino and African-American neighborhood of Parkchester, in the Bronx—beating her by more than 25 points on her home turf.

What’s noticeable is that blue collar Latinos and African-Americans rejected a progressive Latino. The progressive Latino attracted white collar people, the same as a white progressive would’ve. That’s pretty fascinating. Enter Blexit:

Don’t be surprised if blue collar people of color are the next demographic group to leave the Democrats.

It’s pretty clear that Keith Ellison knows a thing or two about being slippery. With a week left before Election Day, Keith Ellison is still attempting to slip away from Karen Monahan’s accusations.

It’s fun reading that “Keith Ellison stood in front of reporters this week desperate to redefine the attorney general’s race as his poll numbers slide. The Democratic congressman’s campaign has been overshadowed for the two months since his ex-girlfriend accused him of physical and emotional abuse.” As the candidate with near universal name recognition, he’s fighting a difficult problem:

Ellison has denied the allegations, but the damage was done. Once leading Republican opponent Doug Wardlow in polls, Ellison trails by 7 percentage points in the most recent Minneapolis Star Tribune/MPR News survey. Still, Ellison has hope: the same poll shows 16 percent of voters say they’re not sure who they’ll choose. So there he was Thursday in the basement conference room at the state Capitol, imploring voters to examine Wardlow’s record instead of his own troubles.

Ellison doesn’t have much hope. Most undecideds break away from well-known candidates. If they know who you are but are still undecided, that isn’t a vote of confidence. That’s a sign that voters aren’t satisfied with their options.

Here’s mathematical proof that Ellison is in trouble. Let’s suppose that 1,000 likely voters were polled. If Ellison is getting 36% of the vote, then convinced 2/3rds of undecideds to vote him, which is highly unlikely, Ellison would finish with 467 votes. Wardlow is getting 43% of the vote. If he convinced 33% of the undecideds to vote for him, he’d finish with 483 votes.

The reality is that Ellison isn’t likely to win 67% of undecideds. He’ll be lucky to convince 50% of undecideds to vote for him. If Ellison and Wardlow each won half of the undecideds, Wardlow would finish with 51% of the final vote. Frankly, Ellison’s support of Assata Shakur should disqualify him from being Minnesota’s Attorney General:

Then, too, so should Ellison’s statement that he wouldn’t uphold Minnesota laws he doesn’t like. It’s time to end Keith Ellison’s political career.

In this article, Keith Ellison, the DFL’s disgraced candidate for Minnesota’s Attorney General’s office, is quoted as saying “I value and honor all members of law enforcement and am grateful for the work they do every single day.”

With all due respect to Rep. Ellison, that’s a pile of BS. This letter supports #BlackLivesMatter, not law enforcement:

In the letter to the Bloomington City Attorney, Ellison is quoted as saying “I am writing in response to reports that you are considering issuing charges against the organizers of the Black Lives Matters protest at the Mall of America on Saturday, December 20.”

He then adds this:

I request that you reconsider using your prosecutorial discretion to issue such charges. The purpose of the protest was to draw attention to concerns about police-community relations in light of the deaths of Eric Garner, Michael Brown and others in confrontations with police.

Ellison finished his letter by saying this:

The demonstrations didn’t damage property and protesters remained peaceful the throughout the demonstration. Many Minnesotans were inconvenienced during the holiday shopping season and I understand their frustration. Nonetheless, I encourage you and city leaders to consider the broader context of what the protest represented…

Does that sound like a letter who “values and honors all members of law enforcement”? It sounds more like something that a Black Lives Matter activist might say.

Keith Ellison isn’t hiding the fact that he won’t uphold laws he doesn’t like. That’s what he’s saying in this video:

Ellison said “If the state legislature passes laws that don’t make sense, but are constitutional, then I’m going to have to cross that bridge when I get to it.” That statement is what I’d expect from a narcissist who thinks he’s the ultimate decider of which laws get enforced and which once won’t. Ellison isn’t arguing for the principle of prosecutorial discretion. He didn’t mention a lack of resources.

Specifically, Ellison talked about laws “that don’t make sense” but that are constitutional. Who gives him the authority to determine which laws makes sense? I’m certain that Minnesota’s Constitution doesn’t. What are Ellison’s criteria for judging which laws make sense?

Apparently, being Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer doesn’t interest Ellison, either:

Apparently, Ellison thinks that the Minnesota Attorney General’s office should be used to thwart President Trump’s agenda or advance the Democrats’ agenda. What else did he mean when he said “Some of my opponents have been trying to argue that I’m going to sort of leave the federal Congress to come back to Minnesota to try to use the state Attorney General’s Office as some sort of political platform. And the truth is I do plan on doing some national litigation.”

If Democrats want to sue President Trump, then let them raise the money and open their own law firm. Minnesota’s taxpayers shouldn’t pay the price for Keith Ellison’s or the Democrats’ activism.

The choice couldn’t be clearer. A vote for Keith Ellison is a vote for advancing the Democrats’ agenda of obstructing President Trump by any means necessary. A vote for Doug Wardlow is a vote to restore law and order in Minnesota.

I had to pinch myself to be certain I’d read this article right. I wasn’t imagining things. Sure enough, it really opened by saying “Two of the largest trade unions in Minnesota are backing the reelection campaign of Republican representative Jason Lewis against a Democratic business executive. The carpenters’ union and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49, both of which endorsed Hillary Clinton, will support the first-term congressman in the midterm elections in his rematch against former health care executive Angie Craig. Labor leaders praised Lewis’s record in Congress, highlighting his support for domestic energy development as well as his willingness to buck his political party. Lewis has supported Davis-Bacon, which favors union wage levels in federal projects despite the push in the conservative movement to abolish wage mandates.”

Here’s their explanation:

“In Jason’s time in Congress he has cast repeated votes in support of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage and has led on the issue of changing school curriculum to encourage more people to look at careers in the construction industry,” carpenters’ spokesman Adam Duininck said in a release.

First, if the name Adam Duininck sounds familiar, it’s because he was Mark Dayton’s chair of the Met Council. Then there’s this:

“Jason Lewis has made an effort to get to know our Union, understand our issues, and has taken politically tough stances in support of good paying Union jobs,” George said in a statement. “We don’t always agree on every issue, but we know that when it comes to supporting our jobs, he has stood with us, and that is why we are standing with him.”

Lewis offered this reply:

“I’m working hard to make certain we get Enbridge so we get the Pine Bend refinery in the second district … the oil it needs to grow the economy,” Lewis said in the Oct. 21 debate. “My opponent says, ‘well Sierra Club won’t let me endorse that.'” Lewis pledged to continue advocating for local laborers in Congress. He said he will continue to focus on workforce training and revamping the apprenticeship system, one of the Trump administration’s priorities, “so labor groups are able to thrive with adequately trained laborers.”

“This nation was built on the backs of hardworking Minnesotans like those belonging to these two groups and it is important we support them with our policies in Washington,” he said in a statement. “I am proud to have supported them in my first-term in Congress and look forward to continuing to work on their behalf.”

This is a major victory for Lewis. This can’t help Angie Craig.

Tim Walz just couldn’t resist the opportunity to play politics after the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting. After the shooting, Walz took to Twitter to say “As we learn more about what’s happened in Pittsburgh, my heart goes out to the victims, loved ones, first responders, and Jewish community at large. This is a pain that is all too familiar in America. We can and must take action to reduce gun violence in our communities.”

Does anyone seriously think he cares about the people killed by this gunman? I certainly don’t. This is just another attempt by Walz to curry favor with the gun grabber fringe in the DFL.


It’s clear that Tim Walz has gone from being a reliable vote for the NRA to being a reliable vote for Michael Bloomberg. He’s no longer a centrist. He’s a leftist. On Nov. 6, it’s time to retire Tim Walz, Tina Smith and Keith Ellison.

For months, we’ve been told that the Democrats’ blue wave would swamp Republicans. We’ve known for awhile that this was more wishful thinking than reality but that’s what we’d been told. Salena Zito, the woman who accurately predicted Trump’s victory, wrote this article, which states a contrarian theory.

She asked “But what if, in all of those details working against the Republicans, experts and pollsters missed that this midterm isn’t the brake-pedal that midterm elections typically are in a president’s first term? What if voters weren’t thinking Left/Right or stop/go as much as they were thinking in/out?”

She then wrote “For a lot of people, very little has changed in Washington since President Trump was elected. The swamp, the chaos, and the elites who know best are still there. And there’s only one thing standing between them and their betters — and that’s Trump.”

The Swamp is still intact. Democrats are getting more insane by the day. Those are things working in the Republicans’ favor. Something changed, though, during the Kavanaugh hearings:

The Kavanaugh fight might have re-sparked the old torches. As Democrats and the press came after the Supreme Court nominee and things looked bleak, Trump picked up the fallen flag of a Republican Party in retreat and charged the Establishment. And then, Lindsey Graham and the Republicans on that committee said, Follow him! And voters all around the country said, Follow them!

Like it or not, you have to view sentiments through the eyes of the voters who live outside D.C. and New York, who live in the swing districts and states that voted for Trump. They saw, for the first time, Republicans grow a spine and actually stand up angrily and loudly against Washington.

It was sort of like a Hell yeah, that’s why we sent Trump there moment. The un-energized Trump voters who don’t particularly like Republican or Democratic members of Congress decided they did like the party that stood up and fought against a mob leading a very Washington character assassination.

The blue wave died because Republicans, thanks to Trump, grew a spine and started standing up to Democrats. More and more each day, Republicans are going on the offensive. They’re highlighting how nutty the Democrats’ policies are.

It doesn’t hurt when people see this:

President Trump has done a great job of painting the Democrats as the ‘Open Borders Party’. When people are polled about immigration, they usually say that Democrats do a better job. When they’re asked who does a better job with border security, Republicans win handily. With a migrant mob approaching, people understand that they’re trying to overwhelm the system. They’ll oppose that 100% of the time.

Jim van Houten’s article for Alpha News is important reading for all Republicans statewide. First, it’s focused on getting out Metro voters. While I staunchly agree that it’s important to increase GOP metro voting, I’m of the strong belief that we should increase GOP voting everywhere in Minnesota.

This paragraph explains why increasing turnout is so important:

In November 2016 Hillary Clinton won Minnesota’s presidential electoral majority by just a tiny 1.67 percentage points. However, in the metro, she beat Trump 70 to 30%, a huge 40 percentage point margin of victory in a medium sized voter segment. Trump won the remainder of the state by a margin of 58 to 42%, a smaller, but still significant, 16 percentage point margin. There are two critically important implications from these data: First, if Trump had increased his metro share of the 870,000 metro votes cast by 5.2%, his share of the metro vote would have increased only modestly to 35.4% from his actual 30.2% share. This small shift would have given Trump victory in the entire state of Minnesota. In 2010, an even smaller metro increase would have made Emmer rather than Dayton our governor.

Too many Minnesota Republicans think that we can’t win because the DFL always wins Hennepin and Ramsey counties. While it’s true that the DFL wins those counties, it’s equally true that Republicans own rural Minnesota.

After the 2016 election, I checked out the Minnesota House races for the size of the margin of victory for Republicans in rural Minnesota. The size of the margins astonished me. Check them out yourself. In 2016, Mary Franson won with 65% of the vote. In 2012, Mary won by 12 votes. That’s an improvement of 6,775 votes.

Here’s why this matters. If Tim Walz is elected governor, there’s a strong chance that he’ll shut down government if Republicans don’t agree to raise taxes and spending. There’s also no proof that he’ll hold oversized government accountable. Does anyone seriously think that Tim Walz will stand up to the public employee unions who run these departments? Can anyone picture him fixing MNLARS? That’s laughable.

If Republicans get out and vote like this is the most important midterm election in recent history, we have a chance to dramatically change the structure and performance of state government for a decade or more.

Reading through this article, the thing that’s most apparent is that Tim Walz is the ultimate empty suit. One of the questions asked of both candidates was “Do you support the creation of a non-partisan panel to handle redistricting?”

Walz replied “We need a redistricting policy that is transparent, accountable, and based on sound research and policy. I support a redistricting process that involves communities and ensures that it empowers people and their votes.” What type of mumbo-jumbo gobbledygook answer is that? I have no idea what that means.

By comparison, Jeff Johnson’s reply is straightforward:

Article IV Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution says “the Legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of congressional and legislative districts” so I would have a hard time handing over this power to an unelected commission or panel. In other states where this has been tried, the redistricting panels sometimes ended up more partisan and political than the Legislature. I believe the legislative process can work if we stick to redistricting principles such as equal population, compactness and preserving communities of interest.

In other words, Jeff Johnson believes in a process that requires accountability and eliminates as much partisanship as possible. Who knows what Tim Walz wants?

Empty Suit vs. Jeff Johnson
Here’s another question and the candidates’ replies:

Do you support gun reform, such as red flag laws? Why or why not?

JOHNSON: People deserve to feel safe in their homes, their schools and on the streets. Red flag laws can be a part of the solution to reducing gun violence perpetrated by troubled people as long as there is due process for these individuals in place.

More broadly, however, I don’t believe the answer to violence in our society is further restricting Minnesotans’ Second Amendment rights but rather to start addressing the difficult issues that are leading to this violence, such as family breakdown, mental illness, a pop culture drenched in violence and even school policies that ignore disruptive and violent behavior.

WALZ: As a sportsman, veteran and Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate, I believe I am uniquely positioned to build the coalitions necessary to finally get something done on this critical issue. As governor, I would fight for common-sense gun reforms, including criminal background checks, an assault weapons ban, red flag laws and funding for gun violence research. We can do these things while protecting responsible gun ownership.

Walz once had credibility on Second Amendment issues. Then he chose to run for statewide office. In so doing, he abandoned law-abiding gun owners. Meanwhile, it’s totally apparent that Jeff Johnson wants to go after the root causes of gun violence rather than passing do-nothing bills that won’t have any effect on actual gun violence.

In short, Tim Walz isn’t a solutions-oriented candidate. He’s the empty suit candidate. Jeff Johnson is the solutions-oriented candidate. That’s who I’m voting for.