Archive for the ‘Hispanics’ Category

The Democrats’ lead in the generic ballot polling is just the symptom of a bigger problem that Democrats haven’t addressed. Right now, Democrats don’t have a unified economic message. It’s fair to argue that they don’t have an economic message. This article doesn’t touch on the pickle that Democrats find themselves in, though it highlights a few important things.

For instance, the article quotes Hank Sheinkopf as saying “Every time [Democrats] deny the economy is starting to turn or get better for certain parts of the population, they also hurt themselves. They appear to be cheering on bad news.”

While it’s true that that’s the public’s perception, that isn’t the heart of the matter. At the root of the Democrats’ problem is the civil war between the Bernie Sanders socialists and the Bill Clinton capitalists. (Think Bernie on the former, Doug Schoen on the latter.) Democrats are in a can’t win situation because socialists have the energy, aka the enthusiasm gap, on their side, whereas the capitalists have the ability to work with Republicans on things.

Therein lies another problem. It’s impossible to be part of the Resistance while being willing to work with Republicans. I’m betting that it’s impossible for Democrats to retake the House if they’re fueled essentially by blind hatred of President Trump. Further, it’s difficult to be a Democrat when their leaders make mistakes like this:

I’m old enough to remember the fights between the Daily Kos and the DLC. This is a nationally televised fight between the Daily Kos and the DLC:

This fight happened in 2007. It started earlier. As part of his stump speech, Howard Dean used to say “I’m from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” The point to all this is to highlight that this schism has existed within the Democratic Party for years. This isn’t a transient argument. That’s the definition of an existential argument.

Clearly, Trump’s policies are working. Consumer confidence is high. Unemployment is low, especially with African-Americans and Hispanics. The world is still volatile but prospects for stability are increasing. On Monday, the US Embassy in Jerusalem will open. There’s even a legitimate chance for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The point to all this is simple. If Republicans go on offense while highlighting President Trump’s economic and national security accomplishments, Democrats will have a difficult time. After all, you can’t beat something with nothing. At this point, all that Democrats have to offer is fear itself.

President Trump’s first SOTU speech was one for the ages. At times, it was heart-wrenching. At other times, it was jubilant. At still other times, it was sensible. At all times, it was the Democrats’ worst nightmare. The speech lasted 81 minutes. It drew 110 rounds of applause. Optically, it was a terrible night for Democrats.

Early in the speech, President Trump talked about Hispanic and African-American unemployment, saying “Unemployment claims have hit a 45-year low. African-American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded, and Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history.” The Congressional Black Caucus not only didn’t applaud. The CBC didn’t register a response:

When people started chanting “USA, USA, USA”, here’s how Rep. Luis Gutierrez reacted:

When President Trump spoke about noncontroversial things like working hard and unifying the nation, here’s how Nancy Pelosi responded:

Mixed into the 110 rounds of applause were lines like this:

So to every citizen watching at home tonight — no matter where you have been, or where you come from, this is your time. If you work hard, if you believe in yourself, if you believe in America, then you can dream anything, you can be anything, and together, we can achieve anything.

Meanwhile, Democrats virtually spent the entire night sitting on their hands. The optics really told the story Tuesday night. Republicans applauded President Trump’s accomplishments. They were the optimistic people in the room. Democrats looked like they’d eaten a bag of lemons. They looked like sourpusses the entire night:

The most heart-wrenching part of the speech came when President Trump spoke about 2 couples whose daughters were friends. Here’s that story:

Here tonight are two fathers and two mothers: Evelyn Rodriguez, Freddy Cuevas, Elizabeth Alvarado, and Robert Mickens. Their two teenage daughters — Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens — were close friends on Long Island. But in September 2016, on the eve of Nisa’s 16th Birthday, neither of them came home. These two precious girls were brutally murdered while walking together in their hometown. Six members of the savage gang MS-13 have been charged with Kayla and Nisa’s murders. Many of these gang members took advantage of glaring loopholes in our laws to enter the country as unaccompanied alien minors ?- and wound up in Kayla and Nisa’s high school.

Evelyn, Elizabeth, Freddy, and Robert: Tonight, everyone in this chamber is praying for you. Everyone in America is grieving for you. And 320 million hearts are breaking for you. We cannot imagine the depth of your sorrow, but we can make sure that other families never have to endure this pain.

Trump is right. This shouldn’t ever happen in the United States. Period. Trump is also right in saying that, across the nation, parents’ hearts were breaking with those parents.

This was especially powerful in pushing Democrats into a ‘can’t-win corner’ on immigration. How can Democrats say no to building the wall or ending chain migration or the visa lottery at this point? I suspect that Democrats will try resisting. That’s what they’ve been about since Trump took office.

Potentially, President Trump’s SOTU speech is a game-changer:

According to that survey, the results of which were announced on-air on CNN, 48 percent of respondents said they had a “very positive” reaction to the speech — Trump’s first since taking office. Only 22 percent said they had a “somewhat positive” reaction to the speech, while 29 percent reacted negatively.

The results of that poll came less than two hours after Trump finished delivering his speech, in which he touted the tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks of his first year in office and outlined his ambitions to revitalize the nation’s infrastructure and take on immigration reform.

Sixty-two percent of respondents said that the policies outlined by the president on Tuesday would move the country in the right direction, according to the CNN/SSRS poll. By comparison, 35 percent said they would move it in the wrong direction.

Those aren’t good numbers for Democrats. They’re terrible statistics for Democrats. This won’t cheer up Democrats, either:

This poll isn’t good news, either:

Prior to Tuesday night, Republicans had gained a bunch of momentum. After Tuesday night, Republicans had a ton of momentum going into this new year. If Democrats think they can steamroll the Republicans, they’d better rethink their strategy. Fast.

Technorati: Donald Trump, State of the Union Address, Immigration Reform, Polling, Republicans, MS-13, Luis Gutierrez, Nancy Pelosi, Democrats, Election 2018

Anyone that thinks Republicans are in a difficult situation on immigration isn’t paying attention. This week, Chuck Schumer took to Twitter, saying “The clock is ticking for #Dreamers. If we don’t solve this problem in 15 days, the Republicans are going to have to explain to dreamers what their plan is to prevent them from being deported.” Unfortunately for Sen. Schumer, President Trump is putting Sen. Schumer and other Democrats in a difficult position.

President Trump has put Democrats in a tricky situation because the Trump administration “proposal on immigration will contain a path to citizenship for up to 1.8 million young people brought into the United States as children as part of a package that also includes $25 billion for a border wall and other security measures. President Trump’s plan would also include a massive cut in family-based immigration and the end to a diversity visa lottery system that gives preference to immigrants from under-represented countries, according to a White House briefing for congressional staffers and Trump allies hosted by White House senior adviser Stephen Miller.”

Whether they’ll admit it or not, Democrats can’t vote against this bill because it’s what DREAMers want most. Voting against it, then saying that they weren’t willing to compromise with Republicans on a once-in-a-lifetime offer won’t sit well with DACA recipients.

If Sen. Schumer thought he got tough treatment over shutting down government, he hasn’t seen anything yet. Americans of all political stripes will see Democrats exposed as phonies. They’ve told Hispanics that Republicans are racists and that Democrats are their saviors. If Democrats filibuster this bill, that façade will disappear instantly. This tweet will haunt Democrats for years:

The clock is ticking for #Dreamers. If we don’t solve this problem in 15 days, the Republicans are going to have to explain to dreamers what their plan is to prevent them from being deported.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 24, 2018

In this year’s mid-term election, Republicans will benefit by being seen as reasonable. Democrats will be hurt for looking unreasonable.

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.

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: Planned Parenthood, Cecille Richards, DACA, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro

Saying that Ana Navarro is an angry woman is understatement. Unhinged is another word that fits. After President Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Ms. Navarro went off. She started by saying “what message that he’s sending through this Joe Arpaio thing is a message to his base, is a message to anyone who is anti-Hispanic, to anyone who is…(inaudible) No, sweetheart, I’m America first and you don’t get to tell me I’m not. But I’m also not anti-Hispanic. I’m not anti-immigrant. I’m not anti-black. I’m not (inaudible). I’m not anti-gay. So you don’t get to tell me that I’m not America first because I’m an immigrant and I’m Hispanic. You’re inferring that I’m a little bit older. So let me tell you something. He’s sending a message by pardoning Joe Arpaio. Try to control yourself from interrupting me because you’re a little too close and you’re getting into my danger zone. Don’t interrupt. Let me just tell you, the message that he’s sending is ‘I’m ok with profiling Latinos in Arizona. I’m ok with attacking immigrants. I’m ok with attacking Hispanics. I’m ok with mistreating prisoners. I’m ok with everything that Joe Arpaio represents.’ And that’s the message that he’s sending to his base and to those of us who are not his base.”

Words alone don’t do Ms. Navarro’s diatribe justice. Watch how irate and unhinged she is:

That’s breathtaking. Ms. Navarro has gone off at least twice this week. Put differently, she’s lost it on national TV. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that she needs anger management training.

For all of Don Lemon’s and Jim Clapper’s pontificating about how President Trump isn’t fit for office, the only proof that anyone isn’t mentally fit for their job is watching Ms. Navarro’s multiple meltdowns. When Ms. Navarro’s fellow panelist started laughing at her, she said that he was “getting into my danger zone.” That’s something that a person that’s lost it does. That isn’t how a rational person reacts.

CNN bears responsibility for their anchors’ and pundits’ behavior. This week, they’ve been out of control and disrespectful in the extreme. They obviously think that this plays well with their audience. That’s probably true but it’s also why their ratings rarely improve for more than a blip at a time. People who have just finished a long work week don’t want to turn on the TV and watch that type of stuff. In 10 seconds or less, they’re flipping to another channel.

Last week, Gov. Dayton recommended that a fund be started to instruct police officers. At Gov. Dayton’s announcement, unfortunately, the most well-received speaker was Valerie Castile, Philando Castile’s mother.

That’s mostly because Gov. Dayton proposed that the training fund be named after Philando Castile. That didn’t sit well with the police. Their response was that “Still, the topic of naming the fund came up. Dennis Flaherty, a former executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association who was at the meeting, said it was ‘fair to say there was disagreement’ in the law enforcement community over naming the fund.”

Castile’s mother was well-received because she said “At the end of the day, everyone wants to go home. The police wants to go home and the civilian wants to go home. And if we can combine and work together as human beings that will happen. We got to learn how to communicate better with each other. We’re supposed to be the most intelligent species on the planet, but look (at) what we do to one another. We’re worse off than some animals, that just go around and prey on people.”

A loyal reader of LFR told me that Philando Castile’s uncle has participated in some meetings designed to work on police training issues. I was told that Castile’s uncle, for whatever it’s worth, is fairly level-headed. That’s believable in light of this paragraph:

Of police, she said, “We need them because the world would be chaotic if we didn’t have the police. Don’t get me wrong: I love having the police to protect and serve us. But when it comes to the point where there’s miscommunication and it turns out the way it turned out for my son, it’s unacceptable.”

This is a tragedy. This is the dashcam video of the shooting:

Gov. Dayton, unfortunately, spoke before he had the facts in the shooting. When he spoke, Gov. Dayton said that Castile probably wouldn’t have gotten shot if he was white. Gov. Dayton said that not knowing that Officer Yanez is Hispanic. Gov. Dayton said that without seeing the video of the shooting.
Technorati: Philando Castile, Valerie Castile, Mark Dayton, MPPOA, DFL

There’s no question whether we’re seeing a tightening of the presidential race. When it comes to figuring out why the polls are tightening, it’s difficult to dispute with Michael Barone, of the most respected number crunchers in American political history. Michael Barone’s latest column is filled with explanations of why the presidential race is tightening.

Turnout is everything to Hillary’s campaign. If she doesn’t win that fight, she’ll lose. It’s that simple. That’s why it’s difficult to think that it’s good news for HRC when Mr. Barone wrote “There are plenty of signs Clinton is poorly positioned to do that. Black turnout and Democratic percentage is likely to be down, at least slightly, from when the first black president was seeking re-election. Polls have shown Hispanics are less interested and motivated by this campaign than just about any other demographic group.”

Simply put, HRC simply doesn’t excite people. Even the people who will vote for her and who support her do so more out of obligation or loyalty than rallying around their rock star. This isn’t good news for the Clinton campaign, either:

Young voters, while repelled by Trump, are not attracted by Clinton. She ran way behind Bernie Sanders among young women as well as young men in primaries and caucuses. Four-candidate polls typically show Clinton running far behind the 60 percent Obama won among under-30s in 2012, with as many as 20 percent preferring Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green candidate Jill Stein.

These demographic groups don’t paint a great picture for HRC. Still, it’s foolish to think that Trump doesn’t have difficulties of his own. Still, it’s difficult to picture someone with a more daunting task than Hillary has.

Think of it this way. People think that she isn’t honest or trustworthy. They don’t think she’s terribly competent, either. They’re certain that she’s gotten preferential treatment with the email scandal. (They’re right about that, BTW.) Finally, there’s this:

The kid gloves treatment she got from the FBI — no recordings, allowing aide and co-conspirator Cheryl Mills in the interview — confirm the impression, created by the intended-to-be-secret meeting of Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch days before, that the fix was in. So does the fact that Clinton and her aides in court-ordered interviews claimed loss of memory 378 times.

The alphabet media will do their best to prop HRC up from now until Election Day. I just don’t know that that’s enough for her to win. This answer won’t help Hillary:

Hillary was asked by a military veteran about her mishandling of classified and top-secret information. Her story changed another time. This won’t help Trump as much as it’ll hurt Hillary. At this point, all that Mr. Trump has to do is look like a legitimate alternative to Hillary. If he pulls that off, then Hillary’s fighting an uphill fight.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Commander-in-Chief Forum, Honest and Trustworthy, Hispanic Turnout, Minority Turnout, Democrats, Donald Trump, Millennials, Republicans, Election 2016

Simply put, Kevin Sorbo is my new hero. He’s my hero for writing this post that questions why Michael Brown’s mother was invited to Hillary’s convention and that ridicules the entire Black Lives Matter movement and the hand-up-don’t-shoot myth. Considering the fact that he’s a Hollywood actor, that took courage.

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “Whatever questionable choices were made at the Republican National Convention last week, I didn’t hear of a single speaker whose sole accomplishment was raising a delinquent who attacked a cop. But as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.”

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “It would be a lot easier if they were not being targeted for assassination and mass murders by homicidal nuts ginned up by BLM. (Shooting deaths of police are up 78 percent so far this year.) And it would be a lot easier without a group, officially supported by the Democrats, leading marches down city streets, chanting, ‘What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!’ Why does the Democratic platform endorse Black Lives Matter? And, most importantly, why was Mike Brown’s mother on stage at the Democratic National Convention?”

That’s a great question, Mr. Sorbo. Why was Mike Brown’s mother invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention? What did she contribute to the convention other than to gin up the African-American vote? This is an even better question:

However half-heartedly, Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?

It’s obvious that Hillary isn’t pro-cop. If she were, she would’ve told Al Sharpton off for perpetuating the myth of hands-up-don’t-shoot. The Democratic Party isn’t pro-cop. Gov. Dayton accused a Hispanic police officer of being racist while insisting that Philando Castile would likely still be alive if he was white. Sorbo wasn’t done:

Because of the despicable lies put out by BLM agitators, Wilson had to give up his career, move his family and will be forced to live in fear for the rest of his life. The town of Ferguson was destroyed, businesses burned to the ground, police officers attacked, people injured, the National Guard called in, and massive taxpayer money expended to contain the riots. But at the Democratic Convention, Lezley McSpadden (mother of Mike Brown) was wildly cheered.

Sorbo closed by sticking in the dagger, figuratively speaking:

Donald Trump, along with every other Republican ever to run for president, is required to repeatedly “disavow” David Duke — someone he’s never met, never mentioned, never thought of— and certainly didn’t invite to speak at his convention.

But Hillary invites to her convention the mother of a man whose criminality destroyed a police officer’s life, tore the country apart and gave birth to a murderous cop-hating movement. Will a single reporter ask Hillary to disavow that?

In terms of rhetorical questions, that’s one of the smartest I’ve ever heard. The answer, of course, is that Hillary won’t get questioned about inviting the mother of a thug to speak at her convention, much less be asked to disavow that decision.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Lezley McSpadden, Michael Brown, Hands Up, Don’t Shoot, BlackLivesMatter, Al Sharpton, Philando Castile, Mark Dayton, Mothers of the Movement, Democratic National Convention, Kevin Sorbo, Law Enforcement, Republicans, Election 2016

Friday night, I watched David Wohl debate Guy Benson about Donald Trump’s bigoted statements about Judge Curiel. I watched in amazement because Trish Regan, who was guest-hosting for Megyn Kelly, brought up the question that Trump had attacked Judge Curiel to take attention away from his Trump University lawsuits.

Wohl seemed to think that was possible. If that was Trump’s strategy, it was an exceptionally foolish strategy. The Trump University lawsuits essentially accuse Trump of being a crook, promising people a path to riches if they just followed the Trump blueprint for success.

Trump’s statement that Judge Curiel hated Trump because Trump is promising to build a wall on the US-Mexican border is outright bigotry. It isn’t brilliant to call attention to your bigotry rather than your dishonesty. Trump is hoping that he can increase turnout of lower-income white people. It’s as if Trump thinks he can win by winning the bigot vote. The thing is that there aren’t enough bigots in enough states for Trump to win.

Had Trump been smart, he would’ve accused the judge of being appointed by President Obama. Had he done that, he would’ve taken attention away from being accused of being a crook and put the spotlight on Obama’s judges