Tag - Democratic Party

As Democrats Portray Trump Voters Running Over Muslims, A Muslim Ran Over Americans

A friend on Twitter asked a simple question a while back: how many reporters know people who drive a pickup truck. After all, the top three best selling vehicles in America are the Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, and Dodge Ram. But instead of answering, many political reporters attacked the questioner for daring to ask the question. And many of these political reporters are insular bubble dwellers who really only have contact and friendship with people who think just like themselves, i.e. other liberals.

Thus we should not be surprised that liberal Democrats in Virgina decided to run an ad showing a Trump voter, or in the particular case a voter with an Ed Gillespie sticker (the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Virginia) on the back of his Ford pick up truck, trying to run over Muslim kids, Hispanic kids, and others. Make no mistake about it, this is how Democrats see Trump voters — pick up truck drivers with a Confederate battle flag flying from the rear and a “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden flag license plate. They portrayed this Gillespie/Trump voter who was their proxy for all Gillespie/Trump voters — white supremacists who would run over Muslim kids.

While the ad was airing in Virginia, a Muslim in a pickup truck drove it through a crowd in New York, killing eight people. Few Americans were actually killed. It was the international, ethnic melting pot of tourists in New York — Argentinians, a Belgian, and some Americans. The Democrats took down their ad in Virginia, but they stood by it and defended it. It is how they see Republicans. Overnight last night in Virginia, an elected Democrat attacked Republicans as evil. One gets the sense Democrats really do feel that way about Republicans, which is why they are perfectly fine shutting down Christian small businesses and driving conservative from college campuses.

But that gets me back to the pickup trucks. The top three best selling vehicles in America are pick up trucks. And Democrats view pickup trucks as proxies for simple-minded bigots. Add in an Ed Gillespie bumper sticker and a “Don’t Tread on Me” license plate and suddenly those simple-minded bigots are willing to hoist a Confederate flag and kill Muslim kids.

The press reaction, naturally, was predictable. Those political reporters who know no one who drives a pickup truck were perfectly fine with the Democrats’ ad. They excused it as best they could. Then when a Muslim did what they thought only a Trump voter was capable of, the left and its political reporters immediately wondered when the backlash against Muslims would happen.

The backlash should be against the Democrats and should be fierce and led by the President. President Trump should be on Twitter today noting that Democrats portray Trump voters as willing to run over Muslims while a Muslim is actually running over Americans. And the press is more worried about a backlash against Muslims than actually stopping terrorists.

O’Care Repeal and Sen. John McCain – A Transactional Betrayal

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction…This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.                                                           “Farewell Address to the Nation” January 17, 1961 President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Failure to repeal Obamacare was a huge fail for the Republican Party. It’s easy and somewhat popular in certain circles to ascribe primary and ultimate blame for this fail on the President.  To be sure, the White House handled the lawmaking process poorly and in some cases, terribly. But for all of that, at the end of the day a bill calling for repeal did make it to the floor for a vote. It failed by one vote.

A careful reading of the news both before and after that vote appears to point to a transactional betrayal by Sen. John McCain R-AZ.  Some of the evidence is factual, some is circumstantial, but there does appear to be a smoking gun which could be interpreted as collusion with Sen. Chuck Schumer D-NY. The facts and circumstances lay out like A-B-C.

In early July, the Senate was struggling with healthcare while the House approved a huge funding increase for 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. (Independent)

The National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) would allocate $696bn for defence spending in fiscal year 2018, blowing past Mr Trump’s  requested $603bn budget – a budget the White House had previously touted as a “historic increase in defence spending”. The proposal also exceeds long-standing caps on defence spending in Congress. Since 2011, the legislature has capped its defence spending at $549 billion. For the new funding plan to work, Congress would need to strike a deal to increase or repeal those caps.

The bill then moved to the Senate: (Independent)

The bill now moves to the Senate, where the Armed Services Committee has already passed its version of the legislation. The full Senate is expected to vote on the bill later this year.

The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee? None other than John McCain. The final tab for the annual defense appropriation was around $700 billion, and the senior senator from Arizona fully expected to take it to the floor for a vote, and shepherd it through the approval process. Given that fact that both the White House and true conservative senators were opposed to the price tag, Senator McConnell made it clear he expected McCain to shepherd it through the final floor voting process.

Then tragedy struck. Sen. McCain was diagnosed with cancer, which necessitated his return to Phoenix for treatment at the Mayo Clinic. Given the complications of senate scheduling, it appeared the NDAA bill was going to be delayed until the fall: (Washington Examiner)

McCain is planning to return to Washington after Senate’s August recess. His office indicated the Armed Services chairman will continue working remotely, meaning he could stay involved in the details of the NDAA process such as preparing for conference negotiations with the House after the Senate passes its version of the bill. But the chairman is unable to represent the bill on the Senate floor from Arizona, which is the job of the Armed Services chairman. Senate Republican leaders have signaled they won’t advance the bill in McCain’s absence.

Sen. McCain knew this appropriation would require careful strategy: (Washington Examiner)

The Arizona senator’s committee has proposed a big hike in its $700 billion bill but Senate appropriators, who actually write spending legislation, are proposing to stick closely to much lower 2018 funding caps imposed by the Budget Control Act, Cancian said. That has created an $80 billion difference in proposed defense spending in the chamber, he said. Lawmakers may try to hammer out an overarching budget deal later this year that includes some defense spending figure within that range. “McCain’s strategy has been to get on the boards first and to drive the discussion,” Cancian said. “I think that was his strategy with the NDAA, that he would get it passed quickly and his higher number would be in there and then everyone else could react to that.” If the NDAA is delayed until the fall, Senate appropriators could get their lower spending proposal passed first and make McCain “much less relevant,” he said. (Emphasis added)

This uncertainty provided the impetus for the senator to attempt to bring it up for a vote before he left for treatment: (Washington Examiner)

Just before he left, McCain tried to bring the bill to a floor vote after returning to Capitol Hill on Tuesday for a few days of work, but was first blocked by the Democrats over the Obamacare debate.

At the time it didn’t seem strange that Sen. Schumer and Company had blocked the floor vote, by then they were obstructing all things Republican. Which makes it even more curious when later on, they appeared ready to support it.

Bear in mind, during this process President Trump and the Republican senate were scrambling to find a final solution to Obamacare. After many iterations, Skinny Repeal seemed to be the one solution that could capture enough votes for passage.

Meanwhile, Sen. McCain had returned to Phoenix for surgery, which evidently was successful. Following that surgery, McCain had a few days free to return to the nation’s capital to vote on whatever healthcare bill Sen. McConnell was able to get to the floor. His return was predicated on one issue,  the Majority Leader had to agree to bring the NDAA immediately following the healthcare vote while McCain was still in DC. (Daily Caller)

As CNN noted, the fact that McCain is leaving Monday helps to explain why GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell would let the NDAA vote occur in the midst of a heated debated on health care reform.

During the final days leading up to the fateful Skinny Repeal vote, it became evident Sen. Murkowski and Sen. Collins would be a nay vote. The unknown was how Sen. McCain would vote. What was known was the curious way in which he spent his time: (WaPo)

Schumer had apparently been working McCain for days. The Hill’s Peter Sullivan: “Schumer says he’s been talking to McCain four to five times a day for three or four days.” (Emphasis added)

Obviously Sen. McCain knew he had no chance of turning Schumer & Co into a yes vote for the Skinny Repeal legislation. Ironclad party dogma is always a no vote on Obamacare repeal. Given that obvious fact, why was Mr. McCain meeting so often with Chuck during this turbulent time, especially since McCain had such a small window of time in DC and whipping Republican votes for the defense bill should have been his first priority.

Or was it? By now, it was apparent the White House wasn’t happy with McCain and the level of his NDAA funding appropriation. A presidential veto was a distinct possibility. Reversing that veto would require a 2/3rd majority by both Houses of Congress. A great way to head off that potential veto would be to garner more than that necessary 2/3rd vote for the initial vote, sending a message to the President. “Don’t veto this, We have the votes to override your veto.”

But in order for that strategy to be successful, McCain needed Schumer and Pelosi to bring in enough Democratic votes to achieve the veto override vote total. What was the quid pro quo? Senator McCain’s actions and words on the day of the vote appear to show the quid to Schumer’s quo. Simply put, McCain votes no on the Skinny Repeal, then Schumer and party support McCain’s NDAA vote.

Finally, July 27 arrives, the day Sen. McConnell had scheduled votes on healthcare. Not even McCain’s allies knew what he was going to do: (Politico)

Senators had no idea where McCain would land throughout much of Thursday, saying he vacillated in his position as the chaotic day unfolded. They had heard rumblings of three “nos” as early as Thursday afternoon, and one Republican insisted that the GOP could have secured McCain’s support had the vote been held earlier in the day.Many entered the chamber for a vote, unprepared for what would happen. “I thought he was a ‘yes’ and had been told he was a ‘yes’ when I came to the floor,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) recalled in an interview early Friday morning.

Early in the morning, a bit before 1:30 a.m., McCain finally voted (Politico)

Friday, McCain strode to the well of the Senate, and gestured his hand downward to vote “no.” Stunned gasps echoed throughout the chamber.

This fact has to be noted: John McCain is a party loyalist and wouldn’t take this vote lightly. Obviously he knew the significance of his no vote. Obviously he knew how important this was to Republican leadership, men and women who were and are his friends. It is almost unthinkable he would cast the deciding vote against his party purely because of animus against the President, or due to his overarching concern about healthcare legislation.

As a matter of fact, Mr. McCain’s actions prior to his vote and immediately thereafter seem to prove he knew exactly what he was doing. Prior to the vote: (Politico)

McCain walked over to a gaggle of Senate Democrats and told them that he would be voting no on the Obamacare repeal measure.

Why would McCain tip the opposition to his voting decision?  His comment is a clue:(Politico)

McCain walked over to a gaggle of Senate Democrats and told them that he would be voting no on the Obamacare repeal measure. His mind had already sped ahead to what was next: the National Defense Authorization Act, a top priority for the Armed Services Committee chairman. “Let’s get this over with,” McCain told the cluster of Democrats, according to senators. “I really want to do NDAA.”  McCain embraced Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

“Let’s get this over with”?

“Let’s” as in let us. Or to paraphrase: “Let us get this thing we’ve agreed upon over with.”  This seems to smack of a previously agreed upon compromise. Quid meet quo.

After his no vote, his compadres celebrated: (WaPo)

But when the time came to cast his ballot, McCain was a firm “no.” Take a look at the body language in the room. Democrats look positively giddy (several audibly gasp, while others clap). Schumer immediately waves at his caucus to stop celebrating.

But quo never met quid. Amusingly enough, like a phoenix arising from the libertarian ashes, he put the kibosh to the best laid plans: (Daily Caller)

GOP Sen. John McCain criticized GOP Sen. Rand Paul for blocking the annual defense budget bill from moving forward for a quick vote Friday, as now McCain is expected to leave for cancer treatment Monday. Although the National Defense Authorization Act was a key item on the agenda for McCain, Paul stepped in to block the bill by requesting two amendments be added to the legislation, namely one on prohibiting indefinite detention and one on the authorization of the use of military force to fight the Islamic State.

Sen. McCain is back where he started:

The Senate NDAA is now likely to be pushed back as far as September.

This viewpoint concerning John McCain’s Skinny Repeal vote is admittedly circumstantial. However, it beggars the mind to come up with any other viable solution for McCain’s duplicitous betrayal of the party and his friends. It is well known the senator is a cats paw to the military complex, always conflating his NeoCon worldview with the absolute necessity for more defense funding.

While the “thumbs down” gesture was the knife in Trump’s back, the vote wasn’t. It was either a vote of conscience as Mr. McCain insist, or an act of brazen betrayal in servitude of his true masters. Fortunately, in the end, the voters get to decide. I know I have.

California’s Governor Brown Says This, Not Abortion, Should Be Democrat Litmus Test

Intelligence — no longer just a litmus test for good parenting skills in Oregon.

On Sunday, California governor Jerry Brown weighed in on the Democratic Party controversy over whether abortion should be a litmus test for becoming a party candidate, arguing, according to The Hill, that it would not be a helpful standard nationwide.

“Well, the litmus test should be intelligence, caring about, as Harry Truman or Roosevelt used to call it, the common man,” Brown told NBC’s “Meet the Press” when asked by host Chuck Todd if abortion should be the litmus test for his party.

“We’re not going to get everybody on board. And I’m sorry, but running in San Francisco is not like running in Tulare County or Modoc, California, much less Mobile, Alabama.”

In calling for a less ideological party, Brown is attempting to be pragmatic about local variations across the country, but his advice is more crucial to the future of the Democratic Party than he may even realize.

The Democratic civil war over the abortion issue is taking place between what can be termed the “violence and death” wing of the party and the “compassionate, but misguided” wing. The former is the wing that violently protests any speakers whose speech they don’t approve of and excuse riots in response to unfavorable presidential elections. They see the ends as justifying any means. The latter are those who, like Brown said, care about the common man, but they are wrong that liberal policies will improve the lives of Americans. They, unlike the violence and death wing, are generally pro-choice, again for compassionate, but misguided reasons, but are not dogmatic about others adhering to their views.

As millennial Christians break with their parents’ generation regarding the GOP in the age of Trump, some may be curious about other parties. The Democratic Party will rarely be seen as an option if it insists on being pro-choice. If they want to take advantage of the potential to pick up a slice of an engaged voting bloc, Democrats needs to begin to see Christians not as religious extremists, but as people with legitimate views. In short, the more compassionate, less violence-and-death-oriented wing needs to triumph. Again, Governor Brown seems to recognize this better than most:

“So I’d say, look, even on the abortion issue, it wasn’t very long ago that a number of Catholic Democrats were opposed to abortion. So the fact that somebody believes today what most people believed 50 years ago should not be the basis for their exclusion,” Brown explained.

Brown and other big tent Democrats have their work cut out for them. Newsmax recently summarized the intra-party civil war over abortion, after Ben Ray Lujan, Democratic representative from New Mexico, told The Hill that the party would provide financial support to pro-life candidates.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who ran the Democratic National Committee from 2005 to 2009, responded on Twitter to Lujan’s remarks, stating: “I’m afraid I’ll be withholding support for the DCCC if this is true.”

 

That may have been one of the milder reactions. Among the others:

 

Liberal journalist Lauren Duca called the move “a betrayal of every woman who has ever supported the Democratic Party.”

 

Destiny Lopez, co-director of the pro-abortion group All Above All, released a news release stating “It’s short-sighted and dangerous to pave the path to victory in 2018 at the expense of women.”

 

Mitchell Stille, a national campaign director for NARAL, told The Hill: “Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy. The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”

 

NARAL President Ilyse Hogue tweeted: “Ignoring women’s fundamental freedoms and equality to win elections is both an ethically and politically bankrupt strategy.”

Brown joins Bernie Sanders — also a dissenter on the issue of violent protests who condemned threats against Ann Coulter when she was scheduled to speak at Berkeley — and DNC deputy chairman Keith Ellison, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, all of whom are themselves pro-choice, in at least allowing for some dissent on the issue. In spite of these influential members, the party is a long way from making a shift on life. As I argued at RedState back in April, “violence is the way the Left is increasingly attempting to solve its problems.” It is moving away from valuing life, not towards it.

As someone who is pro-life above all other issues, I hope that a shift away from abortion occurs within the Democratic Party. I also agree with Governor Brown that the party could use an intelligence litmus test, at least among those who create its slogans. I just don’t see either changing anytime soon.

Obama Is Trying To Salvage The Democratic Party

Barack Obama is not in office any longer, but the former president is doing what he can behind the scenes to rebuild the Democratic Party after devastating losses at the ballot box. According to sources with The Hill, the 44th president is meeting regularly with top Democratic lawmakers at his West End office and over the phone regarding the future of their party.

Obama is meeting, for example, on a by-request basis with new Democratic Party chairman Tom Perez. The topic of conversation between the two men usually pertains to the direction of the party. The former president holds regular “check-ins” with Perez to make sure everything is going OK.

Obama has also met with freshman Sen. Chris Van Hollen and many other congressmen over the months since leaving office. Considered adept at messaging, the Hawaiian native has spoken extensively with Democrats on how to communicate policy with the public.

Like most former presidents, Obama has kept a relatively low-profile since vacating the White House. Besides remaining in D.C. to let his daughter finish high school, he has not been very public in the political scene. However, that may change very soon. He has agreed to hit the fundraising circuit for Ralph Northam, the Democratic candidate in Virginia’s gubernatorial election, this fall (Northam asked Obama to help his campaign reach millennial and African-American voters). Also, the Illinois Democrat will be working more extensively with former attorney general Eric Holder on battling alleged GOP gerrymandering across the country.

Obama hasn’t been totally quiet since becoming a private citizen. He made a public statement decrying the GOP healthcare bill not long ago. He also gave then-candidate for the French presidency, Emmanuel Macron, his endorsement – Macron went on to win his election in a landslide. Regarding work with the Obama Foundation, he has also recently met with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and German chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Democratic Party took a beating last election cycle. According to most polling, they were supposed to keep the White House and win back the Senate. Neither happened. Thanks in part to Trump’s shattering of the electoral “blue wall,” Democrats lost in a stunning upset. They failed to hold the Oval Office, did not win the Senate chamber, lost more gubernatorial seats and state legislative chambers. The party, left without a designated leader, is in disarray.

Obama is now trying to help pick up the pieces. But is he the best person for the job?

The former president left office with a hefty 60 percent approval rating – not bad. He even boasted that he’d win a third term if given a chance. While he may have some room to brag about himself, Obama’s coattails are certainly nothing to be proud of.

Obama entered office in 2009 with Democratic Party domination in D.C. His party controlled the House, Senate and majority of gubernatorial seats. All of that collapsed under his eight-year tenure. Senate seats fell from 55 to 46; House seats dropped from from 256 seats to 193; once controlling 28 gubernatorial seats, there are now just 16 Democratic governors left in office; countless state legislative seats have also fallen out of Democratic hands in the past eight years. Altogether, the Democratic Party lost over 1,000 seats under Obama’s presidential tenure. I wouldn’t call that stellar leadership.

Obama may know how to win elections for himself, but maybe Democrats should look elsewhere for advice.

LOL: Democrats Resort To Appointing A ‘Heartland Engagement’ Chair

It’s no surprise the Democratic Party is out of touch with Middle America. Their reliance on winning national elections off the backs of liberals living on the coasts and in big cities (forgoing rural voters) has long been the norm. However, given their shocking loss last November, party leaders may be finally realizing they have a problem.

For reference, here is what the 2016 election looked like, county-by-county.

As you can see, the Democratic Party has a huge issue connecting with “flyover country” voters. This didn’t appear to be a problem for them during the Obama years – but now that the GOP controls all the levers of power in Washington and the vast majority of gubernatorial seats and state legislatures – Democrats are admitting they need to do something if they want a shot at the driver’s seat again.

That is why they have now created a brand new position: Chair of Heartland Engagement. Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos is the premier chairwoman.

In a statement, Bustos was blunt in describing what her party has to do if they want to start winning again. “The heartland is critical to winning back the majority, and we must do a better job listening to the hardworking families from small towns and rural communities if we hope to earn their support.”

Given the makeup of Rep. Bustos’ district, it’s no surprise Democratic leaders have chosen her to make inroads with rural voters. Illinois’ 17th Congressional District, encompassing the northwestern part of the state, voted for Donald Trump in the last election – the first Republican to do so since George W. Bush. Her district is a prime example of the voters Democrats have lost.

“Cheri is a key member of our leadership team, and her efforts to help recruit and mentor candidates and carry our economic message is critical to our strategy this cycle,” stated New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Luján, who is the current chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Her colleagues are hopeful she can change their demographic woes.

It’s doubtful if the newly created position will actually help Democrats win in red areas. The rural/urban divide has long been a mainstay in American politics, and as much as Republicans struggle to win minority and inner city voters, progressives just can’t seem to relate to the daily problems of Middle America. Gone are the days when Bill Clinton won in places like Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky and other Southern/Mid-Western states. The Democratic Party of today is likely at its lowest point after watching their “blue wall” shattered last election cycle.

Messaging will be hard when attempting to reach these people. Liberal media clearly shows a disdain for the white working-class voters that have left the Democratic Party in droves. Donald Trump, using his amazing ability to connect with the average Joe, has been able to capitalize off their shortcomings.

Rep. Bustos bit off a ton of responsibility with her new position, but it’s unlikely she’ll be able to chew it all.

 

 

Democrats: Hillary Should ‘Take A break’

It isn’t news when people say that they want to see and hear less from Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, if those people are prominent Democrats, then Hillary fatigue is newsworthy. According a report from The Hill, many prominent Democrats are saying that Hillary’s recent remarks are damaging to the Democratic Party, the country as a whole and her personal brand.

“Good God, what is she doing?” a veteran Democratic aide said of Hillary’s blame-everyone-but-me tour. “She’s apparently still really, really angry. I mean, we all are. The election was stolen from her, and that’s how she feels. But to go out there publicly again and again and talk about it? And then blame the DNC? It’s not helpful to Democrats. It’s not helpful to the country, and I don’t think it’s helpful to her.”

“If she is trying to come across as the leader of the angry movement of what happened in 2016, then she’s achieving it,” a former senior aide to President Obama said. “But part of the problem she had was she didn’t have a vision for the Democratic Party, and she needs to now take a break and let others come to the forefront.”

The Clintons have a talent for sucking the oxygen out of the room and Democrat operatives are concerned that with Hillary hogging the limelight it will be difficult for Democrat candidates to position themselves for 2020. This may be by design.

There is already speculation that Hillary is gearing up for a third presidential campaign. In Hillary’s previous runs for president, she has used the Clinton influence in the Democrat Party and the DNC to discourage other Democrats from challenging her as the presumptive nominee. She nevertheless lost to the relatively unknown Barack Obama in 2008 and was heavily damaged by the insurgent candidacy of Democrat-in-name-only, Bernie Sanders, in 2016.

If Hillary does decide to run for president a third time in 2020, she would be the oldest president ever to take office if elected. At 73, she would be three years older than Donald Trump, currently the oldest president ever to be elected, who was 70 when he was inaugurated. A third failure would put Hillary in the company of such perennial losers as William Jennings Bryan (1896, 1900, 1908) and Ron Paul (1988, 2008, 2012) who ran national campaigns three times but never won. Richard Nixon was the last candidate to lose as a party nominee and then come back to win both a second nomination and the presidency.

After two unsuccessful presidential campaigns, there are signs that the patience of Democrats is wearing thin. “Some people I know are just frustrated that it’s happening,” said. “She is a national hero and a great public servant and has the right to be upset,” Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist. “It would be nice to hear a little more about the things she did wrong, which I believe mattered more than what she has discussed.”

Others suspect that Hillary is just seeking publicity for her upcoming book. “I’m not sure there is a political strategy here,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. “It sounds to me like more of a personal strategy. Complaining about an outcome and blaming everyone else is not a good political strategy.”

After two high profile losses, Hillary would seem to be an expert on poor political strategies. The loss to Donald Trump was particularly humiliating given Trump’s record-high negatives, numerous scandals and erratic behavior.

Americans have spoken firmly against a Hillary Clinton presidency. If Democrats want to have a chance against Donald Trump in 2020, which at this point looks like a slam dunk with any candidate other than Hillary, they would be wise to give someone else a chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DNC to Every Staffer: ‘You’re Fired’

If there was any doubt that the election of Donald Trump presented the Democratic Party with an existential crisis, the dire state of the liberal political party is evident by a report that Tom Perez, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has requested the resignation of all DNC staffers. The request may signal that Perez intends to move the Democrats away from the influence of the Clintons and their ties to Wall Street.

NBC News reports that Leah Daughtry, an advisor to outgoing DNC chair and Clinton ally Donna Brazile, asked that all staffers submit a resignation letter dated April 15 after the selection of Perez in February. Perez will have the option of accepting or rejecting the resignations and asking some staffers to stay on under his administration.

The DNC insisted that there was nothing unusual about the request. “This is longstanding precedent at the DNC and has happened during multiple Chair transitions,” said spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa. “The process was started before the election of the new Chair. From the beginning, Tom has been adamant that we structure the DNC for future campaigns.”

Perez previously assembled a committee of 30 Democrats to aid in selecting and interviewing new staff at the DNC per NBC. The committee includes Democrats from a variety of backgrounds including Bernie Sanders supporter Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Black Lives Matters activist Deray McKesson, immigration activist Astrid Silva, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), former South Carolina Gov. and DNC Chair Don Fowler, and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

Perez, who served as the Secretary of Labor under Barack Obama, bested Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) for the DNC chairmanship in February. Ellison had the backing of Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) while Perez, who was endorsed by former Vice President Joe Biden, was seen as a candidate of the Democratic establishment.

Clues to the new direction of the Democratic Party can be seen in Perez’s promise to not accept money from lobbyists and his realization that the Democrats are out of touch with rural voters in traditional Democrat strongholds. “One of the reasons we lost in places like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania is we’re not speaking to rural voters,” he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in February.

The new DNC chair has two difficult tasks ahead. First, he must bring the varied factions of the party together after the bitter primary fight between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. There is some evidence that enough Democrat voters disillusioned with Clintonian corruption voted third party to make a difference in swing states.

Second, the Democrats must repair the damage that the Obama Administration did to their appeal to working class voters. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones pointed out that Clinton lost 14 points among white working class voters and eight points among Hispanic working class voters compared with 2012.

“This strongly suggests that the working class was primarily motivated by economic concerns and only secondarily by racial issues,” Drum writes.

The economic stagnation in Rust Belt states, many of which are led by Democrats, arguably pushed many blue-collar voters toward Donald Trump. After eight years of Barack Obama’s various wars on business and coal, the Democrats have much to do to regain their footing in some states that were deep blue in the near past.

Perez’s task is made all the more difficult by the fact that state and local Democrats took heavy losses in the Obama era. Republican wave elections ended the careers of many promising Democrats in 2010 and 2014. In all, Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats under President Obama according to Fox News.

Given these challenges, it is unsurprising that Perez might want to start with a clean slate as he rebuilds the DNC from scratch. “What we’re trying to do is culture change,” he told NBC News. “We’re repairing a plane at 20,000 feet. You can’t land the plane, shut it down, and close it until further notice.”

SCOTUS Filibuster? Now He Owns It

Politico published an opinion piece authored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democrat Minority Leader this morning. You have to hand it to the camera hungry New Yorker, evidently he has decided to double down in favor of the progressive left fringe. Earlier, it appeared he would give Democratic collegues such as Sen. Jeff Merkley D-Oregon permission to filibuster and even voice support, while at the same time allowing senators facing difficult 2018 elections the latitude to vote against the filibuster. It was this same consideration which drove many pundits and politicians to openly speculate there would be no need for the nuclear option. Until today, this did really look like standard senate theatre, staged with every actor hitting their mark.

Which is what makes the good senator’s article today news worthy. He is now definitively stating party policy:

“These actions show a lack of respect for the separation of powers—and that’s why Senate Democrats will do everything we can to make sure that the next Supreme Court justice will be an independent check on an out-of-control executive.”

There should be no doubt where the Democratic Party sits now. Their leader has now announced the impending filibuster of SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch. It fair to say he has the support of his party, which is undoubtably the reason he only used the word “filibuster” in reference to Republicans. Rather, he continues to advance the talking point centered about an imaginary 60 vote threshold being the “standard” for every SCOTUS nomination. Even the Washington Post decried his claim, awarding it Two Pinocchios.

“Democrats are being slippery with their language. Sixty votes is not “a standard” for Supreme Court confirmations, as two of the current justices on the court did not meet that supposed standard.”

Even more amazing is how he further expands this justification:

“Nominees to our nation’s highest court must demonstrate that they are mainstream and independent enough to earn the support of at least 60 senators from both parties. Both of President Obama’s nominees to the Supreme Court exceeded that level of support.”

Senator Schumer actually has the temerity to suggest Justices Kagan and Sotomeyor should be considered and actually are “mainstream” as validated by the votes of Republican senators.It doesn’t even take a Republican to comprehend how utterly deceptive this statement is. Conflating Republican votes for these two liberal Justices with their belief of them being “mainstream” is so ludicrous that it needs no defense. But, then he really sticks the knife in:

“The simple question we are asking is: Can President Trump’s nominee meet that same test? If the nominee fails to meet 60 votes, the answer isn’t to change the rules; it’s to change the nominee.”

In other words, don’t do what we threatened or in reality actually promised we would do in the event we got back in power. No, we’d now rather you honored rich tradition which by the way you are to blame for because you voted for our nominees.

The ever smug senator finishes his opus with a condescending pat on the head to the majority party:

“This is not unfair or obstructionist—this is the Senate doing its job by critically evaluating a nominee who will have immense impact on the lives of Americans.”

That’s rich.

The real question is how much power he really possesses. Is he similar to the belligerent boxer Harry Reid, or the “no red line I can’t walk back” former president?  He’s committed his party to obstruction, very soon we’ll find out if he can actually enforce it. In either case, he owns it now.