February 23-24, 2020
Feb 23 01:11 Buttigieg's concession speech? Feb 23 01:16 Warren, Biden, Buttigieg & Klobuchar Feb 23 08:39 Russia Collusion, The Sequel Feb 23 17:04 Is Adam Schiff a Russian agent? Feb 23 19:17 Klobuchar's presidential campaign Feb 24 03:28 Back in the USSA? Feb 24 10:35 Adam Schiff, Jane Harman, Democrats, birds of a feather
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Buttigieg's concession speech?
Pete Buttigieg's concession speech started poorly, then went downhill after that . Buttigieg started by saying "I congratulate Sen. Sanders on a strong showing today, knowing that we celebrate many of the same ideals. But before we rush to nominate Sen. Sanders in our one shot to take on this president, let us take a sober look at what is at stake for our party, for our values and for those with the most to lose. There is so much on the line and one thing we know for sure is that we absolutely must defeat Donald Trump and all that he represents in November."
Buttigieg continued, saying "Sen. Sanders believes in an inflexible, ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans. I believe we can defeat Trump and deliver for the American people by empowering the American people to make their own health care choices with Medicare-for-All who want it. Senator Sanders believes in taking away that choice, removing people from having that option of a private plan and replacing it with a public plan whether you want it or not."
President Trump's campaign team will turn that into a stinging advertisement against Bernie when the time is right. Buttigieg is right in saying that Sen. Sanders believes in taking away people's choices. Medicare-for-All would take away private health insurance. That's what drove the Culinary Union to not endorse Sen. Sanders.
[Video no longer available]
In the end, the Culinary Union didn't see much of a difference between Medicare-for-All and Medicare-for-all-who-want it. Mayor Buttigieg's plan isn't a free market choice, either. It just isn't as restrictive as Sen. Sanders' option. This shows just how far left the Democrats' presidential candidates are.
Early in the debate cycle, each of the Democrats' presidential candidates agreed that decriminalizing illegal immigration was good policy. Each of the Democrats' presidential candidates said that they'd give illegal aliens free health care. While the economy was humming along, each of the Democrats' presidential candidates said that they'd implement massive tax increases. Of course, each of the Democrats' presidential candidates said that they'd only tax "the rich."
These aren't moderates. They're crazies who don't sound as crazy as Bernie. If all people who don't sound quite as crazy as Bernie qualifies as a moderate, then most of the people in this nation qualify as moderates. Mayor Buttigieg wants Medicare-for-All (who want it). How long will it take before Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi insists that Medicare-for-All (who want it) isn't working?
Perhaps it's dawning on Mayor Buttigieg that he'll never be anything more than the mayor of the 4th-biggest city in Indiana. Buttigieg comes across as being holier-than-thou and as a know-it-all. He's a gifted spinmeister but he isn't presidential material. It wouldn't take long for President Trump to fluster him, then expose him as a hard-left dirtbag.
Posted Sunday, February 23, 2020 1:11 AM
No comments.
Warren, Biden, Buttigieg & Klobuchar
It's obvious that the field will be thinned dramatically within another week+. This article highlights the strongest force in thinning the field of Democrat presidential hopefuls. Thinning the field is as much a function of money as it is of momentum. This year, that means the field will be cut in half before Super Tuesday.
Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren each started the month scraping perilously close to the bottom of their campaign bank accounts, posing an existential threat to their candidacies as the Democratic primary goes national.
It's possible that Biden might hold on but that's a stretch at this point. The big money donors don't think he's a worthwhile risk for their contributions. The only thing that might keep him properly funded is the thought of what happens if Bernie becomes the nominee. That might end Democrat majorities in the House and Senate for a decade or more.
People have hypothesized that this election cycle would be most like 1972. While that's understandable, I think that's the wrong model. I think that a hybrid model is the right model. I don't see President Trump winning a popular vote landslide, though I think it's likely he'll win a solid popular vote victory. I don't think President Trump will win an electoral landslide of Reagan proportions. When George H.W. Bush won the election in 1988, he won with 426 electoral votes. While I don't see President Trump winning with that many electoral votes, it sorta fits.
There's a strong probability that Republicans flip the U.S. House. First, Democrats haven't gotten anything passed. Next, Democrats have focused on impeachment too much after promising to work for the people. Democrats have failed to live up to their campaign promises. People didn't send them to DC to pass partisan bills. People sent Democrats to DC to work with Republicans to lower prescription drug prices, fix health insurance and other kitchen table issues. It isn't likely that Republicans will replicate the shellacking of 2010, when they won a net of 63 House seats. Still, 1994 seems possible.
[Video no longer available]
Newt Gingrich seems to have a pretty good grasp of this race. Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Warren aren't raising the type of money that will be needed to be competitive through Super Tuesday. Biden might be able to raise enough money because the Democrat establishment doesn't want Bernie at the top of the ticket. It isn't because the DNC thinks Biden is competitive. It's because they're frightened of losing the House and having a re-elected Trump accomplish a lengthy list of things that will bolster the economy and transform the federal judiciary. Imagine if, God forbid, health forces Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire and Majority Leader McConnell helps get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to replace RBG. Imagine if Clarence Thomas retires and is replaced by a younger conservative justice. That essentially puts the Supreme Court offlimits for a generation.
What lengths are Democrats willing to go to prevent those things from happening?
Posted Sunday, February 23, 2020 1:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 24-Feb-20 05:17 PM
Why do you say "before?" Staying on the ballot through Super Tuesday can be cost free if no more advertising is bought; see how you do with Bloomberg being the wildcard. Pick up perhaps a few delegates for a brokered convention, why not?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Feb-20 01:11 AM
There's no chance Klobuchar, Buttigieg or Biden would get picked for the top of the ticket at a contested convention. Further, & I mean this sincerely, this nomination is Bernie's to lose, though he will get pounded at tonight's debate.
Russia Collusion, The Sequel
Generally speaking, movie sequels are never as good as the originals. While the Democrats' sequel to Trump Impeachment 1.0 hasn't played out yet, it's difficult to picture it being as good as the original. The only chance Trump Impeachment 2.0 has of being better than the original is because the original was a dismal failure.
Let me qualify that quickly. The Trump Impeachment 1.0 was a disaster for Democrats. Since the start of the trial, President Trump's job approval rating has hit its high. The economy keeps creating jobs at a brisk clip. The Democrats celebrated by giving us the Iowa Caucuses. President Trump's State of the Union Address was a hit with independents. At the end, Pelosi was so happy with the speech that she ripped her copy of the speech in half. Technically speaking, President Trump's acquittal didn't come until the day after the State of the Union Address.
Despite all that, impeachment-crazed Democrats intend on investigating President Trump over Russia again. Again, Democrats insist that Putin wants to help re-elect President Trump. Andy McCarthy's article shows why that doesn't make any sense:
In the sequel, you're asked to believe that Putin is manipulating the chess pieces to steal a second term for President Trump - somehow preferring an incumbent who beefs up the U.S. armed forces, pressures NATO allies to beef up theirs, imposes painful sanctions on Moscow, provides lethal aid to Ukraine, ramps up U.S. energy production, and seeks to thwart the Kremlin's coveted natural-gas partnership with Germany, over an unabashed socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union and whose policies would wreck the American economy, end the resurgence of American energy production, and hollow out the American armed forces.
That might make sense to Adam Schiff but it doesn't to anyone with a brain. On last night's Greg Gutfeld Show, comedian Walter Kirn mocks this theory with a little humor, saying "If I had known that Russia wanted America to have low unemployment, to bring the troops home and to have the strongest stock market in history, I would've voted for Dukakis when they were backing him." Schiff's thinking (that's who's behind this, right?) must be even more warped than we'd thought. After hearing in the morning that Putin wants to help re-elect President Trump, we're told in the evening that Putin wants to actually help Bernie. It doesn't matter to the MSM. They keep spinning wild conspiracy theories:
[Video no longer available]
Lawrence O'Donnell saying that President Trump is "a Russian operative" is utterly ridiculous. He should've been fired mid-show for saying something that stupid. Only Adam Schiff thinks that that's plausible. And who know when the last time was that Schiff was competent? For that matter, do we know if he's ever been competent?
The only way to fix this problem is by firing Schiff entirely. Returning him to the chairmanship of that committee is dangerous.
Posted Sunday, February 23, 2020 8:39 AM
No comments.
Is Adam Schiff a Russian agent?
While that question seems a little far-fetched initially, let's look at what's known thus far. It's known that:
- Democrats have wanted to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump administration since before President Trump's inauguration.
- Adam Schiff has leaked more classified information than any other Democrat in Congress.
- As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff saw more classified information than any Democrat in Congress.
- Adam Schiff has ignored tons of exculpatory evidence that would've prevented President Trump's impeachment.
- Adam Schiff looked at the same intelligence that Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe looked at about the FISA warrant application. He said the FBI did everything right. Ratcliffe and Gowdy raised red flags about the FBI. The Horowitz Report vindicated Ratcliffe and Gowdy. It didn't vindicate Schiff and the Democrats.
- After a recent intel briefing on potential Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election, classified information was leaked to the NYTimes and the Washington Post.
- The information that was leaked isn't accurate.
Thanks to John Ratcliffe's interview this morning, we know with certainty that the information leaked isn't accurate. It isn't just thanks to Rep. Ratcliffe's interview that we know that it isn't accurate. It's because another leak from the intel briefing that said that Russia was interfering with the election to help Bernie Sanders. The initial briefing leak said that Russia is interfering to help President Trump.
It's impossible for both statements to be true. The Russians aren't interfering to exclusively help President Trump. The Russians aren't interfering to exclusively help Sen. Sanders. The only thing that's certain is that the Russians are attempting to interfere in the election. Who they're trying to help is unknown. Whether they're trying to help either side is unknown and unknowable .
Adam Schiff insisted that Republicans have denied the fact that Russians interfered with the 2016 election. That's BS. Ratcliffe addressed that BS during this interview :
He then went on to explain that "the narrative often from Democrats and the media is that Republicans don't think the Russians have meddled in our election. They did. They meddled in 2016, they are going to meddle in 2020," he continued. "That's not the issue. The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it's because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump."
The House GOP majority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a comprehensive report detailing the ways that Russia interfered with the US Election. Devin Nunes criticized Adam Schiff on that during the impeachment hearings.
[Video no longer available]
Here's the transcript of the key part of Ratcliffe's interview:
"The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it's because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump."
It isn't a stretch to think that Adam Schiff has told some whoppers. In fact, that's been proven. While I won't say that Schiff is a Russian agent, I won't hesitate in saying that Schiff has helped Russians spread confusion by spreading the Russians' disinformation. It's my opinion that the Russians' primary goal is to spread disinformation. Further, I think it's the Russians' goal to help get Bernie elected. That's my opinion because his policies best fit with their goals.
Posted Sunday, February 23, 2020 5:04 PM
No comments.
Klobuchar's presidential campaign
Everyone's heard the cliche that "a picture is worth a thousand words." When it comes to presidential campaigns, the cliche changes. The videos contained in this post signal the end of Sen. Klobuchar's presidential campaign.
First, the video in this article says everything. In a medium-sized auditorium, Sen. Klobuchar attracted a 'crowd' that's measured in the dozens. At the rally in Fargo, Sen. Klobuchar said "This is a campaign that believes in underdogs. A lot of people didn't predict that I would make it through that snowstorm. Then they said she's not going to make it through the summer. Then they said she won't make it through the debate stage. It is one thing after another."
This is essentially the speech she gave last night after getting trounced in Nevada. All that's missing is Sen. Klobuchar's claim that she'd exceeded expectations in Nevada. How you finish 40+ points behind the winner while exceeding expectations is a little confusing but that's her line.
Another step on Sen. Klobuchar's schedule was in Arkansas, where she 'rallied' with defeated U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
[Video no longer available]
The 'crowd' in Arkansas was better, perhaps reaching 200 people. Still, the writing is on the wall. This poll shows how she's falling in South Carolina:
When the top 2 in the polls are averaging in the upper- or mid-20s and you're stuck in the mid-single-digits, that isn't proof that the campaign is built for the long haul. At some point, exceeding expectations are meaningless. At some point, you have to start winning primaries. At some point, you have to start building a coalition that gets you into the mid- to upper-20s, then eventually into the mid- to upper30s and 40s.
Yesterday in Nevada, Bernie proved that he could put such a coalition together. He was the only one that did that. With most of the others running short on cash, this is starting to look like the field will get narrowed pretty quickly.
Posted Sunday, February 23, 2020 7:17 PM
No comments.
Back in the USSA?
According to this article , enthusiasm is running high for what might be called the United Socialist States of America, aka USSA. That's wishful thinking on the socialist activists' part, in my opinion. Still, it's worth noting that these activists' enthusiasm is legitimate. It's just that they're overestimating their ability to persuade people into accepting their agenda.
Clearly, Bernie and AOC are the spiritual leaders of this movement. That doesn't mean that they'll soon dominate the entire political landscape. Their theories don't play in real life. Socialism isn't built on the notion of persuading people. It's built on the notion of forcing people into doing things they don't want to do.
For instance, Medicare-for-All is built on the premise that Bernie knows what's best for all of us and that we should just listen to him because that's what Bernie's ideology dictates. It's the opposite of capitalism. When the first iPhone hit the shelves, people wanted it so badly that they virtually flew off the shelves. Nobody forced customers to buy iPhones. People wanted them and bought them at unprecedented rates.
To stop this race-to-the-bottom cycle undercutting workers' power and lay the groundwork for revolutionary change, we must erode the power of the capitalist class. We can accomplish that by, for example, imposing capital controls - measures that stop the free movement of capital in response to changing social and economic conditions. But to pass economic reforms as significant as these, we can't just agitate in the streets, as important as that is. We have to be in power .
There you have it. The facade has been ripped off, the agenda exposed. This isn't a debate over which ideas are best. In these socialist activists' minds, that fight has been fought and the socialists won. Therefore, Democrats aren't interested in debating. That's why organizations like Antifa and Black Lives Matter were created.
They were created to intimidate, not persuade. With goal being to gain, then maintain, political power, the need to break down civil society is imperative. This is about ruling, not governing. If Republicans don't figure that out ASAP, the socialists' inroads will be too deep.
Fortunately, President Trump figured this out long ago. That's why he told us in his 2019 State of the Union Address that the United States will never be a socialist nation:
[Video no longer available]
Pundits are telling us that Bernie 2020 isn't that much different than Trump 2016. I wholeheartedly disagree. The policies Bernie is espousing in 2020 are getting adopted by more and more Democrats but they still aren't majority positions. The policies that President Trump espoused were majority positions, especially with Republicans but also with independents.
Voters will reject Bernie's socialist policies. Thanks to Democrats challenging Biden, then Warren, then Bloomberg, Bernie's policies haven't gotten challenged. That'll change the minute it's a one-on-one fight with President Trump. President Trump won't pull his punches like Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden have pulled their punches.
By the time President Trump's haymakers start landing, Bernie won't know how to hand them. By the time Bernie figures it out, it'll be over except counting the votes. Fortunately, Democrats won't be in charge of that.
Posted Monday, February 24, 2020 3:28 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 24-Feb-20 06:09 PM
I wish all these crazed Bernie fans could get a taste of what destruction Bernie would bring to the country, without actually destroying the country. They have no idea that Bernie can't deliver on one of his promises without the complete destruction of America. The stock market will crash, private sector jobs will disappear, and people will flee. You can't tell them to look at Venezuela, Cuba or any other truly socialist/communist country because they just think that their version will work this time.
Adam Schiff, Jane Harman, Democrats, birds of a feather
It's pretty clear that Adam Schiff isn't a trustworthy Democrat. Leaks from his committee have been selective but persistent. The leaks are always slanted against President Trump. Schiff's hatred of President Trump is understandable. Schiff suffers from an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, aka TDS.
Last week, the Washington Post and the NYTimes reported on a classified briefing about election security. According to the articles, the Russians planned to interfere with the 2020 presidential election. That's as surprising as finding out that humans need oxygen to survive. The other part of the briefing, allegedly, was that Russia was interfering to help President Trump win re-election.
Chris Wallace tried to get Marc Short to confirm or deny the reliability of the information but wasn't successful in that attempt. In an interview with Maria Bartiromo, John Ratcliffe, a Republican sitting on the House Intelligence Committee, told Maria that the information briefed to Congress wasn't accurate:
[Video no longer available]
Here's what Rep. Ratcliffe said:
"The narrative often from Democrats and the media is that Republicans don't think the Russians have meddled in our election. They did. They meddled in 2016, they are going to meddle in 2020," he continued. "That's not the issue. The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it's because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump."
Adam Schiff is utterly dishonest. Nobody who knows him trusts him. If she doesn't watch out, Jane Harman might develop the same reputation. As a member of Chris Wallace's panel yesterday, she was asked "Can you understand the president's concern, regardless of what the truth is of what the members of the House Intelligence Committee were told, can you understand the president's concern that this information was brought -- of all committees, to House Intelligence run by the president's nemesis, Adam Schiff, and that it leaks within 24 hours?"
Harman replied "Well, the leaks are terrible -- yes, I can understand that concern, but that committee was blown up long ago, sadly. Devin Nunes is a very partisan ranking member." That's the worst type of partisanship. Devin Nunes isn't a partisan. Nunes' sin was highlighting -- in 2014 -- that the Russians would interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Nunes repeated the warning in 2015 and in the spring of 2016.
In February, 2018, Nunes published the report that said that said the FBI improperly used the Steele Dossier to obtain a warrant from the FISA Court to improperly surveil Carter Page. Adam Schiff criticized the Nunes Memo and published the Democrats' memo that essentially said that everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. The Horowitz Report vindicated Nunes and discredited Schiff.
For all that, Harman insists that Rep. Nunes is a partisan. The objective facts indicate the opposite. He's just a man doing a great job protecting this nation. If the new definition of partisanship is a man protecting his country from international enemies, then let's see an increase of that type of partisanship.
The US needs dozens more legislators like John Ratcliffe and Devin Nunes. They've been repeatedly vindicated. That can't be said about Adam Schiff and Jane Harman. They're nothing more than Democrat partisan hacks.
Posted Monday, February 24, 2020 10:35 AM
No comments.
