June 30, 2018
Jun 30 01:16 The Maxine Waters Brigade? Jun 30 15:32 The immigration election? Jun 30 23:00 Gubernatorial visionaries?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
The Maxine Waters Brigade?
This article introduces a frightening thought to Republicans -- "the Maxine Waters brigade." Actually, conservatives should be happy for such a phenomenon.
This paragraph should explain why. In it, it talks about "Even before the prospect of a conservative SCOTUS majority, progressives were already chasing Republicans out of restaurants. Now that Roe v. Wade is theoretically at risk, what will the Maxine Waters brigade do now - start throwing them out of airplanes?"
As I highlighted in this earlier post , Democrats are losing it. Watch 15 seconds of the videos of Jeffrey Toobin and Chris Matthews losing it and you'll know what I mean. To use an old cliche, a little paranoia goes a long way. This week especially, Democrats are living proof of that cliche.
Here's a bigger problem for Democrats:
Yes, that's turned around a bit in the Trump era, most notably in Alabama where a solidly red seat flipped to blue. But unfortunately for Democrats there are only so many Judge Roy Moore's to go around. What's happening this November is that Democrats like Joe Manchin (WV), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), and Claire McCaskill (MO) have to run against quality, non-crazy Republicans in states that Trump carried by double-digits.
And now, thanks to Justice Kennedy's retirement, those same Democrats have to vote against a conservative Supreme Court nominee: on the eve of an election. It's like a felon robbing a bank on his way to a parole hearing - it confirms everything they feared about you to begin with.
For people who understand things the game of Cribbage, they know that a hand with all even cards is close to worthless. The old saying is that the only right way to throw such a hand is away. Democrats are looking at the political equivalent of an all even cards Cribbage hand this year.
Think about this: Joe Crowley had hoped to challenge Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House. He was defeated by a socialist who wants to abolish ICE. She'll win that election but New York Republicans should drape her around the necks of every so-called moderate in New York. I can't picture that turning out well for Democrats.
[Video no longer available]
Think about this, too. How many voters think that getting rid of ICE is the pathway to a safer, more prosperous America? A: Virtually no one. When closing arguments are made this October and November, expect this to be part of the Republicans' closing arguments.
Don't expect the Maxine Waters Brigade to win that fight.
Posted Saturday, June 30, 2018 1:16 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 30-Jun-18 06:46 AM
Polls have shown that a majority of people are in support of ICE, against illegal immigration, and for legal immigration but you'd never know that if you only got your info from the MSM. Real people who are going to make or break the so called "blue wave" are moving away from the bat crap crazy left and will either not vote or will be voting for those who will enforce the laws already on the books.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jun-18 02:56 PM
Chad, I just heard that Mark Penn, Hillary's pollster in 2008, said 84% of people support stiffer border enforcement. That Democrats will be forced to defend abolishing ICE in that environment verifies everything you've just said. Put differently, those people are nucking futts.
The immigration election?
The more Democrats insist on abolishing ICE, the more Democrats are turning 2018 into the 'Immigration Election'. It isn't that people won't care about the increasing prosperity. It's that women will care more about the dangers represented by MS-13, the opioid crisis and the human trafficking crisis.
According to this op-ed , there's a solution to these crises. Unfortunately for Democrats, they steadfastly reject that solution.
Brandon Judd's op-ed opens by saying "If Democrats and the media elite truly cared about the safety of illegal immigrants, they'd be down on the border right now working to build the wall President Trump wants America to have. As a veteran Border Patrol agent, I know firsthand that a secure border with the big beautiful wall the president is building is the only humane and permanent solution to the crisis at the border."
Democrats keep pushing the message that Republicans are tearing illegal aliens' families apart. Republicans have started pushing the stories that angel families are getting torn apart thanks to MS-13, drug cartels and opioid overdoses. Let's not kid ourselves. Suburban moms won't like it that their friends' kids are dying as a result of the Democrats' unwillingness to build the wall.
[Video no longer available]
Despite Democratic obstruction, President Trump is building the wall now, and he will play hardball with Congress to ensure that the necessary funding to complete the wall is secured. Without a completed wall, thousands of illegal immigrants will continue to put their lives at risk.
As long as people think they can cross the border illegally, they will continue to try. The journey is dangerous enough due to the natural conditions alone. Traveling hundreds or even thousands of miles on foot, often in extreme heat and without adequate water, is no easy trip for an adult - let alone for a child.
But those who try to cross our southern border illegally are subject to much worse than just the elements - they are at the mercy of brutal criminal gangs. The illegal immigrant smuggling trade is dominated by predatory 'coyotes' connected to Mexico's worst drug cartels. They care little for the lives of their human cargo. These are the sorts of people who don't think twice before leaving illegal immigrants to die in locked trailers under the desert sun.
Democrats feel compelled to disagree with everything President Trump. It isn't smart policywise but it's the Democrats' foolishness. That's just who they are. The closer we get to the election, the more Democrats will see people shift away from their candidates.
I'm not surprised. Stupid policies make for terrible politicking. You don't get much more stupid than abolishing ICE.
Posted Saturday, June 30, 2018 3:32 PM
No comments.
Gubernatorial visionaries?
After reading this article , I'm certain that the DFL doesn't have any visionaries running for governor. In fact, I'll say one more thing. It's clear to me that the DFL candidates aren't top tier candidates.
I started wondering if the DFL had any top tier candidates when I read "Erin Murphy, who's represented her St. Paul state House district since 2007, said she grew up around politics 'that were about improving people's lives' and said she wants to return to that if elected. 'We should be doing all that we can to make sure that we're building a future for the people of Minnesota,' she said. But lately, 'I see us moving in a direction more toward a Washington, D.C.-style of politics where we're thinking too much about how to beat the other side, how to get to the next election and the things we need to do together are falling behind.'"
This was confirmed when I read this:
Walz too talked about changing political culture. And just as Murphy often references her nursing profession, Walz often cites his time as a social studies teacher. 'We believe in education and we do it in that classroom because it doesn't have to be a pejorative to talk about government,' said the six-term member of Congress from Mankato. 'It's us. It's the people who make decisions in communities. But we have to make sure those most impacted by decisions are at the table.
'The behind-closed-doors thing is undermining our basic faith...we're a very polarized nation and that is holding us back,' he said.
Perhaps Walz is complaining about what happens behind closed doors because he's never been invited to closed-door negotiations. That's because he's never been a committee chairman. That's because, for 12 years, he's been a nobody in Congress.
Quick rule of thumb: Nobodies in Congress aren't visionaries.
Thankfully, there was a visionary at the debate:
Johnson complained of 'arrogance' in state agencies and said he seeks to change 'the very culture in St. Paul. I got into this race almost 14 months ago and I got in for a very simple reason: to give people more control over their own money and over their own businesses and over their own kids' education and over their own health care and, frankly, over their own lives,' Johnson said.
With Johnson, at least you know there's something substantive that he wants to accomplish. There's no question that he has a number of goals in mind.
This video is worth watching:
[Video no longer available]
It's worth watching even though they don't poll the match-up between Erin Murphy and Tim Pawlenty, which is the likely match-up this November. Murphy is the DFL favorite because, in my opinion, she'll dominate the Twin Cities vote while Lori Swanson and Tim Walz split the rural vote.
The poll shows that Tim Pawlenty leading Jeff Johnson 54%-20%. That isn't a position Johnson is likely to rebound from.
Posted Saturday, June 30, 2018 11:00 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 01-Jul-18 06:51 AM
The only vison progressive socialists see is more government intervention into people's lives so they can feel good about doing something to supposedly help and in return line their own pockets.
Comment 2 by eric z at 02-Jul-18 12:29 PM
Jeff Johnson showed up. Several Dems, and he did not coward out.
