November 21-22, 2016
Nov 21 01:52 Sen. Schumer stupidity showing Nov 21 04:50 SEIU thieves, Part II Nov 21 11:20 Jeff Sessions, existential threat Nov 21 16:03 Dems' biggest big picture problem Nov 22 00:18 Steny Hoyer's situational principles Nov 22 02:30 Trust Robert Reich's blueprint? Nov 22 11:42 The Electoral College and Democratic sore losers
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Sen. Schumer stupidity showing
In his first interview with FNC's Chris Wallace since being elected Senate Minority Leader, Sen. Schumer sounds like he's prepared to help Senate Democrats commit political suicide . During Sen. Schumer's interview with Chris Wallace, he said "ObamaCare, he won't be able to do it."
Let's hope Sen. Schumer is that stupid. If he's willing to obstruct legislation that would fix Obamacare, then Democrats will deserve the beating they'll take during the 2018 midterm election. These aren't people that are mildly upset. They're people who are pissed at Democrats for creating this disaster. If Schumer filibusters an Obamacare repair bill, he should expect President Trump visiting Democratic senators in September and October, 2018. Specifically, Sen. Schumer should expect colleagues like Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Bill Nelson, Sherrod Brown and Tim Kaine to face difficult re-election fights. Tammy Baldwin's seat is rated as a 'safe Democratic' seat even though she won with only 51% of the vote in 2012. If Republicans field an appealing candidate (Sean Duffy comes to mind), that seat is anything but safe after President-Elect Trump's victory there.
Further, a Trump administration could highlight the Democrats' obstructionism by granting waivers for all states who want to experiment with something different. The beautiful part about that is the fact that there's a provision in the ACA that allows the Secretary of HHS to grant such waivers. The ads virtually write themselves. The ads would say something like 'Sen. Heitkamp voted to create Obamacare. Now it's costing North Dakota residents millions in higher insurance premiums. You'd think that Sen. Heitkamp would vote to fix this crisis but she won't. If she won't fix the mess she created, voters should replace her with someone who will fix this crisis.'
It's one thing to fight against repealing a popular bill. It's quite another to fight to save a bill that's wildly unpopular. Fighting against fixing Obamacare is the political equivalent of making a quick movement towards a cobra.
Posted Monday, November 21, 2016 1:52 AM
No comments.
SEIU thieves, Part II
In Part I of this series, I highlighted how the SEIU Healthcare MN union are stealing families' Medicaid benefits. From a moral standpoint, it's difficult to justify SEIU's actions. As Kim Crockett, the vice president and senior policy fellow at Center of the American Experiment, explained in her op-ed , "Minnesota's Choice PCA program was created in the 1970s when the Legislature wisely decided it was more humane and more cost-effective to care for persons with disabilities in their own homes rather than in a state institution."
It's difficult, if not impossible, to think of something more noble or dignifying than a family member taking care of a loved one with a disability in their own home. Picturing that in my mind's eye is an inspiring thought. What isn't inspiring is thinking about the things that the Dayton administration has done to protect SEIU Healthcare MN. In fact, it's a disgusting thought. First, Gov. Dayton assisted SEIU Healthcare in rigging the initial election. The Dayton administration saw to it that voter turnout was low. The result was the SEIU winning "the biggest labor election in Minnesota history with just 13 percent support of eligible PCAs." It's especially disgusting when you think of the fact that "most PCAs did not even know there was a vote."
Now that the PCAs are fighting for a vote to decertify SEIU Healthcare MN, the Dayton administration is fighting these parents. First, "a coalition of caregivers and advocates called 'MNPCA.org' was formed to demand a new vote." The Dayton administration is assisting because the "MNPCA has a very short window of time to demonstrate a 'showing of interest,' defined as handwritten signatures of 30 percent of PCAs, to call for a new vote."
The Dayton administration is fighting these families:
Getting signatures requires a good contact list. The SEIU receives updated PCA contact information every two weeks. But when MNPCA requested an updated list, the state stalled for five months and refused to give them accurate information, instead giving MNPCA two bad lists. Also, the SEIU and state began negotiating a new contract almost year before the current one expires. If that process is completed before MNPCA gets a new election, the decertification effort will be defeated.
With the window to call for a new vote rapidly closing; the last date to file for a new election is Dec. 2; MNPCA took the state to court. A Ramsey County judge ruled that PCAs must be given the data they requested. Yet even with a judge's order, the state failed to give MNPCA a complete and accurate list. MNPCA asked the judge to help but for now has to assume the deadline will not change.
It's impossible to believe that the Dayton administration can't get an accurate list of PCAs to MNPCA in a timely fashion when they're updating SEIU Healthcare MN with a list every 2 weeks.
Remember this the next time you hear Tina Smith or some other DFL political hack talk about being for the little guy. That's BS. They're for whoever will contribute large sums of money to their political campaigns. It has nothing to do with fighting for the little guy.
In this instance, Gov. Dayton and the DFL aren't fighting for the little guy. Instead, they're fighting the little guy. What's worst is that the DFL is fighting the little guy on behalf of a big money special interest group.
Posted Monday, November 21, 2016 4:50 AM
No comments.
Jeff Sessions, existential threat
Stephen Dinan's article highlights how little leverage Democrats have in the immigration reform debate. Without writing a single new law, Sen. Sessions will be able to pressure mayors of sanctuary cities. As a result, Sen. Sessions' opponents are coming unhinged.
For instance, Brent Wilkes, the executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said "the agency would become the dispenser of terror and racial intolerance should Jeff Sessions be confirmed." That's mild compared with what Charles Chamberlain, head of Democracy for America, said. Chamberlain said "The handful of people who might be even less equipped than Jeff Sessions to dispense justice on behalf of the American people typically spend their weekends wearing pointy hats and burning crosses."
Democrats are preparing to fight a losing fight against Sen. Sessions' confirmation as the next US Attorney General. Sen. Sessions will be confirmed. The only question still undetermined is whether Democrats will do as La Raza and other special interests demand or whether they'll vote to protect their constituents. At this point, I'm betting that they'll follow these special interest organizations over a political cliff.
Byron York's article lists some of the things that Sen. Sessions could do the minute he's sworn in as the next US Attorney General.
There are laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally. Laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally and later committed crimes. Laws for enforcing immigration compliance at the worksite. Laws for immigrants who have illegally overstayed their visas for coming to the United States. Laws requiring local governments to comply with federal immigration law. And more.
Many of those laws have been loosened or, in some cases, completely ignored by the Obama administration. A Trump administration would not need to ask Congress to pass any new laws to deal with illegal immigration. If there was a presidential order involved in Obama's non-enforcement, Trump could undo it, and if there were Justice Department directives involved, Sessions could undo them, and if there are Department of Homeland Security directives involved, the still-to-be-nominated secretary could undo them.
Once those laws are enforced, illegal immigration will slow to a trickle.
This would definitely change behavior:
End the embargo on worksite enforcement. "Experience has shown that employers respond very quickly and voluntarily implement compliance measures when there is an uptick in enforcement," Vaughan notes, "because they see the potential damage to their operations and public image for being caught and prosecuted."
Once cheap labor becomes expensive, corporate policies change quickly. That's because companies prefer making profits rather than not making profits.
It isn't a secret why the Democrats' special interest groups are fighting Sen. Sessions' confirmation. They're right in seeing him as an existential threat to their policies. Here's hoping that the American people punish Democrats for not fixing this crisis.
Posted Monday, November 21, 2016 11:20 AM
No comments.
Dems' biggest big picture problem
Salena Zito's latest column deals with the Democrats' problems connecting with voters. In the article, she quotes "Bruce Haynes, founding partner of Purple Strategies, and a GOP strategist." Haynes is right in stating that the Democrats' "challenge is they have lost their connection with the American voter. In short, they have a macro problem." Haynes is essentially saying that improving their messaging might help around the margins but it won't fix their biggest problem.
Apparently, "Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist also at Purple Strategies", didn't get that memo. In the article, he's quoted as saying "there was no screaming, no partisan attacks; the tone was neither shrill nor harsh, just simple messages that began with 'Are you tired of ...' or 'Think about this ...'"
Howard Dean's 50-state strategy produced positive results electorally. What it didn't do, though, was produce positive results for the American people policywise. That's the important metric by which things are getting measured.
The Democrats' newest difficulty is that Dean's 50-state strategy eventually led to the Democratic majorities that created the ACA. The Democrats' worst nightmare possibility is that Trump's agenda is as successful as Bill Clinton's in terms of economic growth and job creation. The Democrats will have to answer why they should be given access to power after they've passed Obamacare and let the EPA run wild while mining jobs disappeared.
The Democrats' biggest problem is that they're the radical party. If their agenda doesn't change from income inequality, raising the minimum wage and insisting that climate change is the biggest threat to American society, they'll wander this self-inflicted desert for a decade or more.
Electing Keith Ellison as chairman of the DNC would help cement the Democrats' image of being the radical party. This interview cements Ellison's image as being a back-bench bomb-thrower:
Dennis Miller got it right about Ellison:
The Democrats' biggest problems are that they're hyperpartisan and their policies haven't worked. Put differently, they aren't that likable and their policies either hurt families (think Obamacare) or people ignore their far-left agenda (think $15 minimum wage or transgender bathrooms).
Posted Monday, November 21, 2016 4:03 PM
No comments.
Steny Hoyer's situational principles
It isn't a secret that Steny Hoyer is a partisan hack who doesn't have consistent principles. That's apparent in Hoyer's latest statement to the press . Monday morning, Hoyer issued a statement, saying "One of the basic principles that safeguards our democracy is the separation of the personal business interests of our leaders from the government business with which they are entrusted while in office. That is why I am deeply concerned by reports over the past few days that Donald Trump is continuing to promote his personal business ventures as he prepares to assume the presidency. Reports of his meeting with Indian business representatives and reports that he used a phone call with Argentinean President Mauricio Macri to lobby on behalf of a Trump-branded building project are, if accurate, unacceptable behavior for the incoming President of the United States."
Don't mistake my opinions with defending Donald Trump. I won't defend the indefensible. Another thing I won't do is tolerate political hacks that use situational principles. I define situational principles as principles that are used on political opponents but aren't used on political allies.
I checked Hoyer's Whip webpage to see if he'd issued any statements criticizing Hillary Clinton's pay-for-play scheme through the Clinton Foundation. Thus far, I haven't found anything resembling that. This statement , however, complains about the House Oversight Committee's investigation of the Clinton Foundation. While Hoyer stopped short of defending the Foundation, that didn't prevent him from launching a blistering political attack against Republicans:
With their barrage of unwarranted attacks through subpoenas and letters, House Republicans are engaged in a blatant and partisan campaign to discredit Secretary Clinton at the expense of American taxpayers and Congressional resources. Investigation after investigation has found no wrongdoing, and Director Comey made clear that there was no criminal activity. House Republicans' attacks against Secretary Clinton have become an obsession, and they have been dragging the American people along with them on a political witch hunt while ignoring critical challenges that ought to be the focus of Congress's attention instead.
Apparently, the American people thought the Clinton's pay-to-play disturbing. First, every poll released in the final month noted that the American people didn't trust Mrs. Clinton. Next, I think it's interesting that Hoyer thinks investigating the Clinton Foundation's self-enrichment plan isn't using Mrs. Clinton's official governmental responsibilities for personal enrichment.
Clearly, donors thought that donations to the Clinton Foundation bought them additional access to Mrs. Clinton. That's what this article indicates:
Foundation officials delayed release of the quarterly report of its latest donors on its website until the after the Nov. 8 presidential election, which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost to Republican rival Donald Trump.
The low number of new donors may indicate potential contributors were frightened away by repeated news reports that the Clinton charity is under FBI investigation regarding multiple allegations of 'pay-to-play' influence-peddling schemes involving both Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, as well as their key political aides.
The thing that this election taught us is that people are tired of DC insiders being hypocrites. I suspect that people think of Hoyer as being a classic DC hypocrite. This video is proof of that:
Posted Tuesday, November 22, 2016 12:18 AM
No comments.
Trust Robert Reich's blueprint?
Democrats should follow Robert Reich's blueprint to revitalize the Democratic Party . One of the parts of the article that's interesting reading the part when Reich starts talking about insiders. Specifically, he said "the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy, it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren't going to happily relinquish their power and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich."
The Democratic Party has always been the party of party insiders. That's their identity. It's their DNA. That being said, Reich has a point in saying "It must harness the energies and idealism of young people across the nation who were drawn to Bernie Sanders's campaign because of its promise to get big money out of politics; reverse widening inequality; turn the nation's wildly expensive and baroque healthcare complex into a single-payer system; reverse climate change; end the militarization of our police and the mass incarceration of our people and stop interminable and open-ended warfare."
If that's what you think the Democratic Party needs to return to political relevance, then Keith Ellison is the perfect fit for DNC chairman. Part of the Democrats' problem is that they all sound alike. Here's what Rep. Tim Ryan, the man who's opposing Nancy Pelosi, said :
If Donald Trump's going to defund Planned Parenthood, privatize Medicare, just simply cut taxes for the top 1 percent and throw people off their health care, he's going to be in a street fight with a kid from the Youngstown area, and that's how that's going to work.
Considering the fact that Democrats have presided over the most pathetic economic growth since the Great Depression, it probably isn't wise to sound like Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Back to Reich's plan. This video is a lengthy pep talk to the troops:
Reich spend most of his time talking about climate change, bragging about the (supposedly) positive accomplishments of the EPA and advocating a Medicare for all health care plan. How will that connect with the pipefitter working on a pipeline infrastructure project? How will those things tell the electrician that you understand them? This won't connect with voters. At this point, people don't trust Washington, DC. They think DC doesn't understand them, probably because Washington, DC hasn't understood them for years.
What's especially delicious is listening to Reich saying that Democrats have to do a better job of listening to the people, then saying "particularly sensitive to widening inequality, particularly sensitive to the corruption that widening inequality generates. When you have huge wealth at the top that is being channeled and used in order to gain influence to get even more wealth." That isn't in touch with America.
People don't think in terms of income inequality. People just wish they had a secure job in a growing economy. Income inequality is an abstract concept. A secure job in a vibrant economy is something people can relate to.
Posted Tuesday, November 22, 2016 2:30 AM
No comments.
The Electoral College and Democratic sore losers
The left is determined to undermine the credibility of the Electoral College. It's best to think of this as their latest childish hissy fit. The Democrats' latest hissy fit is to convince 37 Republican activists to shift their votes to Hillary Clinton . The chances of that happening are less than my chances of getting struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket.
According to the article, the "presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths, and in some cases, state law, to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19." These renegades admit that they don't have a chance of changing the outcome. That isn't their goal.
These Democrats' goal is to undermine the Electoral College's credibility. Instead, they're demolishing the Democrats' credibility because it's coming across as them being sore losers. Hillary lost because she's a terrible candidate. Rather than accept the defeat, these Democrats would rather throw another hissy fit.
Rather than worrying about creating mining jobs in Pennsylvania and Ohio or repealing and replacing Obamacare, which is collapsing under its own weight, these Democrats are fighting a fight nobody's paying attention to. If the American people put together a list of their top 25 priorities, Electoral College reform wouldn't make the top 50.
Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they're unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump, the number they'd likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.
But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body's 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.
Take a lengthy look at these Democrats. They're what sore losers and intemperate lefties look like. These are the Democrats that preach inclusivity to the right but don't practice what they preach.
Posted Tuesday, November 22, 2016 11:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Nov-16 03:52 PM
There is National Popular Vote, which Republican CD6 Rep. Tom Emmer supports. It takes a "states rights" view toward a state-by-state acceptance by law; not having an effect until states having a total of 270 or more electoral votes have adopted it into law. Once the 270 mark is reached, all belonging states will commit to a slate of electors pledged to all vote for the candidate with the highest vote count, nationwide, once the nation's electors convene post-election.
Any thoughts?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-16 11:47 PM
I've told Rep. Emmer that it's a dumb idea. If you wanted to advocate for proportional awarding of electoral votes, I'd give that some serious consideration but I can't take the national popular vote seriously.
Emmer is right that individual states have the right to determine how its electoral votes are awarded, though. That's always been the case.
