Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category
Obama’s approval ratings and MSNBC’s viewer ratings are in a close race to the bottom of Death Valley. It’s only a question of which set of obnoxious hipsters with a head full of bad policy ideas and no real life experience will be fired first; the Maddow crew or the White House staff.
The progressive pajama boy era is over. The asexual messenger bag toting wonk has met an ISIS Jihadist and run home to its non-traditional family. Liberalism isn’t over, but its contenders are trying to butch up their act.
The second coming of Hillary is accompanied by bellicose rhetoric about Putin and Syria. Leon Panetta, her gnomish errand boy, is sneering at Obama as an egghead too busy dithering about what not to do to be able to actually do anything about ISIS.
Democrats are adjusting to a new reality of less nuance and more centrist politics. So is MSNBC.
If Obama loses the Senate, then his leftist backers also lose their death grip on the Democratic Party. And that’s why they’re panicking so badly. Progressives proved that money and media bias could let them get away with anything. But then they lost in 2010, barely hung on in 2012 and are heading for a beating in 2014. If they can’t buy the Senate now, the Democratic Party will have to correct its course.
A sober analysis of the Big Billionaire Left shows that they were good at getting Obama elected, but not much else. Like the USSR, they could pour a lot of energy and capital into inefficiently getting one big thing done, but they aren’t much good at doing a lot of little things. Their hijacking of democracy ran into trouble the moment they tried to push past the White House. It was only the White House’s hijacking of democracy by trying to function as a unilateral dictatorship of pen and phone that extended their influence beyond their initial defeat in 2010. And that came with its own price in popularity.
Obama’s arrogance isolated him politically. He insisted on running everything and is stuck with the bill. In countless speeches he demanded more power and authority; his sinking approval ratings reflect the growing willingness of even his own supporters to hold him responsible for his unilateral policymaking.
As the election approaches everything that could have gone wrong has gone wrong. Not only did Obama’s aggressive efforts to stoke racial unrest on the border and in Ferguson to turn out the minority voters who generally sit out midterm elections backfire, but the resulting messes deepened the popular impression that he was in over his head. Now instead of pivoting from Global Warming to a minimum wage to some offensive thing that some local Republican somewhere said, the media is stuck in an Ebola-ISIS cycle that reminds Americans on a daily basis that everything really is out of control.
The critiques from even friendly media outlets keep throwing around words and terms like “detached”, “in over his head”, “flailing” and “too smart for his own good”. That word salad adds up to the same message as the one being peddled by Leon Panetta; America needs strong experienced leadership.
And Obama isn’t it.
By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
A new ad put out by the left-wing Advocacy Project seeks to link Republican budget cuts with the spread of the Ebola virus, a shameful fear tactic that could take hold among a populace rightfully concerned about this epidemic. While media organizations such as Time Magazine and Real Clear Politics have reported on the existence of the video, all they did was cite the ad, not challenge the veracity of its information. In doing so, they’re acting as vehicles for spreading its misinformation.
The Heritage Foundation’s news website, The Daily Signal, reported that “Erica Payne, the founder and president of The Agenda Project, told CNN that ‘people should be deathly afraid of Republican policies,’ and that there is ‘no question’ about the link between budget cuts and Ebola.”
The Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler calls the arguments in this ad, and the similar strategy by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee of blaming Republicans for cuts, “absurd.” He bestows such claims with four Pinocchios. According to him, appropriations for the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health are down, but this has as much to do with bipartisan action and inflation as anything else. “Obama’s Republican predecessor oversaw big increases in public-health sector spending, and both Democrats and Republicans in recent years have broadly supported efforts to rein in federal spending,” he writes. In other words, both parties have increased and decreased health care budgets. “There’s no doubt that spending has been cut, or at least failed to keep pace with inflation, but the fingerprints of both parties are on the knives,” he writes.
But the news media have taken this Democrat message and tried to further it in its own reporting, either by disseminating the ad or through outright partisanship. MSNBC’s Joy Reid tweeted on October 12, “To the anti-government wingers in my thread: so far, the only ‘spread of Ebola’ in the U.S. was caused by a private hospital in a red state.” This comes from the same news channel where a host claimed that Alton Nolen’s beheading of an innocent woman in Moore, Oklahoma had as much to do with Islam as what the alleged perpetrator ate for breakfast.
While some in the news media seem content to blame the GOP for cuts in the government’s protective apparatus, resulting in the spread of Ebola, the data shows that misplaced priorities may have contributed to the crisis rather than budget cuts overall.
The Centers for Disease Control budget has, indeed, declined since 2010—from $6.5 billion to $5.8 billion, according to CDC data. However, an examination of the chart provided by the CDC shows that the shortfall has been largely made up by Prevention and Public Health Fund monies, which are added above and beyond the declining budgetary authority.
The Washington Post headline said the convoluted answer constituted “40 painful seconds of Alison Lundergan Grimes refusing to say whether she voted for President Obama.” The Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate evaded direct questions from a newspaper’s editorial board about whether she had voted for Obama. It was truly an embarrassment. NBC’s Chuck Todd basically said she’s finished as a candidate.
But while Lundergan Grimes is avoiding the issue, and Obama is not even on the ballot this year, the Communist Party is openly organizing against the Republican Party in order to strengthen Obama’s ability to carry out his Marxist agenda in his final two years in office.
With elections just a month away, the Communists have made it plain, once again, that they favor Democrats over Republicans.
While Lundergan Grimes’s ridiculous evasions are getting some media attention, the nature of Obama’s “progressive” base will get glossed over because it’s not politically correct to talk about communists involved in the political process. That’s considered McCarthyism.
Communist support for Obama is definitely a taboo subject for the press.
Although the CPUSA is not necessarily the preeminent communist organization on the U.S. political scene these days, it still maintains links to the Russian Communist Party and is able to organize and deploy activists in some critical election contests, such as in North Carolina and Florida.
On the occasion of the CPUSA’s 30th party convention in June in Chicago, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation sent a “Dear Comrades” letter of greetings, seeking to “further strengthen these ties on the basis of the principles of proletarian internationalism.”
In 2012, the Communist Party had said that re-electing Obama was “absolutely essential.” Now it’s afraid of Republicans undermining his Marxist agenda by making gains in the November elections.
“Defeating the extreme right wing in this election comes down to voter turnout,” says Communist Party operative Joelle Fishman. “This huge fight to get out the vote can result in a stronger movement going forward.” Fishman warns of “Republican sabotage” against Obama, Republicans winning control of the Senate, and Republican governors “on a rampage.”
The party disagrees with Obama on some issues, but generally supports what he has done—and what he wants to accomplish in his final two years.
The party’s slogan used to be, “People before profits.” Now it’s “People and nature before profits,” incorporating the demands of the “green” movement to deindustrialize the U.S., promote “climate change” legislation and stop fracking.
While Republicans think the pendulum is swinging in their favor this year, Fishman begs to differ, noting, “The political landscape is beginning to change in the historically deep red Southern states. The Moral Monday movement has spread to 12 states now, including Indiana. It is a multi-issue, multi-racial movement that is taking on racism and other divisions. Sen. Bernie Sanders has toured Southern states with this message. The racist police killing in Ferguson, Missouri and the exposé of lack of representation there is also inspiring voter registration in the south and nationally.”
The so-called “racist police killing” is, of course, a reference to police officer Darren Wilson defending himself against a black robber who rushed and attacked him in his police car.
Fishman’s praise of the so-called Moral Mondays Movement is significant.
So what do these Democrats know?: Democrats are already putting blame on why they are going to lose the Senate
Tempers are running high a month out from Election Day, with polls showing Democratic candidates trailing in the crucial battleground states that will decide whether control of Congress flips to Republicans. . . .
“Yes, you’ve seen pre-emptive finger pointing in the last couple of weeks,” said Gerald Warburg, a former Senate Democratic leadership aide and assistant dean at the University of Virginia’s Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy. . . .
With control of the Senate in jeopardy, some Democrats are eyeing potential scapegoats: Obama’s low approval rating; low turnout from Hispanic voters; overly centrist messaging; and the media, to name just a few. . . .
Corruption in Virginia, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe should be in a lot of trouble for bribing state senator, bribe caught on tape
1) Republicans offer a Democratic State Senator a job. Now it is true that the Democrat has to resign his seat to take the job and that his resigning will give the Republicans control of the state Senate, but there is no explicit quid pro quo.
2) Democrats promise the that same Democratic State Senator a job for his daughter if he remains in office. That is a definite quid pro quo and against the law — it is a crime. To put it simply it is a bribe. More specifically, the bribe was being offered to get a particular piece of legislation through.
Now prosecutors have been looking diligently into the first case, even though the now former Democratic State Senator claims that there was no quid pro quo. Now the state Attorney General is a Democrat and prosecutors have not yet launched an investigation in to Terry McAuliffe, but the evidence here seems overwhelming simply because there is a recording of the McAuliffe’s chief of staff offering the bribe. The Washington Post has this transcript (the part in bold is the key):
“Hey Senator. This is Paul Reagan again. I just wanted to bounce one idea off you. I know there was a lot of frustration with your daughter, not, you know, getting a judgeship or something. if there’s something that we can do for her, I mean, you know, we have a couple of big agencies here that we still need agency heads. We could potentially, potentially, subject to approval of the governor and so forth, you know, the department of mines, minerals and energy could be available. So we would be very eager to accommodate her, if, if that would be helpful in keeping you in the senate. We, we would basically do anything. We just need you really, we need you for the rest of your term and beyond, but in the immediate future, we need you to help us get this Medicaid deal through and I think we’ve got a way to do it. So anyway, please let’s keep all this confidential. Call me 703-850—–. Thank you sir. Bye.”
Now the obvious point is this: Who could have turned the audio over to the Washington Post? It seems that the only person who was likely to do that is the former DEMOCRAT state senator.
Here is the problem for McAuliffe. His press spokesman noted: “Coy indicated that McAuliffe had no objections to it and suggested that the prospective job offer Reagan floated was not on par with what Republicans are accused of promising Puckett. ‘The governor has full confidence in Paul Reagan,’ Coy said.” Paul Reagan is McAuliffe’s chief of staff so it is also hard to put much distance between the two of them.
It is pretty hilarious to listen to some Democrats suggest a defense for the Democrats (from the Washington Post): “Certainly based on prior cases, an offer of a job would be a thing of value. But would it be a thing of value to Puckett if the job is being offered to his daughter? That’s not clear cut.” Does anyone who reads the above transcript not believe this is a bribe?
Good thing that there is no such thing as vote fraud: CT State Rep. Christina Ayala arrested on 19 voting fraud charges
Ayala, 31, is accused of voting in local and state elections in districts she did not live, the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office said in a press release.
The arrest warrant affidavit also alleges Ayala provided fabricated evidence to state Election Enforcement Commission investigators that showed she lived at an address in a district where she voted while actually living outside the district, according to the release.
Ayala, who represents the 128th District, was elected in 2012, replacing her cousin, Andres Ayala, who was elected to the state Senate. She chose to run for reelection earlier this year, despite the voting fraud investigation, but lost a four-way primary in August.
The Elections Enforcement Commission referred the case to the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney in October 2013, recommending criminal charges.
Ayala allegedly voted in various Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee elections, a municipal primary election and a state primary election between 2009 and 2012 in districts inconsistent with the location of her residence, according to the release. She is also accused of voting in the Bridgeport state general election in 2012 in a district where she didn’t live. . . .
Disillusioned liberals: Only 39 percent of New York voters think Obama is doing an "excellent" or "good" job, nationally Obama’s approval among Ds down 8 points since June
The growing dissatisfaction on the left could limit Obama’s ability to help Democrats in the midterm elections and could threaten his political legacy if — as happened with George W. Bush — his party begins to abandon him.
The slipping support for Obama is most evident in a pair of recent surveys of Democratic strongholds. Just 39 percent of registered New York voters surveyed in a Marist College poll said Obama is doing an “excellent” or “good” job, down six points from June and the lowest level in the state since the beginning of his presidency.
Earlier this month, only 45 percent of California voters said they approved of how Obama was handling his job — a 5 percent decrease from June.
National polls also suggest a growing discontent.
A YouGov survey released last week showed the president’s approval rating at 40 percent, and that among Democrats, Obama had slipped eight points since June. . . .
Hardly a week goes by without some Democratic Party hack putting finger to iPad and swiping out a screed about the Republican Party’s problem with women or minorities.
This time it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz with “The GOP’s Woman Problem”. Schultz claims that the Republican Party was “rejected again by a bloc of voters that make up more than half of the electorate”. That claim is as real as Schultz’s hair color. The only bloc that rejected Romney was the same bloc that rejected Hillary; the bloc of minority voters who came out in force for Obama.
And unless Hillary Clinton also had a “woman problem” they didn’t do it over gender.
For example in the South Carolina Democratic primary, Obama beat Hillary among women by 54 to 30. That’s a much bigger split than the one between Obama and Romney among women. While Hillary Clinton beat Obama among white voters, Obama won 78 percent of the black vote.
There was no gender gap. There was a racial gap.
Throughout her campaign, Hillary Clinton consistently won the votes of white women in large numbers and lost the votes of women who said that their gender was not important. Obama won the female vote by his largest margins in southern states because he wasn’t really winning by gender, he was benefiting from a large turnout of black women.
Obama won the female vote in Georgia by 32%, but Hillary won 62% of the white female vote. Obama however had won 87% of the black female vote. In Ohio, Hillary and Obama had nearly the same split, but Hillary won the female vote in Ohio by 16% because the racial makeup of the voters was different.
In 2012, Romney won 53% of the white female vote and 3% of the black female vote in Ohio. He didn’t lose women. He lost the same “bloc of voters” that had rejected Hillary, not over gender, but over race.
The Republican Party doesn’t have a “woman problem”. Romney won the votes of white women in every age group; including young women. And Obama lost white women as he did all white voters.
He lost white voters by 59% to 39%. He lost white voters of every age and gender. His loss among white voters was completely unprecedented for any winner of a presidential election.
The GOP doesn’t have a “woman problem”, but the Democrats have a “white woman problem” and a “white man problem”.
The articles about the GOP’s problem with minority voters blame the Republican Party for alienating minority voters. But shouldn’t the Democratic Party be held accountable for alienating white voters?
This is about more than just numbers.
The Democratic Party’s poor performance among white voters is leading it to engage in some very questionable behavior. If Obama and his party weren’t polling so poorly among white voters, it’s doubtful that the Democrats would be nakedly exploiting racial tensions in Ferguson in the hopes of turning out black voters for the midterm elections.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a New York Times article which describes how the Democrats are hoping to retain control of the Senate “as they urge black voters to channel their anger by voting Democratic in the midterm elections”.
Click on figure to enlarge. The NY Times article on their September 12-15 survey is available here.