Archive for Democrats

President S*itting Bull

I have to confess at the outset that I get this stuff wrong. I don’t get how we elect presidents. Obama? Who thought he was a good idea?

Hillary? What a joke.

Elizabeth Warren? Our Elizabeth Warren? Fauxcahantas? Crockagawea? Lieawatha?

President???

The notion that Elizabeth Warren should challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination has been optimistically tossed around in left-wing circles for a while now. Activists at Netroots Nation recently chanted ”Run, Liz, run.” And no doubt, the excitement generated by Warren is a function of her ideological sincerity—a sincerity that’s most obvious when contrasted with Hillary Clinton’s lack of earnestness and pandering.

Maybe American idealism has degraded to the point that a politician who promises to stand on a picket line with fast food workers rather than a politician that promises to help fast food workers find better paying jobs is the one that captures the imagination of grassroots activist. Maybe progressivism has always been that way. It seems unlikely, though, that this kind of superficial populism will capture the imagination of the average voter. As the economy improves, in fact, inequality mongering will likely lose some of its political power—a development Barack Obama could probably confirm these days. When it worked, Obama’s rhetoric could be uplifting. He promised all of you health care. Warren promises you $10.10 a hour.

That’s not fair. Elizabeth Warren talks about how the middle class gets “hammered”. In fact, it would make a great drinking game to take a shot every time she uses the word. The only way to survive an election season with her running would be in a perpetual bourbon-infused buzz.

Still, if only to revisit her ludicrous Indian claims (especially her plagiarism of New York Times recipes in the patronizingly titled Pow Wow Chow), I would support her candidacy.

After all, it’s not like we’d ever elect an unreconstructed socialist with two years experience in politics to be the leader of the free world.

Comments

The Democrat’s War On African Americans

I’m back in town now, enjoying the beautiful New England weather, but still struggling a bit with jet lag. I do have a question though – Why do democrats hate African Americans? I mean why do they insist on bringing in hundreds of thousands of illegals, many of whom will do the low-skill work that many people in minority communities do today? Have they not noticed that the unemployment rate among African Americans is about twice what it is among whites? Isn’t this cruel?

Honestly, why would our first African American President be so damn hard on the African American community?

- Aggie

Comments (2)

Who Said It?

Oprah or Hillary?

Let’s play!

The thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time. That’s the story of the Obama presidency. No hand on the f***ing tiller.

Obama has turned into a joke.

You can’t trust the motherf***er.

His word isn’t worth sh*t.

[E]ven when the Obamas think they are being charming, they hold you at arm’s length.

It slowly dawned on [her] that the Obamas had absolutely no intention of keeping their word and bringing her into their confidence. [... She] was hurt and angry and will never make up with the Obamas. [...] She knows how to hold a grudge.

Does it really matter? Either one said them all, according to Edward Klein’s new book.

Except for this. Bill said this:

I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived.

A rare moment of truth from 42.

Comments (1)

Read Any Good Books Lately?

I said good books.

And I said read:

Hillary Clinton’s new memoir “Hard Choices” experienced a 43% drop in sales in its second week on bookshelves, according to numbers from Nielsen BookScan.

After 85,721 copies of “Hard Choices” were purchased in the book’s first week, 48,227 copies of the memoir sold in the second week, according to Nielsen numbers, which make up roughly 85% of all retail book sales and were provided to CNN by a publishing source.

There is good and bad news in the numbers for Clinton and her allies.

The good news: While her first memoir, “Living History,” sold 438,000 copies in its first week, it experienced a 62% drop off in the second week. So comparatively, “Hard Choices” didn’t have as big a fall.

“Living History” would go on to sell 1.1 million copies, according to Nielsen.

The bad news is that Clinton critics who have been closely watching how her 656-page tome to American diplomacy and her time at state will likely be given ammunition with this first to second week drop off.

Moi?

But Pinter said no matter how much Clinton sells the book, the “reviews were tepid enough to squelch interest from everyone but hardcore Hillary devotees.”

“Hardcore Hillary devotees”? That’s an image I didn’t need. But it’s hard for Hillary to compete with a better book:

On Wednesday, “Hard Choices” was No. 21 among Amazon’s best-sellers. (“Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas” by Edward Klein is No. 3.)

When given a choice between fiction and nonfiction, most readers will choose nonfiction every time.

Blood Feud—in which we learn…

Valerie Jarrett runs the White House

While followers of the White House are aware of Jarrett’s sway as the president’s closest consigliere, the extent of this closeness is somewhat staggering…

Hillary attempted to physically intimidate Obama as Secretary of State

“Some of Hillary’s arguments with the president actually turned physical. Once, according to a source close to Valerie Jarrett, Hillary jabbed Obama’s chest with her finger to make a point. When Obama reported the finger-jabbing incident to Michelle, he said that he couldn’t believe Hillary had done that to the president of the United States. He was more amazed than angry about the impulsive attack.”

Bill Clinton commissioned (and threatened to leak) a poll prior to the 2012 election that would have shown Hillary Clinton to be more popular than the president, and potentially led to a challenge to his nomination

Obama stabbed the Clintons in the back for 2016

“‘Obama cut right to the chase,’ Clinton’s associate continued. ‘He said he wasn’t prepared to turn over his campaign’s digital operations, data mining, and social media juggernaut to the Clintons. Instead, he said he was going to fold that operation into Organization for Action, his second-term political pressure group. Hillary would have to build her own data and analytics system. Bill listened, said, ‘Okay,’ and let it go at that.

‘Then Obama said it was too early to make a decision about 2016 and who he was going to support of the Democratic Party nomination. He wasn’t prepared to back Hillary now. He was keeping his options open. He was reneging on his promise.

‘Bill’s blood began to boil. He was speechless with rage.

What really happened when Hillary initially postponed testifying on Benghazi

[A]s soon as Bill appeared on the scene and was able to assess Hillary’s condition for himself, he ordered that she be immediately flown to New York-Presbyterian Hospital in…Manhattan. When Reines subsequently released a statement confirming that Hillary was being treated…it naturally intensified speculation about the seriousness of her medical condition.

While she was at the hospital, doctors diagnosed Hillary with several problems.

She had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot between her brain and skull…

To make matters worse, it turned out that Hillary had an intrinsic tendency to form clots and faint [Klein goes on to recount several other past fainting spells].

…According to a source close to Hillary, a thorough medical examination revealed that Hillary’s tendency to form clots was the least of her problems…Put into layman’s language, her heart valves were not pumping in a steady way.”

Who Obama is going to hand-select for 2016

“‘It’s going to be a dogfight,’ replied Bill [...] ‘They say he’s looking around for a candidate who’s just like him. Someone relatively unknown. Someone with a fresh face. He’s convinced himself that he’s been a brilliant president, and he wants to clone himself–to find his Mini-Me.

He thinks that your mother and I are what he calls ‘so twentieth century.’ He’s looking for another Barack Obama.’”

I skipped the part about Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett carrying on a permanent campaign after the administration. While Michelle isn’t as pretty as he (thinks he) is, she might do.

Comments (2)

Are the Clintons the Waltons?

Both families may have been dirt poor, but at least the Waltons had a mountain named after them:


Which one’s Roger?

Chelsea Clinton lives a charmed life, but don’t be fooled: secretly, she’s not attached to the oodles of money she and her hedge fund manager husband make each year, the former first daughter said in an interview published over the weekend.

Philanthropy is her true passion, Clinton said, and that’s why she permanently left Wall Street to join the Clinton Foundation, which she runs with her parents, former first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

‘I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,’ Clinton told The Telegraph. ‘That wasn’t the metric of success I wanted in my life.’

Despite Chelsea’s self-proclaimed disinterest in money-making, a report last week surfaced that she was paid $600,000 by NBC last year to do a smattering of reporting.

NBC News has aired two stories by Chelsea Clinton so far in 2014, both on education programs targeting the underprivileged that were shown on Nightly News in January.

By comparison, her salary is higher than both of the last two editors of the New York Times.

The paycheck from her NBC contract has helped Chelsea and her husband Marc Mezvinsky buy a $10.5 million apartment next to New York’s Madison Square Park last spring.

Where does this dingbat get the idea that a $600k no-show job and a mega-millionaire husband is “not caring” about money?

Oh, that’s where:

‘We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy,’ Hillary said.

Thanks to eight years in the White House and lucrative speaking gigs and book deals afterward, Bill and Hillary were able to pay for Chelsea to attend Sidwell Friends private school as a teenager and Stanford and Oxford universities.

She graduated from Columbia in the spring of 2010 and married Mezvinsky that summer.

A smart and capable woman furthers her own ambitions by marrying an enterprising guy—just like her mom! That’s what makes America great. Who would have heard of Dolly if she hadn’t married James Madison? Eleanor without Franklin? Just about the only historic American woman who earned her renown on her own was Betsy Ross. For sewing.

But that’s not really my point. This is my point:

For starters, she and her husband were obviously well positioned to quickly capitalize on the post-presidential custom of cashing in.
She left that part out.

Hillary Clinton had a massive book advance in the works and, along with the former president, the prospect of making millions. This is what fueled cries of hypocrisy.

After quickly trying to clean up the comments, though, Clinton swung and missed again on Sunday when questioned about her own financial standing and wealth inequality in an interview with The Guardian.

Clinton compared herself to others and noted her situation is different, too.

“We pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she said.

One reason Clinton’s two missteps on wealth are surprising is that questions about the issue are not new and shouldn’t have come as a surprise.

Liberal websites like Mother Jones began asking questions about her speaking fees — upwards of $200,000 — in early May.

Again, America the Beautiful. You don’t want to pay Hillary $200 Gs? You don’t have to. But if you want to hear the Heroine of Herzegovina tell war stories from Tuzla, it’s going to cost you.

But to hear these gold-diggers (and God bless ‘em for it!) claim to be flat busted from their Manhattan penthouses and Scarsdale manses is a bit…rich.

Comments

Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?

After 22 terms in Congress, he was just getting the hang of it!

Over his 40-year career, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, “the congressman from Harlem,” became one of best-known political figures in American politics and a defining voice in the nation’s black politics.

The longest-serving member of the influential New York delegation, Rangel was one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus and over time came to represent one of the standards of Democratic liberalism.

But the campaign for the Democratic nomination, to be decided in a primary Tuesday, has turned into a debate about whether Rangel has stayed too long in office and whether he still best represents the interests of the district.

Through immigration and redistricting, what is now New York’s 13th Congressional District — a seat held by Rangel since 1971 and seen as the center of New York’s modern black political power structure — has seen a seismic demographic shift from majority black to majority Hispanic.

Hoping to seize on those demographics as well as the perception of Rangel’s waning political power in the years since he was formally censured by Congress in 2010 for ethics violations, state Sen. Adriano Espaillat is mounting a spirited challenge to the 22-term incumbent — a rematch of the 2012 race in which Rangel topped Espaillat by just 1,000 votes.

Don’t the Dominicans know how much Charlie Rangel loves their Republic?

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was until his recent troubles one of the House’s most powerful members, was found guilty Tuesday of breaking 11 separate congressional rules related to his personal finances and his fundraising efforts for a New York college.

Those charges pointed to a collection of infractions related to four central elements of the case: that Rangel improperly used his congressional staff and official letterhead to raise seven-figure donations from corporate charities and chief executives for a college wing named in his honor; violated New York City rules by housing his political committees in his rent-controlled apartments in Harlem; did not pay taxes on a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic; and did not properly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal financial assets.

We all gotta go sometime, Charlie, even corrupt Democrats. What a world, what a world.

Comments

We Are Such Losers!

This is a news flash, I know, that the people who gave Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and John Kerry to the nation (you drew the line at Mike Dukakis) would be such saps that they would line the streets for this occasion:

Hillary Clinton was perched on a chair Monday evening at the Harvard Book Store where hundreds of people had gathered to meet her. Others lined the streets hoping to catch a glimpse of the woman many hope will become the next president.

Clad in a bright turquoise suit, she showed no sign that she has spent the last week on the first leg of a grueling cross-country tour to publicize her recent book, “Hard Choices,” which chronicles her years as secretary of state. The frenzied trip already has taken Clinton from bookstores to a Costco warehouse to a public library.

But if you read a little further (the things I do for you!), you find that we’re not quite as lemming-like as we may seem:

Hundreds of people lingered on the sidewalk for hours forming a line that wrapped around the bookstore along Plympton and down Bow Streets. Outside on Bow Street, a “Ready for Hillary” bus emblazoned with large photographs of Clinton was parked on the street. The bus has followed the former Secretary of State from coast to coast carrying supporters to each stop on the tour.

It was to be expected, given the well oiled Clinton campaign apparatus, that the event was minute orchestrated to the tee.

Attendees had received emails days before the event, demanding that they leave large purses and personal items at home and informing them about the precise time interval when Clinton would be available for book signings. They also passed through security checkpoints that resembled those of Logan Airport.

I didn’t get an email, did you, Aggie? Not that I would have gone, but who are the people in Hillary’s address book?

This isn’t the first we’ve heard about how Hillary’s tour is staged. The nation may be “Ready for Hillary”, but she’s not ready to ride no bus. Buses are for little people.

She rides it, she doesn’t ride it—what difference at this point does it make?

Comments

Dog Whistle Update

Sarah Palin recently called President Obama “lazy”. She hastened to point out that she was quoting someone who knows him well.

But that’s nothing to what others are saying about him:

JOHN KING, CNN: More and more Democrats in key 2014 races are calling for the president to get a spine, they say, and fire his Veterans Affairs secretary. And what more and more Democrats are saying privately is scathing, calling the president and his team detached, flat-footed, even incompetent.

I haven’t heard such coded hate-speech, such racist, eliminationist rhetoric since someone called Obama “light-skinned”, “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Someone else once called him “clean”. Yet another person called him a “mutt”.

I guess Democrats are right: we still haven’t gotten over our hang-up on race.

Comments (1)

The Second Time as Farce

Sacagawea helped guide Lewis and Clark to the Pacific coast of Oregon.

Some 210 years later, Crockagawea—aka Fauxcohantas, aka Lieawatha, aka Betty Buckskin—performs the same role, only instead of Lewis and Clark, she’s guiding Benjamins!

Elizabeth Warren heading to Oregon to help Sen. Jeff Merkley fend off an unexpectedly tough challenge: The senator is flying to Portland next Wednesday for a “grassroots fundraiser.” Republicans nominated pediatric neurosurgeon Monica Wehby in Tuesday’s primary, who they think can put the state on the map. Democrats have sent Andrew Zucker to be Merkley’s deputy campaign manager, reassigning him from Louisiana – where he’s been assisting Sen. Mary Landrieu’s reelect. He ran communications for Ed Markey in the Massachusetts special election last June to fill the seat opened by John Kerry’s elevation to State.

I think it’s so cool that Democrats, especially a Democrat woman, are pulling out all stops to prevent a woman from being elected to the Senate. I would have thought a pediatric neurosurgeon would add to the skill set of the Senate, but if Democrats think otherwise, that’s why we hold elections.

Some might call all this ganging up on a highly qualified candidate a “War on Women”, but who really uses such melodramatic language? It’s comical even to contemplate.

As a native Beaver Stater, and adoptive Bay Stater, I hope I can warn my old friends and neighbors. Harvard Law School may employ a Tribe (Laurence), but it is not itself a tribe. Elizabeth Warren is about as Native American as anyone who pronounces the state “Or-uh-gahn” is native Oregonian. Which is to say, 0/32nds.

Comments

We Won’t Have John Conyers to Kick Around Anymore [UPDATED]

Actually, we probably will.

But it’s nice to think about:

U.S. Rep. John Conyers, No. 2 in seniority in the House, lost his appeal Friday to get on the August primary ballot after Michigan election officials found problems with the Democrat’s nominating petitions.

The Secretary of State’s office affirmed a decision by Detroit-area election officials to keep Conyers off the ballot.

The ruling puts his 50-year congressional career in jeopardy unless courts intervene or he runs a successful write-in campaign. Conyers would mount a write-in effort if necessary in the heavily Democratic district, his campaign manager has said.

Racism, right? Keeping the black man down?

Well…

Conyers, 85, had appealed to the state after Wayne County officials said there were problems with some people who collected signatures. The circulators weren’t registered to vote or had listed a wrong registration address.

That can spoil petitions, under Michigan law, and as a result Conyers lacked the 1,000 signatures necessary to get on the ballot.

“A circulator’s failure to register is a fatal defect that renders all signatures appearing on a petition he or she circulated invalid,” the Secretary of State’s review said Friday.

He couldn’t get 1,000 legit signatures? Lame.

Ending Conyers’ career that way would be “pretty outrageous,” his lawyer, John Pirich, said this week.

Conyers also has mounted a legal challenge to have the Michigan election law at the heart of the dispute declared unconstitutional, and a federal judge is expected to rule later Friday.

I have no doubt he’d win a write-in campaign if it came to that. He rarely gets less than 80% of the vote.

We’d all be better off with him gone—more time to visit his wife in prison, oh wait, she’s been free for a year—but we do have him to thank for this perfect summation of Congressional oversight: “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill’… What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

So true, John, as we have learned to our dismay.

UPDATE
We get results, sadly:

A federal judge put Michigan Rep. John Conyers, one of the longest-serving Democrats in Congress, on the primary ballot Friday hours after state election officials declared him ineligible.

But Leitman’s injunction said a Michigan law that puts strict requirements on petition circulators is similar to an Ohio law that was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court in 2008.

Leitman said the free speech rights of Conyers and the circulators were harmed, an argument pressed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.

There’s evidence that the failure to comply with the law was a “result of good-faith mistakes and that (circulators) believed they were in compliance with the statute,” the judge said.

No word on whether the state will appeal. In the meantime, kick away. Only about 400 people will notice.

Comments

Dog Whistle Update

Got your list handy? I have two additions. After skinny, golf, Chicago, and jug-eared doofus, please add the following:

Benghazi:

[Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) said:] “After reconstruction, when people of color gained political presence throughout the south, they drummed up all kinds of things, indictments and accusations, they drove these people out of the south. Some went to Chicago, some came here to Washington D.C. And I see the same kind of efforts to discredit this president and this administration.”

“If I didn’t know the history of this country so well, I might not be as concerned as I am [about the Benghazi select committee],” Clyburn continued. “I am concerned because I see us revisiting those same kinds of things that led to the end of Reconstruction at the end of the 1890s.”

That bastard Chris Stevens—dying in Libya just to make Obama look bad! Same goes for Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty.

Next dog whistle: ObamaCare.

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): I’ll be able to dig up some emails that make part of the Affordable Care Act that doesn’t look good-especially from people who made up their mind that they don’t want it to work because they don’t like the president. Maybe he’s of the wrong color, something of that sort. I’ve seen a lot of that and I know a lot of that to be true. It’s not something you’re meant to talk about in public but it’s something I’m talking about in public because that is very true.

Some people near death—even after—exhibit spasms. That’s how these desperate appeals to racism sound to me, like death spasms.

When people disagreed with Bill Clinton, were they just prejudiced against philanderers? Why were the haters out in force against a recovering alcoholic like George W. Bush?

Comments (1)

The Koch Amendment

You can call it the Steyer Amendment if you prefer

But if you want to know Harry Reid’s target, Koch is it:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday said the Senate would vote in the coming weeks on legislation for a constitutional amendment to give Congress the power to regulate spending levels in federal campaigns.

Reid said Democrats are pushing for the vote to combat what he said is an effort by billionaires Charles and David Koch to “buy” the U.S. Senate this year. He said that effort is allowed in light of Supreme Court decision that prevents limitations on political spending, and said Congress must act to save democracy from the rich.

“It’s unacceptable that the recent Supreme Court decisions have taken power away from the American voter, instead giving it to a select few of mega-billionaires,” Reid said on the Senate floor.

Reid said the vote would be held shortly on a proposed constitutional amendment from Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), S.J.Res. 19.

I was curious to know: what does the Amendment say?

‘‘ARTICLE
‘‘SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on—

‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

‘‘SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on—

‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

‘‘SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Odd that the legislation is dated November 1, 2011—two and a half years ago—and Reid is only now getting around to it. You wouldn’t suspect politics, would you? It sounds innocuous enough, until you think about it. Congress is partisan by nature—yet Congress will seek to regulate free speech. It’s a direct contradiction of the First Amendment.

What’s going on inside their heads? And what will they say if this thing becomes law (it won’t), and Tom Steyer and the Teamsters are told to put their checkbooks away? Our home state of Massachusetts offers a clue: when the Democrat legislature feared that a Republican governor might make an interim appointment, they changed the law. When the law later threatened to work agains them, they changed it back.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »