According to Hillary Clinton’s close personal aide, she “is often confused.” Sounds like someone we should be totally comfortable with as the President of the United States:
Huma: Have you been going over calls with her for tomorrow? So she knows singh is at 8?
Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard she had an 8am call. Will go over with her
Huma: Very imp to do that. She’s often confused.
Paging all Super PACs who need more material…
Not only does this exchange show concerns over Hillary Clinton’s mental health, it shows security breaches as well. From Judicial Watch (via the Weekly Standard):
The emails, from Abedin’s “Huma@clintonemail.com” address, also reveal repeated security breaches, with the Secretary’s schedule and movements being sent and received through Abedin’s non-governmental and unsecured Clinton server account. The emails document requests for special State Department treatment for a Clinton Foundation associate and Abedin’s mother, a controversial Islamist leader.
There was a Democratic debate over the weekend on Saturday night. You’d be excused if you missed it – almost nobody watched it (it garnered by far the lowest ratings of any of the debates, GOP or Democrat, thus far), which was by design. Remember, back when the Democratic Party was scheduling these debates, the Clinton campaign pressed hard to have as few debates as possible and on days as few people as possible would watch them. Debbie Wasserman Schultz folded like a bad poker hand and acquiesced to Hillary’s demands, leading to a Saturday night debate with hardly any advertising or notice that it was even going on. (The only other debates before the Iowa caucuses will be on a Saturday night before Christmas and a Sunday night in January…)
But even though Clinton got her wish and nobody sat through the torture of watching her verbally tousle with two other old, out-of-touch white people, she still managed to step in it and deliver ammunition to the Republican Party. On a silver platter.
Using 9/11 to Explain Away Wall Street Donations
The Democratic Party is supposed to be the anti-banking, anti-Wall Street, anti-wealth party (except for its leaders who fly around in private jets, of course, but their utter hypocrisy is a topic for another day). So Bernie Sanders asked a great question: how come it’s the case that Wall Street banks are the major campaign contributors to Hillary Clinton? Hillary’s answer?
“So I — I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”
As could be expected, that line went over like a lead balloon. Glenn Thrush, liberal Chief Political Correspondent over at Politico, even noted that “the moderators from CBS gaped, gob-smacked” at the words coming out of Hillary’s mouth. Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders already began bludgeoning Hillary with this quote on Sunday, and of course it stands to do a lot more damage in a Democratic Primary (which Hillary will still obviously easily win) than in the general election, but it will be a line to add to the litany of attacks the GOP nominee will eventually level at Clinton. Blaming 9/11 to explain taking money can’t really sit well with anyone.
ISIS Isn’t America’s Fight
With the terror attacks in Paris last Friday, foreign policy is again front and center in the presidential race (sorry, Rand Paul). The Democrats as a whole looked ridiculously weak on the issue of terrorism – which is, again, no surprise, but Saturday was particularly bad for them. After CBS wanted to change to focus of the debate to foreign policy and national security, the candidates, led by the Vermont socialist, whined and threw tantrums until CBS gave in. There were still some moments when the candidates were forced to uncomfortably talk about radical Islamic terrorism, though – unfortunately for the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton was asked if she would agree that America is at war with “radical Islam,” and she flat out refused to do so, claiming that to say that would be “painting with too broad a brush.” She even added this zinger which will haunt her endlessly in the general election:
“It cannot be an American fight. We will support those who take the fight to ISIS.”
What…!?! Has a frontrunning candidate for a major political party ever before abdicated such massive swaths of responsibility and forfeited such strength and leadership on a global scale like this? Every time I see this quote it astounds me. We will support those who are taking the fight to ISIS? We will not fight them? We will not lead the fight? We will not strive to destroy them and crush them and make this world a safer and better place? Hillary even dispensed with any of the imbecilic “lead from behind” nonsense that Obama spews and removed any notion of American leadership from the equation at all. It’s just mind-numbingly bewildering.
I’m Old and Represent the Past
Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz are the two candidates most likely to be the GOP nominee, and they both happen to be young – an asset they can use against any of the old white people the Democrats have. Rubio specifically has already lined out his general election strategy against Hillary Clinton: make it a generational choice – the future versus the past, new ideas versus outdated ideas. Saturday night, Clinton played right into his hands when she quipped:
“I come from the ’60s – a long time ago.”
This is about as tone deaf as a politician could possibly get. Hillary Clinton is just an awful politician, with none of the charm, charisma, or political instinct her husband possesses. Marco Rubio, to nobody’s surprise, already has a web ad using of the line:
I fully expect a higher quality 30 second TV ad featuring the quote front and center to run on repeat for the final two months of the general election, driving the enthusiasm gap wider and wider.
On Saturday, Hillary Clinton got her wish: a debate that nobody watched. Now, however, the Republican Party is going to make sure everyone knows exactly what Hillary Clinton said.
Democrats believe that because the Republican Party is the party of old white people who are declining as a percentage of the electorate the future is theirs. This suggests that we will reach a point, and may already be there, when it will be impossible to elect a Republican President. The biggest gains will be among Hispanic voters, who have displaced blacks as the largest racial minority in the country. But other ethnic minorities are also gaining, such as Asians, gays, secular whites, government employees, Greens, and too many others to mention.
In this scenario, it really doesn’t matter what’s happening now because tomorrow the Left will rule. This is a subset of the mindset on the Left that has been with us ever since Karl Marx adopted the Hegelian dialectic, which asserted that the thesis/antithesis/synthesis process dictates that a form of communism is inevitable. And that seemed to be true. In the 50s, 60s, and even into the 70s it was true that no country that had ever become ruled by Communists had ever reverted back to a pre-Communist form of government. So, since countries occasionally went Communist, and since they never became unCommunist, the world would be run totally by Communists. Many conservatives believed that as well. William F. Buckley, Jr., said that the mission of conservatives was to “stand athwart the tide of history and yell Stop!”
And then, in the late 80’s, it stopped. Communism collapsed.
In the Democrat version of dialectical materialism blacks, Hispanics, youth, Asians, gays, etc., will always vote for Democrats. And as those groups increasingly become a majority it’s all she wrote for The Grand Old Party. But if that were true, wouldn’t it be happening already? Whites have been a declining percentage of the electorate throughout the lives of everyone alive today. But what we are actually seeing is something far different:
Since Obama took office, Republicans have gained 13 United States Senators, 12 Governors, 69 members of the House of Representatives, and 905 State Legislators, giving the GOP total control of redistricting in most of the country through at least the 2020 process, as well as Congress. As Chris Cillizza observes in The Washington Post:
*” With Matt Bevin’s win in Kentucky on Tuesday night, Republicans now hold 32 of the nation’s governorships — 64 percent of all the governors mansions in the country. (One race, in Louisiana, won’t be decided until next month. Democrats believe they have a good chance of winning that race against now-Sen. David Vitter.)
* Democrats’ failure to take over the Virginia state Senate means that Republicans still hold total control of 30 of the country’s 50 state legislatures (60 percent) and have total or split control of 38 of the 50 (76 percent.)”
There are only seven states in the nation in which Democrats have full control, meaning that they have the Governorship and both chambers of the state legislature. It used to be more, but liberal policies have failed at the statewide level even as Obama has failed at the federal level. As a defense mechanism against economic ruin, states like Massachusetts, Illinois, and Maryland elected Republican Governors in 2014 to stop the madness.
Democrats are controlled by rich, white, old ladies; Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and numerous others. They set the agenda along the lines of whatever they happen to be thinking at the moment and expect blacks, Hispanics, what is left of the labor movement, and the other parts of their coalition to carry out their orders.
So if they think everyone should be paid $15 an hour, regardless of whether a given employee is contributing $15 an hour to the profitability of the employer or not, and it must be enforced in all circumstances. This leads to all those small businesses going out of business in Seattle, where $15 an hour is law, the results of which are that ballot initiatives to adopt it elsewhere failed this week. It really doesn’t matter what they think, but whatever it is must be mandatory.
Every survey of blacks and Hispanics have shown them to be more conservative on social issues, and more interested in upward mobility, than Democrats as a whole. And they can least afford, as groups, to pay the costs of the failed economic policies of Democrats. Since Obama came into office the private disposable income per capita in America has gone down thousands of dollars. It’s gone down more for the middle class, but the poor, which have been rising as a percentage of the population, can least afford ANY decline in income. The failure of the Obama Administration to improve, or even maintain, the living standards and quality of life for most of the individual voters who comprise its coalition indicates that the said coalition won’t hold together.
All that is needed to win the Presidency is a candidate who can compellingly sell the country on a truly conservative version of hope and change. This will realign politics in the country and win the future for the Republican Party.
The 48-hour rumor looks to be true, although media folks are now saying that since the announcement is being made in the Rose Garden with President Obama in attendance, he will more than likely announce he is not running for President. We’ll update as we hear more.
[UPDATE]: CNN reporting that Biden made calls to key Capitol Hill players this morning, indicating that he was not going to run for President. What a roller coaster ride… stay tuned…
[UPDATE 2]: Biden: “The window has closed.” He is not running for President.
Republicans have to be breathing a sigh of relief right now. Biden would have been the toughest general election opponent by far. Now, the GOP should be cheering on Sanders as the easiest opponent, followed by Hillary Clinton.
Long-shot candidate Jim Webb said Tuesday he is dropping his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and will explore the possibility of an independent bid.
Webb, a former Republican who won election to the Senate as a Democrat in 2006, said both parties are too influenced by big money that tends to favor “extremes” and promote gridlock. He said he has agreements and disputes with policies in each party and would be a strong independent voice.
“Our political process is jammed up,” Webb said. “It needs an an honest broker.”
With presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton doing everything she can to move as far to the left as possible on every issue imaginable and the Republican fracturing there potentially could be room for a “middle of the road” candidacy from someone like Senator Webb. In a nightmare scenario where Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination and Clinton the Democratic one, a candidate like Webb could be broadly appealing to a sizable portion of the general electorate in a three-way race.
Thoughts? Have at it in the comments.
The media is all over this story this morning: within 48 hours, Vice President Joe Biden will finally announce whether or not he will run for President for a third time.
All of the rumors and speculation point to Biden jumping in the race, especially over the weekend: one of his closest advisers, Ted Kaufman, wrote a memo to Biden supporters telling them to be ready; Biden spent last week making calls to strategists in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, asking them “how — not whether — to launch a 2016 campaign”; over the weekend, Biden spoke to a top union leader and reportedly indicated he was going to run; and on Saturday, Biden again invoked his late son’s last wishes that Biden would “move forward.” Finally, rumors are swirling that President Obama is now urging Biden to run, and that Obama is refusing meeting requests with Hillary Clinton.
Following a successful rehabilitation of his public image, using his son as a political prop, there is little doubt remaining, at least for this pundit, that Biden will enter the race. Everything he’s done up to this point, even (and especially) when he was claiming to be undecided was planned and plotted to make this possible. It will be interesting to see just how much of a challenge he can create for Clinton moving forward in this race.
The Democrats held their first presidential debate, and there were a few unexpected results. What was expected, and did occur, was that the relatively small liberal field of candidates was, compared to the much larger conservative field in the other party, weak and unimpressive. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, and former Rhode Island Senator and Governor Lincoln Chaffee were not anticipated to stand out, and they easily fulfilled this prediction. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was anticipated to be the “star” of the evening against long-time frontrunner Hillary Clinton, but his debate performance was, on its face, a disappointment. At the same time, Mrs. Clinton, enduring a long slide in the polls and her political fortunes, clearly demonstrated her poise and debating skill, and was almost universally proclaimed the big winner of the debate, by almost all political observers, including yours truly.
Not so fast.
A curious matter happened in the television audience. The polls and focus groups results I have seen show that Mr. Sanders was the biggest winner of the evening. As Donald Trump has so successfully done so far in the other party, Mr. Sanders’ effort, seemingly uneven, melodramatic and often impolitic to those in the political class, myself included, did appeal apparently to the left-leaning grass roots of the Democratic Party, now radicalized and unmoved by epithets of “socialism” and “radical populism.”
A lot of establishment Democrats were initially buoyed by Mrs.Clinton’s performance at the first debate, and pleased by Mr.Sanders apparent botch of his opportunity. They might have to re-evaluate this in coming weeks.
Commentators have seemed to agree that it is now less likely for Vice President Joe Biden to enter the race. This might be, ornot be, true, but Mr. Biden and his campaign will be doing some serious polling after the debate, and I suspect they will find that Mr. Sanders is still very much a serious candidate, and that Mr. Biden still has a major opportunity.
Nine million less viewers watched this TV debate than watched each of the Republican debates. It is true that more persons watched the debate on social media than they did for the GOP debates, but if Mr. Biden does not run for president, it is almost certain that there will be a dramatic fall-off of voter interest in future Democratic debates. That prospect is not likely for the future GOP debates.
Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Chaffee had little notable to say, and their presentations were forgettable. Mr. Webb did have some good things to say, and some worthy perspectives, but presented them weakly. None of these men are now serious candidates.
Mr. Sanders, self-proclaiming it was impolitic for him to do so, gave Mrs. Clinton a pass on her e-mail controversy. This was instantly judged to be a colossal mistake. But perhaps it was more cunning than it appeared. First of all, the e-mail controversy will not now magically go away. Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie has already declared he will press the issue further. Almost certainly, so will any other serious GOP candidate. Second, should further revelations of Mrs. Clinton’s e-mail errors deepen the legal and/or ethical case against her, Mr. Sanders could easily change his view, citing that he had gone out of his way to give her the benefit of the doubt. If Mr. Biden does not run, and only Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton are the remaining serious candidates, it could lead, as I have pointed out in a previous column, to Mr. Sanders inevitable nomination. In that scenario, all Mrs. Clinton’s poise and debating skill won’t save her campaign.
If Mr. Sanders campaign now falls away, then what I have just said won’t, of course, be true. But whatever lack of charm, poise and debating skill he showed in the Nevada, he did not fail at all in proclaiming his radical and redistributionist message. Apparently, this was what so many in the Democratic grass roots wanted to hear, and want to talk about.
As the Republican establishment has previously learned, the voters are in an unpredictable mood this cycle.
Copyright (c) 2015 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time for episode one of Five Old White People on a Stage™, otherwise known as the first Democratic Debate!
There’s no Joe Biden (unless he parachutes in at the last moment). CNN has promised they won’t try to get the Democratic candidates to attack one another. (Gee, wouldn’t that have been nice for the Republican debate? Good grief.) The moderators will be lobbing softballs. Hillary is going to do her best to say absolutely nothing and to not be memorable, lest her numbers take another nosedive. Heck, the biggest fireworks might come from Lincoln Chaffee trying to convince everyone we should adopt the metric system.
But if you feel so inclined to do a little oppo research and watch the Democratic debate tonight on CNN, this is your thread to discuss all the goings on. The debate begins at 8:30 pm eastern. Have at it!
On the eve of the first Democratic Party debate, it’s instructive to look at its current state. As Republicans look for someone electable to win back the White House, it turns out that just about any solid possibility will get it done. Democrats have roughly quadrupled the money supply since Obama took office, and they have approximately doubled the national debt, virtually assuring a major economic crisis in the near term, and probably before the election a little more than a year from now.
At the same time they have been printing money in quantities large enough to deprive national forests of trees, they have been cratering the economic infrastructure of America, making central banks around the world jittery about keeping dollars as their reserve currencies. Polls show that most Americans think the country is still in the recession that Obama came into office with lo those many years ago.
Democrats have painted themselves into a corner on law and order. While murder rates are skyrocketing in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and even New York, Democrat Mayors have actually been coming down on the police, and in response, police have been getting less proactive in enforcing laws that they would have adhered to as recently as a year or two ago. In too many urban areas police don’t feel that the Democrats in charge of their cities have their backs. Meanwhile, blacks and other progressives chant at rallies about how much fun it would be to kill cops.
Remember when the environment was bi-partisan? It was Nixon who established The Environmental Protection Agency, e.g. George H. W. Bush wanted to be remembered as “the environmental President.” Now, President Obama says he is a leader because of the actions he has taken to thwart the global warming that satellite data hasn’t been able to detect since 1998, and Hillary Clinton just came out against the Keystone XL Pipeline despite having said it is safe and something America needs when she was the Secretary of State. Ironically, the environmental opposition to Keystone has been led by billionaire Tom Steyer, who made his billions in the coal industry. He and other Democrats cheer on the environmentalist movement as it kills jobs by creating man-made water shortages in California and attacking the coal industry in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and even Michigan.
The result of these and other atrocities is that Democrats have barely a third of the white male vote. It is losing the support of what’s left of the private sector union vote. They were all but exterminated in much of the country as a result of the wave election loss in 2014. Marco Rubio talks about all the great presidential candidates Republicans have, while “The Democrats can’t even find ONE.”
In fact, the biggest single question of the political cycle is whether Democrats can revive Obama’s electoral coalition. It consisted of:
According to many polls Democrats can not take any of these constituencies for granted. For example, a McLaughlin and Associates poll of more than a thousand likely voters taken late last month gave Hillary Clinton, the highly probable nominee of the party, only 44% among these four groups. That’s compared with 17% for Biden and 14% for Sanders. The lack of enthusiasm compared to what members of the four showed Obama couldn’t be more stark.
Fred Siegel in The City Journal says that the reason the party has held together is because:
“Obama has been successful in using executive, judicial, and regulatory power to deliver subsidies and administrative rewards to liberal interest groups, including trial lawyers, feminists, and the Hispanic lobby.”
But he notes that Democrats find themselves at odds with the nation’s swing voters, on crime, the environment, late-term abortion, illegal immigration, free trade, and the Iran nuclear deal. He asserts that on each of these issues there are serious splits even among Democrats.
Their biggest single worry? The Cook Political Report has shown that “African Americans accounted for Obama’s entire margin of victory in seven states: Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Without these states’ 112 electoral votes Obama would have lost decisively.”
The biggest fear of Democrats is that they will stay home. Obama, the nation’s first ever black President won’t be on the ballot. Look at the internals of polls and you will already note that Ben Carson nets up to a fourth of the black vote in general election match ups. In the last two presidential elections they have participated at the polls in larger percentages than those of any other ethnic bloc. Yet polling suggests that they are likely to return to historical norms in terms of turnout. And that Democrats can’t count on them voting for candidates with the designation ‘D’ after their names in anything approaching a 95 to 5 ratio.
To stanch the bleeding to come, George Soros is funding Black Lives Matter and Democrats in the media have been giving a pass to chants of “hands up, don’t shoot.”
It appears at the moment that that won’t be enough.
The small and evidently relatively weak field of Democratic candidates for president in 2016 are finally going to take to the TV stage for their first debate. The most exciting personality among them, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, will have his first televised confrontation with frontrunner Hillary Clinton, and that seems to be the major draw to an otherwise ho-hum event that CNN has shortened, fearing a small audience that might swiftly become even smaller.
There will be five hopefuls on the stage, including former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Governor/Senator Lincoln Chaffee, and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Missing from the debate will be the only major Democratic candidate who yet might run, Vice President Joe Biden.
In the current cycle, thanks to their two debates which already took place, the Republicans have dominated the free television air waves with their large and controversial field of candidates. Several Democratic Party leaders have called for more Democratic TV debates, but the liberal party chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has refused to schedule them, purportedly to protect her friend Mrs. Clinton. Two DNC co-chairs, including former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, have been rebuffed by the DNC chair for advocating more debates.
In advance, whatever political fireworks are likely to occur will arise between Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, but Mr. O’Malley will probably have his last opportunity to rise in the polls occur in the debate. He might attempt something dramatic to put himself into a more prominent place in the campaign. Mr. Webb, the lone centrist in the field, has found it difficult to get traction in a party moving decidedly to the left. In spite of his resume, Mr. Chaffee has impressed no one with his campaign so far.
It is likely that it will be the absentee potential candidate, Mr. Biden, who will loom largest behind the first debate, but Senator Sanders, a self-described socialist, has shown considerable ability to draw crowds, media attention and growing poll numbers, and he could steal the show.
Copyright (c) 2015 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.