Ex-Chicago Mayor and ex-President Barack Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (D) cried out in a Wall Street Journalop-ed earlier this month that Progressive-Democrats are “blowing their chance,” the central theme of which was that the current crop of Progressive-Democrat Presidential candidates seemed to be running against ex-Progressive-Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton and Obama, rather than the current President, Donald Trump.
A Letter to the Editorwriter in Friday’s WSJ took issue with Emanuel’s piece; this part in particular drew my attention.
Donald Trump is on the edge of doing more for black Americans than Mr Emanuel’s party has done for decades. He’s leaving them alone, giving them jobs, showing them respect.
Republicans have run a video montage that pairs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) SOTU speech rip-up with individual quotes from President Donald Trump’s speech. The Progressive-Democrats have their panties thoroughly twisted over that. Here’s the offending video.
The latest fake video of Speaker Pelosi is deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people, and every day that these platforms refuse to take it down is another reminder that they care more about their shareholders’ interests than the public’s interests[.]
Kimberly Strassel had an interesting column (when has she ever not?) in her Thursday Wall Street Journal, centered on the divisions within the Progressive-Democratic Party. What especially drew my attention, though, was the question with which she closed her piece.
Does the common Democratic desire to beat Mr Trump overcome all that [all those venues of division]?
The very existence of the question illuminates another Progressive-Democratic Party problem: it has no serious policy on which to run (another attempt to take over the private economy—Medicare for All? Really?); all it has is a platform of “Beat Trump.” Shouting about beating an opponent rather than proposing new, restorative policies or touting existing, successful policies is, I suggest, no path to gaining a position from which to expand on existing, successful policies or enact new, restorative policies.
The leader of the Progressive-Democratic Party in the House—formally and having regained it from a claque of freshman Representatives—demonstrated her willingness to work with Republicans at the beginning and at the end of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech.
At the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) walked away from the traditional and protocol introduction of the President of the United States
Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States.
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes (R, CA) says that after President Donald Trump is acquitted of all impeachment charges, the Progressive-Democrats’ baying won’t let up.
I just can’t imagine that [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff, after three and a half years of this nonsense, and [House Judiciary Committee Chairman] Jerry Nadler are not going to continue this. Right? They are going to go back and subpoena [ex-National Security Adviser] John Bolton.
True, and they’ll do more. They’ll also be subpoenaing their favorite White House denizens, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, Robert Blair, Michael Duffey, and anyone else they can think in order to keep the calumnies coming.
Ex-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says current Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) isn’t a unifier for the Progressive-Democratic Party. Clinton complained to Emily Tisch Sussman that
Unfortunately his campaign and his principal supporters were just very difficult and—really, constantly—not just attacking me but my supporters[.]
Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is a strong fan of gun control to the point of, ultimately, seizing all of our guns. He’s even running a Super Bowl ad to that effect. Tim O’Brien, one of Bloomberg’s senior campaign advisors even says about the ad and its gun control subject,
This [gun question] is something that touches families. It most profoundly touches communities of color.
You bet it does. Gun control was something enormously expanded by the Democratic Party to disarm newly freed blacks so they could more easily be lynched by the Democratic Party’s KKK.
That’s what a Progressive-Democrat President Elizabeth Warren would try to do.
She would also lead a charge to criminalize the mere spreading of false information about the process of voting in US elections.
“I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote[.]
She masquerades her initial move as a criminalization of false claims concerning when and how to vote, but she ignores the fact that it’s already illegal to interfere with an election; there’s no need for additional laws. She also declined, as Progressive-Democrats do regarding all efforts to regulate, to identify her limiting principle.