Tag Archives: political parties

Progressive-Democrats and the Law

Posted on by
Reply

And contracts.  Since the SARS epidemic of some years ago, insurers have declined to cover losses related to virus or bacteria damage, and they wrote their policies to that effect. State regulators—who controlled and still control the structure of insurance policies and the premiums allowed to be charged for those policies outside Obamacare—agreed.

However.

New Jersey Assemblyman Roy Freiman, a Democrat, introduced a bill that would retroactively rewrite interruption coverage contracts and force insurers to foot some losses for any policyholder with fewer than 100 full-time employees.

Contracts be damned. They don’t fit the Progressive-Democrat agenda, so by Progressive-Democrat-run Government fiat, they must be tossed.

Here’s the kicker, though.

Mr Freiman says he doesn’t know if he has the legal authority to do this, but he says he doesn’t care.

The law be damned too—it’s in the Progressive-Democrat’s way. Don’t get enough of his fellows in the legislature to agree with him and change the law. Don’t get actual voters to agree with him and so get legislators to stand with him to change the law.

No. The Progressive-Democrat already Knows Better; everyone should just get out of his way so he can toss the law without any silly delays from the ignorant unwashed.

In Defense of an Election Defeat

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Congressman Dan Lipinski (D, IL) lost his State’s primary election largely—almost entirely—because of his pro-life position on abortion.  He wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal explaining how that loss came about:

I faced it [the question of whether he should have changed his abortion stance to win the primary] head-on in my statement. I defended my pro-life position, which is rooted in both my Catholic faith and science. “I could never give up protecting the most vulnerable human beings in the world, simply to win an election,” I said. “My faith teaches, and the Democratic Party preaches, that we should serve everyone, especially the most vulnerable. …”

Then he closed his piece with this:

[P]arty leaders and presidential candidates refuse to tolerate anyone who doesn’t support abortion on demand at any time, paid for by taxpayers.
The Democratic Party asserts that its highest priority right now is to defeat President Trump. The party’s treatment of pro-life voters belies that claim.

Party’s treatment of Party non-believers doesn’t belie the claim so much as it makes the claim harder to satisfy. After all, babies don’t vote, but pro-life citizens of all political bent do.

Kudos to this rare Democrat who put integrity and honor and respect for life above winning an election.

Joe Biden’s…Politics

Posted on by
Reply

Karl Rove had a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and he had this comment about the situation in which Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden finds himself:

Mr Biden must also decide soon whether to keep moving left or emphasize that he’s a more centrist [Progressive-]Democrat. Picking the first course would suggest that he believes victory this fall depends on mobilizing Senator Bernie Sanders’s [I,VT] backers by agreeing with many of the Vermonter’s views.
Picking the second would indicate that he thinks the key to victory lies with suburbanites who swung to Democrats in 2018, and that he’ll get the Bernie vote by being the alternative to Mr Trump, not the instrument to enact a socialist agenda.
But Mr Biden may already have moved too far left for some suburbanites….

Biden can’t tack back in the more-or-less general direction of the center (whether Party’s center, or America’s); to do so would utterly destroy his credibility. Both Party’s left and those suburbanites would see the move as blowing with the political-convenience winds inconstancy.

And so would the American electorate at large.

Biden is stuck.

It Depends

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are stewing about the Wuhan Virus relief bill that just passed the Senate. To an extent, the WSJ is justified in its concern; $2 trillion isn’t chump change (the editorial was written before the Senate voted the bill up, so details at the link might differ from Senate-passed reality). Couple things about the paper’s concern, though.

The bill includes $250 billion for $1,200 payments to Americans whether or not they’re affected by the virus. The cash will do little or nothing to help an economy closed by government fiat.

All Americans have been, and remain, economically affected by the virus and the government-mandated shutdown of our economy; the $1,200 isn’t for medical treatment. The rub here is whether the money arrives in individuals’ pocketbooks soon enough to do them any good in the immediate exigency. The Senate version of the bill (the Progressive-Democrat House won’t take the bill until today, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) is making noises like she’s in no hurry, and she still has roadblocks to throw down) promises the money as soon as possible, but in any case, no later than 31 December.

Assuming the money arrives soon enough, the editors’ concern about helping the economy seems overstated. Whether the money does anything for “an economy closed by government fiat” depends on the duration of the fiat. President Donald Trump has set an aspirational goal of “open by Easter,” but realization or further delay will depend on the medical facts extant at the time—facts that, contrary to journalistic and Party rhetorical implications, are constantly updated and considered.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi managed to earmark $25 million for, er, virus relief for Washington’s Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

That is pork, and it’s a harbinger of the roadblocks to come now that the bill is in Pelosi’s House. On the one hand, though, no less a light than Congressman Jerry Nadler (D, NY) has identified the center as symbolic of New York City and so, of course, a Critical Item. On another hand, those $25 million are 0.00125% of the total bill; if Pelosi and Nadler really will rent themselves so cheaply, it’s not a deal worth blowing up national relief for. Thursday night hookers might be, relatively, more expensive.

Finally,

Journalists will need weeks to cull through the pages and figure out what it all really means.

So will honest Americans and our businessmen. [/snark]

Progressive-Democrats and their…Preferences

Posted on by
2

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has buried another item in her 1,400+ page demand list of “relief” supports that she is requiring in quid pro quo for her support for the Senate Wuhan Virus relief bill that her minions in the Senate are actively blocking: $35 million for operations and maintenance for New York’s JFK Center for the Performing Arts. Pelosi’s bill would provide funding for

…employee compensation and benefits, grants, contracts, payments for rent or utilities, fees for artists or performers….

Notice that: Pelosi is actively denying the same relief for average Americans and the small, medium, large businesses that employ them unless she can have her Precious Ones subsidized—by those same out-of-work employees and closed-down small and medium-sized businesses, especially, who must pay the taxes for Pelosi’s demands.

Your Progressive-Democratic Party in action—not working for anyone’s benefit but their own.