Tag Archives: political parties

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste

Posted on by
Reply

Especially if it can be used for personal political gain.  That’s Congressman Hakeem Jeffries’ (D, NY) empirically demonstrated position.  It seems the Senate—Republican led, mind you—has had the effrontery to begin work on an economic stimulus package subsequent to the one the Progressive-Democrat-led House spent so much time botching and patching before it finally sent that package to the Senate for passage. And they didn’t say Mother May I to the House, first.

That miserable Republican-led Senate has had the initiative and the focus and the desire to support ordinary citizens and our small businesses during this Wuhan virus situation, and that embarrasses (to be generous) some House Progressive-Democrats.  Jeffries:

Just so we’re clear. The Constitution gives the House sole power to initiate spending on behalf of the American people. Not the Senate. And certainly not this President. House Dems will prioritize displaced workers, families & small businesses #Stimulus.

And certainly not this President.  It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Never mind that the President explicitly proposes spending initiatives—it’s in his annual budget proposal.

Never mind that our Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 opens with this clause:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….

Revenue. Not spending, on which origin our Constitution is utterly silent.

The Right Reverend Jeffries knows this full well.

Nationalizing our Economy

Posted on by
Reply

A city mayor wants the Federal government to nationalize critical parts of our economy.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is arguing that the best way to tackle the coronavirus outbreak is for the federal government to take over critical private companies in the medical field and have them running 24 hours a day.
…
“This is a case for a nationalization, literally a nationalization, of crucial factories and industries that could produce the medical supplies to prepare this country for what we need,” de Blasio told MSNBC‘s Joy Reid on Saturday, calling for “24/7 shifts” during what he called a “war-like situation.”

Just like the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt, who wanted to nationalize one-sixth of our then-economy, the railroads, because—presaging a later President—they’d made enough money and grown (in his personal view) too powerful.

Just like the Democrats Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman, under the excuse of war that de Blasio is bastardizing—Wilson nationalizing all the factories east of the Mississippi until the Supreme Court overruled him and Truman trying to seize the steel industry until the Supreme Court blocked him.

Just like Progressive-Democrat Barack Obama, who nationalized a current sixth of our economy, our health insurance industry, in order to turn it into a Government mandated, privately funded welfare program.

Now the Progressive-Democrat Bill de Blasio is grasping at his excuse for Government to seize control of our economy.

What’s the Progressive-Democrats’ limiting principle on such nationalizations? Nor they nor their forebears have ever been willing to say. That leaves us to conclude that their limit is the natural limit: complete nationalization of all of our economy—rank, pure socialism.

Remember this power grab attempt in November.

Van Jones Has a Thought

Posted on by
Reply

Van Jones, ex-Special Advisor to President Barack Obama (D) and now a television commentator, has concerns for Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) supporters now that his chief competitor, Joe Biden, appears to be pulling away.

“You have now an insurgency that’s about to be defeated. What do you do with the people that you defeat?” he asked.
Jones told a panel…that young and progressive Democratic voters had a “champion” in the increasingly defiant and intrepid Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I).
“You’ve got young people who are graduating with a quarter-million dollars in debt, you’ve got young people with a lot of pain, and they had a champion. And, they thought they were going to be able to surround the divided establishment with their movement, crush that divided establishment, and move forward[.]

He went on:

Now, what do you do? Last time Bernie Sanders got beaten, there was an assumption that all his people were going to fall in line and vote against Trump and there was not enough care for the concern and the pain of his base[.]

What do you do with the people that you defeat?  The cynic in me recalls earlier days with the victors would run around the battlefield killing all the defeated wounded who’d been unable to escape.

That’s not going to happen here.  Still, the question is a valid one.  Biden and his team have spent the campaign, when they weren’t smearing President Donald Trump and his supporters, trashing Sanders and his socialist ideology and revolutionary policies—and by extension, Sanders’ supporters, who agreed with him.

Having done that for so long, how, indeed, can Biden, et al., go back to those supporters and say, “King’s X, we didn’t mean it. C’mon guys?”  If he tries to draw them in, what compromise can he offer them that they can believe?

If Biden moves in Sanders’ supporters’ direction, how could his current supporters believe that Biden still holds to the policies he espoused when he was trashing those Sanders ideas?

It’s a broader concern, though, than merely an intraparty tiffle.  If Biden moves far enough toward Sanders’ supporters to draw them to him, how, in the general election, could any voter believe Biden holds to any position with any sincerity, that he’s not just mouthing the policy that’s currently politically expedient—to be tossed aside when the expedience changes?

Biden and the Sanders Supporters

Posted on by
Reply

In the end game of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Presidential primary contest—and, yes, at this stage, Party is down to three contestants, with Party’s elite choosing to freeze Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI) out of the contest, she being too willing to speak freely and honestly and too far behind for her axis of approach to counter Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT), the end game is on us—the question arises whether Joe Biden, front runner, can win over Sanders’ supporters, who are every bit as ardent and critically large in number as the NLMSM makes them out to be. Those supporters, after all, will be critical in the general election if Biden is to be electable in the general election.

Here are a couple of critical considerations for that question.

Mr Biden’s agenda is indistinguishable from Mrs Clinton’s and thus anathema to the left Democratic base.

And

he [Biden] has to…persuade them that he’ll bring them to the table and push for a substantial part of their agenda.

This explicit promise, especially, illustrates how strongly Biden stands foursquare against everything that Sanders and his supporters stand for:

Mr Biden recently told MSNBC that he would veto a Medicare for All bill if it crossed his desk.

He can’t, though, move to bring Sanders’ supporters across that gaping chasm. If he makes a credible push for the Left’s agenda, for Sanders’ agenda, he’ll betray his own supporters. That betrayal will demonstrate to both his own supporters and Sanders’ that he cannot be trusted. More broadly, that betrayal will demonstrate to all voters in the general election that he cannot be trusted: he’ll just change his policy positions according to what benefits him personally in the moment.

That stands in sharp contrast with Sanders who, regardless of what anyone might think of his positions and policies, has remained steadfast in those positions and policies, regardless of any fickle political winds.

We’ll get a clue, maybe, in tomorrow’s Progressive-Democratic Party debate in DC.

A Thought on Joe Biden

Posted on by
Reply

Check out these two videos of a recent interaction between Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden and a constituent in Michigan a couple days ago.

The behaviors in those examples and longer, more contextual versions of it, sadly, aren’t entirely Biden’s fault.

For one thing, much is being made (not necessarily in those two threads) of Biden sticking his finger in the questioner’s face. I disagree: he was pointing, as many of us do, for emphasis and pointing in the direction of the man’s chest without pointing anywhere, or at anything, in particular. It wasn’t until the end that, in his zeal, Biden’s finger came up toward the man’s face.

More importantly, though, as is also being pointed out, that behavior and others like it in the last few weeks, strike me as consistent with, although not by themselves diagnostic of, early stage dementia.

This may be why Biden is being limited (I don’t see him limiting himself) to seven minute speeches (we’ve already seen him tire and visibly fade during 90+ minute debates), few interviews, few interactions of this type, few public appearances at all.

The foolishness and humiliation, though, are the fault of his handlers for continually exposing him and on the part of the Progressive-Democratic Party for letting this charade go on; although at this stage, Party really is limited on what they can do about it.

The best thing that could happen to him now—and best for Party—would be to encourage Sanders to destroy him at the next debate.  Party can’t stop the fight on a TKO, but Sanders can go ahead and knock him out. Of course, a lot of that will be up to the debate moderators and how much they try to protect him.  Biden is wholly incapable of defending himself at this point.

On the other hand, I’m not sure Sanders has it in him to deliver a coup de grâce.