Tag Archives: political parties

A Third Reason

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors opined at length on the need for Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden to end his campaign for reelection. Among other things, they described one of Party’s rationalizations for Biden’s staying the course:

Ignoring the ballots that voters have already cast for Mr Biden in primaries across the US would undermine democratic decision-making and anger the party’s core supporters.

The editors offered two reasons for why that rationalization is erroneous.

[T]he estimated 4,672 delegates to the Democratic national convention—most of whom were selected in primaries, caucuses, or local party conventions—are a microcosm of the party, not a self-appointed cabal of insiders.

And

[Delegates] aren’t robots. Although delegates pledged to a particular presidential candidate are expected to vote for that candidate, the official party selection rules leave room for judgment, saying that pledged delegates “shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” Delegates pledged to Mr Biden could conscientiously claim that new information has induced them to change their minds[.]

There’s a third reason, too, and this does directly address Party’s claimed concern for “democratic decision-making.”

Party went to great pains to limit primary voters’ choices to just one: Biden himself. Party pressured potential competitors against competing at all, and took active steps even to deprecate serious consideration for folks like Cornel West and Jill Stein, folks that most “democratic decision-makers” would have had no trouble assessing on their own. One potential candidate who was gaining traction, Robert F Kennedy, Jr, was interfered with and subverted so much that he felt driven to leave the Progressive-Democratic Party altogether and mount a separate, third-party campaign—where he’s getting anywhere from 8%-15% support in the polls. The one alternative candidate who was allowed into the primary campaign, Congressman Dean Phillips (D, MN), was sufficiently timid that he chose not to enter until it obviously was too late for him to have any sort of impact.

A MAGA Supreme Court?

Posted on by
Reply

Who says the current Supreme Court is a MAGA court? Relatedly, who objects to Making America Great Again?  The Wall Street Journal‘s editors provided some insight to the Court’s rulings for last year and this.

First, an aggregate statistic: of all the cases decided in 2023, nearly 46% were decided unanimously, the second highest percentage of unanimity of the prior four years—second only to 2022’s unanimity rate. And both of those years had those evil Trump appointees Justices Neil Gorsuch, Bret Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. That court also had the Progressive-Democratic Party’s darlings, Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Some 2024 cases decided unanimously:

  • Colorado can’t remove Donald Trump’s name from its ballot as an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment
  • pro-life doctors lack standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration over the abortion pill mifepristone
  • the National Rifle Association can sue a New York regulator for coercing insurers to stop doing business with gun-rights groups

Among the 8-1 and 7-2 cases:

  • Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the Court to uphold Progressive-Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (MA) CFPB funding scheme
  • a refusal to close the constitutional door to a wealth tax
  • government can, indeed, disarm an alleged—not convicted at trial—domestic abuser via a civil restraining order

Of 22 cases decided by 6-3 votes, 11 had “mixed” majorities. Among these:

  • three conservative and three liberal Justices ruled that the federal government had unconstitutionally pressured social-media websites to delete user posts
  • six Justices, including Ketanji Brown Jackson, ruled that prosecutors had stretched the law too far in charging a number of January 6 rioters with obstructing Congress

Who says, and who objects? The Progressive-Democratic Party’s politicians dishonestly proclaim this Supreme Court, which adheres to the text of our Constitution and the statute(s) before it, an extremist and MAGA court, using the latter adjective as though it were a pejorative. The Progressive-Democratic Party’s politicians object to Making America Great Again—here demonstrated by their sneering at the concept of MAGA.

If It Were Truly a Nonevent

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden was rambling, shambling, and at times utterly incoherent in his remarks during last week’s debate.

There now is hue and cry to find a way to get him off this fall’s Presidential election ballot, and equally vociferous pushback by Biden’s staff and handlers in the White House.

Congressman Stephen Lynch (D, MA):

I think we have some decisions to make as a party. We’ve got to have that discussion immediately[.]

Congresswoman Susie Lee (D, NV) said she didn’t know whether another Democrat would be better positioned to beat Trump in November. But,

she said Democrats “absolutely” need to talk about how to move forward after the debate. “It was awful[.]”

The New York Times was blunt:

[T]he greatest public service Mr Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election. As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble.

And so on.

Now, the pushback.

Progressive-Democrat (and black woman, because Party makes such a big deal of those two irrelevancies) Vice President Kamala Harris:

This race will not be decided by one night in June, it will be decided by you [Biden].

A carefully anonymous “senior Biden adviser:”

We think there’s going to be a lot of twists and turns here[.]

Congressman James Clyburn (D, SC):

Those of us who are more interested in substance than style, we are still saying that on substance, Joe Biden is the best thing that has happened to this country in the last few years[.]

And so on.

If Biden’s performance in last week’s debate were truly a nonevent, though, wouldn’t Biden’s handlers, supporters, and potential donors simply ignore it and move on? Wouldn’t those Party members and supporters whose knickers are in such an uproar be quite a bit calmer, in the aftermath? After all, their main mentor, ex-President Barack Obama (D) is:

[B]ad debate nights happen. Trust me, I know[.]

This isn’t much ado about nothing; it is, rather, those staffers and handlers protesting far too much. Of course, some of the loudest supporters in that aftermath have to come out full-throatedly supportive of Biden, at least publicly, lest they functionally disqualify themselves as self-centered ghouls and vultures.

Was Brexit a Failure?

Posted on by
Reply

The Tories, who took the United Kingdom out of the European Union (saving the nation’s sovereignty, I say), now are going to get tossed out of the UK government, likely to be limited to a few ignominiously back bench seats in Parliament. And they’ll deserve it.

Some excuse their failure, attributing it to the onset of the Wuhan Virus Situation shortly after the Brits had gone out from the EU. That’s a coward’s excuse-making copout, though.

The Tories didn’t only make missteps, they were determinedly incompetent, and many government officials (vis., Mark Carney, the then-Governor of the Bank of England, the British Central Bank) acted solely out of their own hubris and/or for their personal political gain.

Energy lies at the heart of any nation’s economy, and cheap energy directly facilitates a healthy, burgeoning economy. As soon as the UK had (re)gained its sovereignty, the Tories abjectly surrendered to the British Climate Funding Industry and heavily increased restrictions on regulation of British fossil fuel production in favor of expensive (not only to the government, but to the British subjects, also) and unreliable “green” energy.

The Tories, having just regained the nation’s sovereignty, “negotiated” with the EU over where the UK’s internal boundaries should be drawn. This is the Northern Ireland customs border fiasco.

The then-Prime Minister Theresa May moved to institute a broad-scale tax rate reduction program which would have left millions more pounds in the hands of the UK’s private citizens and their businesses, which would have fostered a more active private economy—and more revenues on net flowing into government back pockets. But in her own display of incompetence, May chose simply to try to ram the cuts through Parliament with no serious effort to explain the benefits to anyone—not her Party members in Parliament, not to the public at large. And she chose not to put forward a serious spending plan that would live within the new tax rates.

The plan also was deliberately sabotaged by the self-important, personal gain-seeking Carney who used his office as BoE Governor to manipulate the Bank’s interest rates so as to counter and destroy the beneficial effects of those tax rate cuts.

The Tories have failed (a failure so complete I almost have to conclude it was a conscious decision by otherwise highly talented politicians (or so they claim about themselves)) to decisively address the influx of illegal aliens into their nation. Illegal aliens still flood in, absorbing national resources and jobs that otherwise would have gone to British subjects and legal residents.

Brexit was no failure; it was an excellent chance for the UK to revive itself as a serious player on the world stage. The failure was entirely that of the Tory Party and of some officious officials. Brexit still can work to the benefit of the nation. The people just need to elect responsible and competent representatives.

The coming (snap) elections will tell the tale.

Limited Options?

Posted on by
Reply

Some of The Wall Street Journal‘s news personalities claim that not only are America’s options few, but we are Running Out of Options in the Gaza War. And further, as their subheadline intimates, those options are purely American political re-electability options.

Biden’s stalled cease-fire plan is a political vulnerability ahead of his debate with Trump. Israel and Hamas have a longer timeline.

Of course they do, and of course the news personalities’ bit is nonsense.

While it is true that our—not only Biden’s personal political prospects (and Trump’s, come to that)—are limited, it’s only in the fetid imaginations of pressmen that our options are running out.

Putting any emphasis at all on any sort of ceasefire in the Gaza Strip is dangerously misguided. There can be no hope of a ceasefire with an enemy that will strike at will regardless of the terms of any extant ceasefire agreement, just as Hamas did last October, in violation of the then-existing ceasefire agreement, and just as Hamas has done repeatedly before then in violation of all of those ceasefire agreements.

Our option as a nation—disregard self-serving politicians—is restricted to a single one. Support Israel fully in its war for survival against butchers whose own sole goal is the extermination of Israel. That war, of course, is the source of the longer timeline of Israel and Hamas (notice that: a single timeline, not separate ones for the nation and the terrorists). Hamas mucky-mucks have promised repeated October 7s, no matter the costs the terrorists inflict on Gaza Strip civilians, until the terrorists achieve their goal of extermination. Which makes Israel’s timeline stretch until they’ve succeeded in destroying (not exterminating—an out of line IDF general has badly conflated the two) Hamas.

On reflection, though, there is one more national option, even if Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden lacks both the political courage and the morals to apply it. That is to cut off Hamas’ source of money and arms: going back to enforcing existing sanctions on Iran (which are less effective, now, due to Russia’s and People’s Republic of China’s support, but still damaging), to begin sinking Iranian arms shipping and interdicting overland arms shipments through Iraq before it can deliver arms and ammunition, and severely damaging, if not destroying, Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities cybernetically and, if necessary, kinetically. Dealing with Iran also would have the happy side effect of weakening Hezbollah’s ability to continue its terrorist attacks against Israel from the north.