१ मार्च, २०१७
"Imagine all the tatted, gauged, man-bunned and pussy-hatted young progs who tuned in hoping to see someone like Kamala Harris give the Dem response. Instead they got Gramps at Cracker Barrel."
Said exiledonmainstreet in the comments to "Will you still love Trump tomorrow?"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२०७ टिप्पण्या:
207 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»And it looked like they broke into that Cracker Barrel after it closed.
You dont want Kamala Harris.
So many skeletons in the closet, hers is a walk-in.
What were they thinking putting that "proud republican"' ex governor up there? Were they looking at the real polls and realizing how fucked they are?
Seems like the first Native American senator from Massachusetts would have been chomping at the bit for the job.
Wow. I've been quoted on the front page by Althouse.
I feel honored, yet humbled.
I'd like to thank my parents, my high school English teacher,...,
That's what I said last night in real time. 30 seconds into it; a disaster. They are more often terrible, than decent, these "rebuttal" speeches. But this one gave every impression of a case in which no one else could be found to do it. Or else, a simply awful choice on the part of Democrat leadership.
Somebody asked Cory Booker about the choice, and he could not explain it and did not say who made the choice.
It had all the earmarks, of a choice made by the Durbin/Clinton/Schumer wing of the party. A poll-tested theory on how to get back to trying to win Kentucky/Tennessee/Ohio/West Virginia. They should have embraced the moment, and asked Keith Ellison to fire up their base. Not that that is any sort of winning formula. But it at least it wouldn't have been such a terrible rebuttal.
What I think is that the Democrats figure that they already have the votes of the "tatted, gauged, man0bunned and pussy-hatted young progs" already, and need to recover the votes of the people they drove out of their party with whips and chains.
But if they really want those votes they'll need to replace Pelosi and Schumer, the latter with Manchin.
My thoughts exactly.
The Dems have come under much (deserved) criticism for having a shallow bench. Even the Progressive heroes of this cycle-Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren- are old. So when they looked about for a fresh face, they turn to an old, and old school, conservative Dem from Kentucky?? What were they thinking?
I assume it must have dawned on them that they really do need all those older white voters and can't cede them to Trump's GOP, but surely they know it's too late for that.
buwaya said...
You dont want Kamala Harris.
So many skeletons in the closet, hers is a walk-in"
True but being that she is an attractive woman most men ignore the crazy and just focus on the attractiveness. The Democrats should have used her instead of a former governor (what? they couldn't find an actual Democrat serving in office? that's more telling than anything they can actually say).
Achilles said...
...
Seems like the first Native American senator from Massachusetts would have been chomping at the bit for the job.
No, I expect that she was too smart to take it. (Not that I think she's actually smart. It's a low bar, being smart enough to know that you don't want to do the speech that follows a presidential address to a joint session of Congress.) avoiding, as it were, the Monkees' mistake, hiring the Jimi Hendrix Experience to open for them.
Kamala Harris?
Not even the dems are that stupid...though they are trying very hard each and everyday to prove me wrong on that.
Maybe gramps used to run shine...
You know who used to unite the faculty lounge and the street radicals, the South Side and
and the police unions, the Gold Coast and Carbondale?
Rod Blagojevich that's who!
Bring back Blago!
You know who's uniting the Republicans as President?
Donald Trump!
The gaggle behind Grandpa Cracker Barrel reminded me of those strange witches covens you see in movies. They might as well have been standing naked around a bed while the anti-christ was conceived.
And the "man spreading." Good lord, the man spreading!
But if they really want those votes they'll need to replace Pelosi and Schumer, the latter with Manchin.
3/1/17, 9:59 AM
I would not be at all surprised if Manchin switched parties, or turned Independent and caucused with the Republicans.
They already blew it by passing over Tim Ryan, a young guy from Ohio, for Pelosi. That was a terrible move.
I don't understand how Kamala Harris is becoming a thing. Female version of Barack Obama, I guess.
Hickenlooper is who the dems need. I don't know why he doesn't want the job.
This comments is an nsult to Cracker Barrel, our favorite place to stop for meals on the road.
~"insult"
The sea change is the reaction of the world media. It has totally changed in one night. Trump is now the great man the world awaited.
But Trump has not changed one inch. But he has gotten an offer to make a deal from the Fake Media. If he changes his attacking style that has destroyed them, then they will praise him.
They want their power to make or break politicians back again. And since they could not break him, they are offering to make him if he accepts a truce. Then they can get to ambitious GOP Senate insiders to threaten to break him.
But Trump has not changed. And the Dow crossed 21,000. And the reaction of Ryan Owens' widow attested to Trump's pleasing the Power that counts.
Ellison or Perez.
We r the new Dem party, this is what we r fighting for!
"exiledonmainstreet said...
Wow. I've been quoted on the front page by Althouse.
I feel honored, yet humbled.
I'd like to thank my parents, my high school English teacher,...,
Sorry, she meant to say Achilles.
exiledonmainstreet: "They already blew it by passing over Tim Ryan, a young guy from Ohio, for Pelosi. That was a terrible move"
The dems are only focused on "Resistance" and raising cash.
And last time I checked, Tim Ryan is one of those horrible white persons from the midwest. That will just not fly with the dems tatted up gang-banger "Make America Mexico Again" base.
Same reason why Pete Buttigieg (pronounced "Booooo-ta-g..e.e..i, er, whatever), mayor of South Bend in that horrific midwest locale of South Bend Indiana (just saying that makes lefties shake with rage and hatred) never had a shot at DNC chair.
Brought to you by the same Democratic Party that produced Dukakis in a tank, and Kerry Windsurfing.
When it comes to imagery, Democrats suck.
That is a great, well-written comment.
Such opportunities are usually given to rising stars in a party as a way to get them big national exposure- much like the keynotes at conventions. Choosing Beshear suggests to me that the people making the choice are still in the thrall of the Clintons. There is a lot of evidence building that Hillary! plans to run again in four years. If this is the case, it isn't surprising that the rebuttal was given by someone stolen from the morgue.
The rebuttal shows the Dem dilemma: try to recapture white men and have a chance in purple states, or go all prog all the time. The Perez/Ellison combo shows they are still betting on the demographic odds and base enthusiasm.
Of course, the fact that no top Dem stepped up also suggests, ever so subtly, that they are just a tiny bit scared of going up against the Donald directly.
EDH said...
The gaggle behind Grandpa Cracker Barrel reminded me of those strange witches covens you see in movies. They might as well have been standing naked around a bed while the anti-christ was conceived.
On MSNBC's post-speech segment last night, Republican strategist Steve Schmidt (McCain '08) said that he was hopeful for the safety of the "hostages" lined up in the Dem rebuttal. Every one of the lefty MSNBC panelists just cracked up, they couldn't help themselves.
Kamala Harris is pro-illegal - pro-Crime.
Yes please dems - put forth Kamala Harris(D-creep)
He reminded me of that Heaven's gate cult leader, Marshall Applewhite.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Marshall_Applewhite.jpg"
Anyone else disappointed that he didn't say "Who am I? Why am I here?"
Steve Schmidt and Li'l Robbie Mook should form the "The "Go-To" Establishment Political Consulting Firm For Candidates Who Don't Mind Losing In Races That Are Not in Maryland".
I admit, business card dimensions will need to be revisited.
There is a lot of evidence building that Hillary! plans to run again in four years. If this is the case,
Since there are no photos yet of Hillary with a stake driven through her heart, it's a virtual certainty Hillary's planning to run, particularly given the Democrat establishment death grip on the party.
2016 will be treated as all a bad dream engineered by the Russians, and she believes she will have all the imagined failures of Trump to run against.
I think he wants to sell our country a reverse mortgage.
"The sea change is the reaction of the world media. It has totally changed in one night."
Remains to be seen, but if so I distrust the likely cause.
I suspect a deal has been reached with someone, or someones.
Someone whose interests are opposed to those of the US public.
Paul Zrimsek: "Anyone else disappointed that he didn't say "Who am I? Why am I here?"
In Admiral Stockdales defense, he was physically brutalized and tortured (real torture, not Robert Cook stupid pretend torture) by Cookies beloved communist totalitarians for 7 and half years and his answer ("Who am I? Why am I here?") was a rhetorical device when asked to say something about himself.
Next time: Oprah.
As yours truly predicted, right here on this blog, way ahead of the game (takes bow, waves off applause), she's on her way: ""I thought 'Oh, gee, I don't have the experience, I don't know enough.' And now I'm thinking, '...Oh...Oh!'" Winfrey replied, with an intrigued look on her face as the audience applauded."
She'll be the Dems' savior.
"What I think is that the Democrats figure that they already have the votes of the "tatted, gauged, man0bunned and pussy-hatted young prove already, "
I disagree. The dem Party is headed for breakup. As a libertarian I have been on the outside for decades with no party that represents more than 50% of what I want and the Republican Party mostly lying about the parts I want i.e. smaller government.
The pussy hat brigade is going to learn how that feels as whatever comes out of the ashes most likely goes the Le Pen route to get the working class back.
If it was Cracker Barrel, then at least the food was good at a reasonable price. After the money stopped flowing into the Clinton Foundation some skimping is to be expected. Cracker Barrel is a great place to stop along the side of the highway while traveling through deplorable country without having to get overly involved with the natives, assuming that you eschew the Taco Bell drive thru as it is so difficult to get chalupa stains out of the synthetic leather in a Tesla.
Get off my lawn!
Hillary's sense of entitlement hasn't expired, so if she can convince the big money boys, she'll run again. I can imagine the slogan: "I'm giving you fucking people one more chance."
Heh -- I love the Cracker Barrel! Only been there once, somewhere in Arkansas. I ate dinner there 3 nights in a row. Nice rocking chairs too!
1. Kamala Harris is extremely attractive in person. Bumped into her at Willie Brown's favorite restaurant in San Francisco, Le Central.
2. Steve Beshear from Kentucky, what I can say? Nice old guy. Probably not in sync with the Dems on the transgendered bathroom/hijab-wearing refugee illegal immigrant issues.
But, heck, at least they found someone, anyone, who can speak to the Wisc/Penn/Mich/Ohio 50-year old, blue collar, white, factory-worker type.
Maybe, the ex-Governor needed a pink-knitted pussy hat to flesh out the proper visual messaging.
Hey, that's progress!
True but being that she is an attractive woman most men ignore the crazy and just focus on the attractiveness.
How many times must we refer lost men to The Universal Hot/Crazy Matrix
Bay Area Guy: "2. Steve Beshear from Kentucky, what I can say? Nice old guy. Probably not in sync with the Dems on the transgendered bathroom/hijab-wearing refugee illegal immigrant issues."
How dare you Sir?
How. Dare. You?
Too funny.
I don't see the problem--first of all most Cracker Barrels are excellent except I did stop at one that sort of half-assed the order but hey when you're on the road you're on the road.
Second, do the Dems really need to do better among the man-bunned pajama boy crowd? Because they pretty much have them locked down. Guys like Beshear who can win in red states are exactly what they need.
Trump's new favorite song is "Don't put your blame on me".
Muslim ban goes pear-shaped: BLAME it on the judges.
Military raid goes wrong and a SEAL gets killed: BLAME it on the military.
Messaging sucks: BLAME it on the dishonest media.
People turn up at town halls to voice concern: BLAME it on Obama.
Jewish cemetries and JCC's attacked: BLAME it on the Jews.
And dozens more.
Donald "the buck stops there" Trump.
Unknown is here! Got her DNC-approved talking points ready to go!
Warning cross post ahead.
"Wow. I've been quoted on the front page by Althouse. I feel honored, yet humbled. I'd like to thank my parents, my high school English teacher,..."
WHOOPS! WRONG ENVELOPE, WARREN! (Elizabeth Warren, Sep. at Birth from Warren Beatty!)
Pelosi and the other she-drones of the D party wore white like the Heaven's Gate Cult used to wear. The Dem response was given by a Marshall Applewhite look-alike. And Fauxcahontas dressed in purple like the blankets the death cult used to cover themselves when they committed mass-suicide.
Are ALL these coincidences?
I don't think so.
"Kamala Harris is extremely attractive in person. Bumped into her at Willie Brown's favorite restaurant in San Francisco, Le Central."
She certainly looks attractive in pictures. Probably the best looking member of Congress we've had in a long time, along with Kristi Noem.
"...voiding, as it were, the Monkees' mistake, hiring the Jimi Hendrix Experience to open for them."
OK. Now in my long, long life, I have seen EVERYTHING - with the performance of a REPUBLICAN president on SOTU night being compared to... Jimi Hendrix!!!
Cracker Barrel: chicken and dumplings with a side of greens (put a splash of vinegar on them) and you're good to go.
20 years ago the second Mrs. Wilbur and I stopped off once at the Ramada Inn off I-65 in Bowling Green, Kaintuck for a night's lodging and eats. Went into the restaurant there and spied on the menu "Icelandic Catfish". Hmmm, I gotta' ask the waitress.
So the young thing came over to take our order and I asked her sweetly "Does your catfish really come from Iceland?" Poor dear got all flustered and asked if I wanted to speak to the manager. I said no dear, just bring us a mess of it.
I couldn't believe nobody had asked her that before.
Democrats care more about illegals and criminals than Americans.
Kamala Harris - poster grrl for it.
exiledonmainstreet: "Unknown is here! Got her DNC-approved talking points ready to go!"
Nope.
I'm afraid that Unknown is flying blind with DemocratUnderground type talking points. Which aren't talking points. They are simply the ravings of the far-left fevered mind-hive.
The dems are regrouping.
Unknown is like a Japanese Island soldier who doesn't know that the war is over and continues the "fight".
Let me see. The more DJT becomes beloved to his base voters by inspired leadership taking a covenant approach to his promises to them, the more the Dem Brain trust calls him every name in the book and demands his impeachment for proposing a relation with a non communist, Orthodox Christian Russia. The Russia whose's continued strategic existence in the Black Sea Crimean peninsula, is to Russia as the USA strategic interest in the Caribbean Sea Florida peninsula.
Meanwhile McCain and Graham are all for war all of the time to take out Russia's Black Sea ally Syria. Hence Trump must be impeached,to save the Saudi Oil Sheiks planned conquests once again, because... that's where the money is.
Inga/Allie Oop drifts further from reality as she turns into Jabba the Hut.
Second, do the Dems really need to do better among the man-bunned pajama boy crowd? Because they pretty much have them locked down. Guys like Beshear who can win in red states are exactly what they need.
The problem is that both the visuals and the speech were so completely out of sync with what the Democratic Party has become, that presenting it this way only makes it more obvious. Read the text of the speech and he seems to still think that there are moderate Democrats in Washington who want to grow the economy and implement policies that benefit working class families.
It's like a breakup where one person clings to a fantasy of what the relationship once was, and desperately tries to convince the other person to give them another chance. "I can be whatever you want me to be!"
The thing about Beshear was that, although he was Grampa-esque, he was not grumpy at all. Calling him "Grumpy Old Man" would have been highly inaccurate. In truth, he was kinda sweet and reasonable.
But, please forgive me, I had absolutely no idea who he was. It was almost as if Chuck Schumer randomly picked some nice old guy peacefully eating his meatloaf at the Diner to give the response. I seriously doubt the Dems could have found someone more obscure and unknown.
I have to agree with Rachel Maddow on this one, calling the speech small and stunty
Pelosi and the other she-drones of the D party wore white like the Heaven's Gate Cult used to wear.
Ever see The Leftovers? The only thing missing were the cigarettes.
David said...
This comments is an nsult to Cracker Barrel, our favorite place to stop for meals on the road.
3/1/17, 10:06 AM
Their biscuits and gravy is worth the stop and they have all that great "old timie" candy out front!
On The Leftovers, the cult in white is called the Guilty Remnant. That about describes the American Left.
They were obviously trying to get back the middle-of-the-country white voters who went for B Clinton and Obama. And it done in such a hamhanded manner, it just made their situation worse.
Guys like Beshear who can win in red states are exactly what they need.
1. His hand-picked successor got thrashed in the KY governor's raced ue in no small part to Beshear's profound fiscal mismanagement (and when your fiscal mismanagement is bad enough for Kentuckians to notice, much less care, it's VERY bad), handing the office back to Republicans;
2. He managed to screw things up badly enough to hand the legislature back to full Republican control (the KY House being the last Southern legislative chamber under Democratic control) for the first time since 1920;
3. Trump won Kentucky 63-37...
"Guys like Beshear" do not represent a viable path forward for Dems in red states.
"The problem is that both the visuals and the speech were so completely out of sync with what the Democratic Party has become, that presenting it this way only makes it more obvious."
I don't think they should be doubling down on far-leftism--and not only because when they take power again some day I'd rather not face Bernie-esque zealotry run wild. If they don't appeal to moderates, they're sunk as a party.
"But, please forgive me, I had absolutely no idea who he was. It was almost as if Chuck Schumer randomly picked some nice old guy peacefully eating his meatloaf at the Diner to give the response. I seriously doubt the Dems could have found someone more obscure and unknown."
Maybe they should pick a total unknown--maybe even a non-politician! As in "we found this guy at Cracker Barrel and said what the hell, give him the mike". It'd be better than their actual officeholders. I don't see Al Franken winning people back except maybe Althouse, but that's like one voter.
Anyway, the sooner they drop the OWS crap the better.
""Guys like Beshear" do not represent a viable path forward for Dems in red states."
But he was able to win himself--just because his successor didn't pull it off or the Dems can't win it at a presidential level isn't a reflection on Beshear himself.
Only way the Dems can win in red areas is to start appealing to the people who live there. There's just not enough hippies living in those places to make up the difference.
"Hickenlooper is who the dems need. I don't know why he doesn't want the job"
Why would he? I was surprised when he ran for governor. But at least he can still live in Denver. He has always come across as the Dem equivalent of many of CO's best Rep politicians - make your life and money elsewhere, go into politics for a short bit, then go back to the real world after a couple terms. It is mostly only the Dems there who do the lifetime politician thing (esp in Denver, with only two Congress members in my memory - Patsy Schroeder and Dianne DeGet). Coloradoans traditionally liked the idea of citizen politicians, and not professional ones (hence early adapters of term limits).
But, yes, he is exactly what the Dems need - a non-professional politician. Which is why they are unlikely to try to tempt him - a party run by politicians and enablers is not likely to prefer a non-professional, who doesn't see everything in terms of everyone around them, the other politicians, lobbyists, and big bundlers, getting their slice of the pie (inevitably paid for by the rest of us, not in on the scam).
I absolutely loathe Kamala Harris. If you don't know her, read about her record in CA refusing to address prosecutorial misconduct and the other "stuff" she did. Then watch her inane and obnoxious "grilling" of the CIA nominee.
Part of me hopes that Dems pick her to run in 20 but another part thinks of the Dems who hoped that Reps would be dumb enough to pick Trump. If she were elected president of this country, I would feel utter dismay.
Brando said...
...
I don't think they should be doubling down on far-leftism--and not only because when they take power again some day I'd rather not face Bernie-esque zealotry run wild. If they don't appeal to moderates, they're sunk as a party.
You always write such sensible things, and that paragraph is more of the same. And yet I think you may be wrong.
We Republicans have run moderates -- John McCain was the high priest of bipartisan work -- and got nothing for our trouble. And we were told that the way to win after several election losses was to try to appeal to Hispanic voters, gay voters, women voters, whatever. Trump never appealed to "moderates." Trump appealed to "middle class grievance." Not to "moderation," but to the roughest imaginable form of "burn down the establishment."
I dunno, Brando. You might be totally right. If you are, it is because Dems are different, with different machinery and needs and principles from Republicans. Your good example of winning Democrat moderate triangulation would be Bill Clinton. But without Ross Perot (the Trump vote of 1992 and 1996), does Clinton win? Maybe. Probably, I guess. 1992 is the hard call. I don't think any Republican was going to beat Clinton in '96.
Mark Twain said history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. I'm not sure I know exactly what it means, but I like the sound of it.
Given that Oprah is testing the waters, we may be in for an era of celebrity presidents. The talent needed to be elected president will be messaging. If they choose good advisors and listen to good advice, then the country will survive.
exhelodrvr1: "They were obviously trying to get back the middle-of-the-country white voters who went for B Clinton and Obama. And it done in such a hamhanded manner, it just made their situation worse"
Precisely. It highlighted exactly what the dem party is NOT and is unlikely to ever be again.
Once you spend a decade or so saying the US needs for evil whitey to die off so we can create a more perfect union, those remaining white voters will often vote in a way to avoid their own demise.
Go figure!
When Trump made his comment about being able to rebuild the country twice or even three times if good negotiation was used, Fox's camera panned to Elizabeth Warren, and I saw her turn to her neighbor (Gillebrand?) and say "What?" it was such a clueless moment that I laughed out loud for the only time during the speech.
johns: "When Trump made his comment about being able to rebuild the country twice or even three times if good negotiation was used, Fox's camera panned to Elizabeth Warren, and I saw her turn to her neighbor (Gillebrand?) and say "What?" it was such a clueless moment that I laughed out loud for the only time during the speech"
Maybe she is only fluent in Cherokee?
Virgil Hilts said...
I absolutely loathe Kamala Harris. If you don't know her, read about her record in CA refusing to address prosecutorial misconduct and the other "stuff" she did. Then watch her inane and obnoxious "grilling" of the CIA nominee.
Part of me hopes that Dems pick her to run in 20 but another part thinks of the Dems who hoped that Reps would be dumb enough to pick Trump. If she were elected president of this country, I would feel utter dismay.
Agreed.
There have been plenty of moonbat liberals from California that never made it to the Presidency. (Brown, Cranston, Boxer, Feinstein, Newsome, etc.) But Kamala Harris has the same racial magic as Obama. A white educated mother, and a black educated father and a high level academic pedigree of her own, and physical attractiveness. Being a left wing activist before the Senate didn't hurt Obama. She could get the Obama Band back together again. I sure hope not.
She's got the
I haven't followed this all that closely, but I would expect the Dems and their media to have had multiple responses ready to deploy depending on what Trump said. Grampa was probable the retreat and rethink scenario.
In Arizona, just a few years ago, we disbarred our former AG (an HLS grad!) Andrew Thomas who used his office to go after political enemies among with other abuses of power. When I started reading about Kamela Harris a couple of years ago I thought -- whoh, she's the female/democrat version of Andrew Thomas!.
But. . . because she is a democrat (and maybe because she's a minority - I had no idea she was until recently) CA decided that instead of driving her out of office and disbarring her, they should send her to the Senate. One of the reasons I detest CA so much and couldn't live there.
JHapp said: "I would expect the Dems and their media to have had multiple responses ready to deploy depending on what Trump said. Grampa was probable the retreat and rethink scenario."
No, he was the announced speaker well in advance of Trump's speech. It backfired because his speech was designed to say how bad the Obamacare replacement was going to be, leaving so many out in the cold, but Trump pulled the rug out from under him by leading with the "emergency! Obamacare is imploding and I am going to guarantee that you get insurance--cheap" message.
Wowwweee THE MARKET!
What a middle finger!
OWS, black block, Chicano mobs, BLM and Bernie-esque stuff is irrelevant.
Thats just window-dressing.
The actual Democratic party is that of money. Its mechanisms can be seen in well-connected outfits like this -
http://www.teneoholdings.com/about
This one was a bit open about its Clinton connections, others are more discreet, or bypass them. Many are bipartisan, to a degree.
From the Wiki -
"Teneo's business units are headed by a number of division presidents, chairpersons, and CEOs,[50] with current executives such Michael Madden of Renaissance Credit,[54][55] Henry van Dyke of Morgan Stanley,[56][57] Richard Powell of Burson-Marsteller,[58][59] and Jim Shinn of the United States Department of Defense.[16][60] As of July 2016, Teneo's twenty senior advisors included US Senator George J. Mitchell, Lord Davies of Abersoch, Lord Hague of Richmond, US General Raymond T. Odierno, Sir Michael Rake of the Confederation of British Industry, Harvey Pitt of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, rugby professional Brian O'Driscoll, Cris Conde of SunGard Data Systems, Pamela Craig of Accenture, Gene Park of Compound Capital Management, Lon Augustenborg of the CIA, Stephen Davis of Harvard Law School and the Brookings Institution, John Nixon of ICAP, James Hoge of Foreign Affairs, Victor D. Cha of Georgetown University, Paul Haenle of the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center, Mark Hass of Peconic First, Andy Somers of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, Ken Miller of Ken Miller Capital, and Megan Shattuck of Korn Ferry.[61] Other advisors have included former US Senate majority leader George J. Mitchell,[62] Paul Haenle of Tsinghua University,[63] Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.[17][20][43] On August 30, 2016, William Bratton announced he had officially accepted the role of head of the Teneo's newly formed risk-management division.[4]"
Dig into each of these people and more and more connections turn up.
Teneo is just one of - well, God knows how many, and in every sort of permutation. THAT is the "Deep State". Note the penetration of all sorts of institutions.
They should have embraced the moment, and asked Keith Ellison to fire up their base. Not that that is any sort of winning formula. But it at least it wouldn't have been such a terrible rebuttal.
That would be a good way for the Democrats to end up with 13% of the electorate.
The Democrats are facing a real problem - Republicans have been dominant at the state level for the last few election cycles, and as a result the Democratic bench is shallow. They have to start bringing new blood to the national level, and governors are the obvious choice. But there's no point in promoting guys in their 70s if your eye is on the long game.
buwaya said...
OWS, black block, Chicano mobs, BLM and Bernie-esque stuff is irrelevant.
Thats just window-dressing.
The actual Democratic party is that of money. Its mechanisms can be seen in well-connected outfits like this -
http://www.teneoholdings.com/about
Much truth in that!
Add the NEA, the AFT, SEIU and AFSCME.
@Chuck,
We Republicans have run moderates -- John McCain was the high priest of bipartisan work -- and got nothing for our trouble.
I slightly disagree. Recall that in 2008, the country was so unhappy with GWBush that it seemed like any Dem would win. I don't think any GOP candidate had a chance. More so, do you remember the Conservative alternative to McCain that year? It was, Yes, Mitt Romney - endorsed by National Review.
Does anyone believe that Romney in 2008 would have beaten Obama? I don't.
So, I don't subscribe to the meme that moderate GOP candidates always lose, and conservative GOPs candidates always win. I'd say it's much closer to 50-50.
Reagan, of course, skews this, because he was the most conservative and the most successful politician of all time. But, there is only 1 Reagan. He has not and cannot be duplicated.
Maybe, I'm off, because I live in California. Moderates Pete Wilson and Arnold S won, but conservative guys like Bill Simon and Dan Lungren lost.
My 2 cents.
"We Republicans have run moderates -- John McCain was the high priest of bipartisan work -- and got nothing for our trouble. And we were told that the way to win after several election losses was to try to appeal to Hispanic voters, gay voters, women voters, whatever. Trump never appealed to "moderates." Trump appealed to "middle class grievance." Not to "moderation," but to the roughest imaginable form of "burn down the establishment.""
CHuck those are good points so I'll add to my remarks a bit--generally as a rule you want to get the candidate with the best shot at appealing to the widest group of voters, or who at least can appeal to the most "movable" voters in the electorate. Often this means moderates, or it can mean a more "extreme" candidate who can at least appeal to moderates (with the benefit of having their flank protected), but in any event that appeal is important. McCain and Romney, for example, may have been "moderate" but they spent so much time and capital trying to protect their right flanks it did them little good reaching out to the Dem leaners. (Their quality as retail candidates is another matter, too)
But all of that can be overcome by bigger forces (how economy is doing, foreign policy, etc). In 2008 no Republican was going to win, period--the brand was in trouble, 8 year itch, Iraq War unpopular, economy dropping--that was a current that even a superb candidate would have had to swim against. And it didn't help that Obama had his own coalition well united, as 8 years under Bush would have done for the Dems (note how if there was a third party candidate of the Left, we didn't hear about them).
All that is to say is that yes, if the Dems want to become a more majority party, compete in more congressional and Senate seats and governorships and state legislative districts, they're simply going to have to build up a more moderate or conservative wing (which they once had). Easier said than done, of course, but this idea that they could just wait for demographic changes to save them is a fairy tale. Political power in this country weighs heavily towards where your voters are, not just how many of them you have.
Bay Area Guy--I agree with what you have at 12:11--quality of candidates matter as much as political positioning. Hard to recall now but there was a time Reagan was considered hopelessly right wing, but events helped him (1980 was a dismal year for Carter, who was also a dismal candidate) and he had solid political skills and was able to unite the party and appeal beyond just conservatives (it helped that he didn't have to prove himself to conservatives in the process--imagine if he'd spent half the campaign trying to show he wasn't secretly liberal).
So ultimately the breadth of appeal is the key, but which wing the candidate is from is only one element of that.
Well Ex Governor Bashear either represents the current Democrat party's "A" Team (well he is at least as good as most of what's left, and better than many) or else he's just a sacrificial goat to be thrown away.
I have eaten at many different Cracker Barrels in many different states. I have yet to get either a bad meal or bad service, though they do have a bad habit of burning the corn bread. They do know how to market themselves, having ads on billboards on the highway 20 miles before you reach the exit followed by reminder billboards as you get closer. Many a trip has had the "oh, look, a Cracker barrel billboard." 20 miles later we're hungry and, yes, we are craving Cracker Barrel. No regrets.
The only warning I provide is their gimmick, as it were, is to get you to enter through the country store portion of the building first with the candy, toys, music, collectables, clothes, etc. in hopes that you will buy some of that stuff as well. They have gotten me to buy candy, which was very good, and toys, which were toy store quality. I don't know if it was overpriced or not, but I was pleased with the products. Given the food is cheap and good I don't really feel bad if I am overpaying slightly.
But he was able to win himself--just because his successor didn't pull it off or the Dems can't win it at a presidential level isn't a reflection on Beshear himself.
But in fact, it is. He was able to win himself eight years ago. Beshear was all in, and omnipresent in the last race. This time, he and his brand of Democratism was a liability.
Well Ex Governor Bashear either represents the current Democrat party's "A" Team (well he is at least as good as most of what's left, and better than many) or else he's just a sacrificial goat to be thrown away.
Next Dem ticket: Winfrey/Harris or Winfrey/Booker.
I think that the Dems could moderate their race hysteria without too much trouble, but the environmental positions seem to be dug in so deep that they cannot be moderated much, and this is killing them. The Rs used to tiptoe around the environmental issues, like Bush saying, if I recall correctly, lets study it some more. Now that we know the public is generally behind the deregulation movement, the Dems are dead on this issue and it makes it very difficult to be pro jobs and development.
interesting that in my town, Pasadena, where elections are non-partisan, the more D-type candidate is strongly pro-business, starting a high tech recruiting movement, while the more R-type candidate is saying we have had too much condo-building, and he's for restricting development. I can't figure out who to vote for.
" but this idea that they could just wait for demographic changes to save them is a fairy tale. "
Its not a fairy tale. It can and most likely will happen, though as we have seen the timing is off. "Not just yet" is the lesson of recent elections, not "Never". It DID happen, totally, and likely irrevocably, in California, which for all sorts of reasons is the future, or at least is a very likely future.
It also matters what you mean by "them". In many ways the party structure is an illusion, and politics as simply politics is also an illusion. As Glen Reynolds likes to say, culture is upstream of politics.
Bay Area Guy said...
@Chuck,
We Republicans have run moderates -- John McCain was the high priest of bipartisan work -- and got nothing for our trouble.
I slightly disagree. Recall that in 2008, the country was so unhappy with GWBush that it seemed like any Dem would win. I don't think any GOP candidate had a chance. More so, do you remember the Conservative alternative to McCain that year? It was, Yes, Mitt Romney - endorsed by National Review.
Does anyone believe that Romney in 2008 would have beaten Obama? I don't.
So, I don't subscribe to the meme that moderate GOP candidates always lose, and conservative GOPs candidates always win. I'd say it's much closer to 50-50.
Reagan, of course, skews this, because he was the most conservative and the most successful politician of all time. But, there is only 1 Reagan. He has not and cannot be duplicated.
Maybe, I'm off, because I live in California. Moderates Pete Wilson and Arnold S won, but conservative guys like Bill Simon and Dan Lungren lost.
All very good and fair points. California does not make you "off." In part, it puts you on the front lines.
And I totally agree with you about 2008. And the Obama turnout machine -- the effective 125% turnout rate among black voters -- made it virtually impossible to win in 2012, too. Only with a truly fair and balanced national media could we have beaten Obama in 2012.
Brando you may have unearthed something that you didn't intend, but which is valuable nonetheless...
You wrote this:
... But all of that can be overcome by bigger forces (how economy is doing, foreign policy, etc). In 2008 no Republican was going to win, period--the brand was in trouble, 8 year itch, Iraq War unpopular, economy dropping--that was a current that even a superb candidate would have had to swim against...
Could we -- should we -- say the same about 2016? 8-year itch? Economy struggling? Brand in trouble? Was 2016 teed up for ANY Republican?
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
, the Monkees' mistake, hiring the Jimi Hendrix Experience to open for them.
Damn! I was not aware of that fact. What a contrast.
(Grudgingly) Thanks, Chuck.
Have you ever been experienced, and do you still monkey around?
Of course Obama was beatable in '08. You just needed the right candidate willing to play hardball.
McCain lost any chance to win when he decided to avoid and ignore the subject of Rev. Wright and Obama's past. Some sort of 'wouldn't be sporting' crap.
Ask Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan how "sporting" Obama was with him.
As for the prospect of recovering California, or Connecticut, I think - not likely.
The problem is that the social-cultural-ethnographic mix is baked in. This seems critical in defining the qualities of a polity. The nature of the people directs the state of the economy and the character of its politics.
What we have in these cases is closer to a third-world model of social and cultural stability, with low social mobility, extreme GINI coefficients, stratified castes and dirigiste economics. This is a stable system, pretty much, at a stability plateau, considering the population averages, well below that achievable, and achieved, by the previous American population.
Oprah..first black (bi?) woman president with the propensity to garner support by giving folks free stuff.
"Drago said
It highlighted exactly what the dem party is NOT and is unlikely to ever be again."
This ex-governor with his diner-hostages was supposed to show outreach to workers and flyovers. Whereas the show as done really showed how difficult the Dems find it to plausibly outreach to those groups. The Dem media handlers took a Kentucky governor, a man who once WAS able to reach Appalachia, workers, Southerners, and made him seem like the spokesman for a group of hostages trying to bond with their captors. A Kentucky politician becomes a puppet of Massachusetts politician Elizabeth Warren and it was a horrible sight to see. The voice was the voice of Beshear but the hands were those of Fauxcahontas. Where is Governor Beshear and what have you done with him? Free Governor Beshear.
PS. Cracker Barrel is a great restaurant for gluten-free travelers though you have to turn your head sharply away from those tempting biscuits with gravy.
I liked this (brutal, but true) MSBNC comment:
https://youtu.be/mkVEP8iTp7I
Quite a few funny things were said, but the last sentence just kills it:
"I do wish the hostages behind him well."
Ouch.
Trump deserves a Gold Star for the SOTU ... he actually read off the TelePrompter and didn't insult anyone.
Of course, some would say that is why he didn't insult anyone.
Btw, Trumpies are such haters. At least liberals have a sense of humor.
in these cases is closer to a third-world model of social and cultural stability
They came seeking the America dream, only to recreate their homeland conditions. The Democratic fitness function is defined by stability. And while the Republicans may be more dynamic, chaotic, really, the conservative element orients their energy in accordance with the concepts established in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, which should in principle promote the general Welfare.
OWS, black block, Chicano mobs, BLM and Bernie-esque stuff is irrelevant.
"Thats just window-dressing.
The actual Democratic party is that of money. Its mechanisms can be seen in well-connected outfits like this -
http://www.teneoholdings.com/about
Much truth in that!
Add the NEA, the AFT, SEIU and AFSCME."
That would be valid if the window-dressing wasn't in danger of bankrupting the shop. History teaches us that the Mr. Pennybags theory of political string-pulling has some severe limitations.
The white tops resembled straitjackets. Failure to reconcile moral and natural imperatives will cause cognitive dissonance. Make life, not abortion.
@Chuck asks:
Was 2016 teed up for ANY Republican?
It's a great question. Initially, I thought it was. I thought Hillary was so unpopular that any of the GOP guys could have beaten her. And, of course, the macro trend (no 3 terms in a row) favored the generic GOP.
But, I've re-assessed. I don't think Rubio or Cruz would have won Wisc/Ohio/Mich/Penn. Rubio was too unreliable on the illegal immigration issue, Cruz too weird and too dogmatically Conservative in theory.
I think Trump's opposition to free trade deals and illegal immigration enabled him to sufficiently bond with mostly white, blue-collar types to squeak by in those critical swing states (with the exception of Ohio, where he won handily.)
So, my tentative conclusion is that Trump, was indeed, the only man to beat Hillary.
"That would be valid if the window-dressing wasn't in danger of bankrupting the shop."
All sorts of countries have managed to preserve this state of affairs, with constant fiscal problems, but yet stable to a degree, through all sorts of chicanery. Argentina for instance. They have had many crises, but the Peronist system still exists.
A great number of people exist as wards of the state. A few are very rich. Economic growth and technological innovation are minimal.
The US, in California and elsewhere, is developing a Peronist system.
Btw, Trumpies are such haters. At least liberals have a sense of humor.
Not on this thread:)
What we have in these cases is closer to a third-world model of social and cultural stability, with low social mobility, extreme GINI coefficients, stratified castes and dirigiste economics. This is a stable system, pretty much, at a stability plateau, considering the population averages, well below that achievable, and achieved, by the previous American population.
That's pretty insightful. There isn't much of a middle class here in California any more. We're a lot more like Brazil than the California in which I grew up.
buwaya,
I was referring to the Democrat's shop.
And, note, re Argentina and so many other places in the same sort of trap, that many if not most have periodically had anti-Peronist, reformist governments. But all failed in breaking these places out of the trap. They have not achieved economic takeoff.
Its a hell of a trap, its a hell of a stable system.
Unknown said...
..... At least liberals have a sense of humor.
That explains putting up the old, white male to make rebuttle.
The same stereotype you have been hating on this century.
The same guy who is holding back women and minorities.
The same boomer who is responsible for all the ills of the world.
What an amazingly stupid choice. Best explanation is you guys figured President Trump would only have an audience of old white boomers.
Talk on the assembly lines and on the corners today is how you guys booed the black family who was a victim of an illegal.
"I was referring to the Democrat's shop."
I think one has to take a broader view of what their "shop" actually is.
Those forlorn idiots paraded around as politicians last night are just mannequins.
Buwaya, I think "Peronist" is a bit exaggerated. We have had Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and other deep blue states for a long time. they are not going to change any time soon, and they also are not going to "collapse", as some would have it for California. As you say, it is a stable situation. In addition, the healthy red states function as a sort of frontier safety valve a la Frederick Jackson Turner. As long as the disaffected in California can flee to Texas, California will just slowly deflate.
Having a very hard time imagining anyone with a tattoo watching the speech or the response. Or 20-somethings, or 30- or 40- somethings.
Who on a work night wants to watch political speeches after putting to bed the toddler or ten year old?
gauged...guaged...
This is a problem. The spelling makes no sense either way, and now the powers that be are saying "gauged" is correct.
FullMoon said...
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
, the Monkees' mistake, hiring the Jimi Hendrix Experience to open for them.
Damn! I was not aware of that fact. What a contrast.
(Grudgingly) Thanks, Chuck.
Have you ever been experienced, and do you still monkey around?
It didn't last, obviously. And the vein in which I have been mentioning it here, is that Jimi was just so incendiary and brilliant, that he blew the Monkees away. But even that part is not clear. I think they did about two or three months' worth of gigs together, and by the time the tour got to New York, it was Jimi that was getting pissed off, not the Monkees. And that Jimi flipped off (or something) the NYC teeny boppers who only wanted to see Davy Jones. And that ended the tour.
What I recall from those days (I may have been in 5th grade) was that the D.A.R. demanded of the Monkees that Jimi be taken off the tour. That was the story. It wasn't true, but it served as p.r. cover for everybody. The Monkees were out of it, and it enhanced Jimi's rep as a badass outlaw. (He was actually just a hard working musician, from the days with the King Curtis Band and the Isley Brothers and the multitude of guys on the Chitlin Circuit; Sam Cooke, Wilson Pickett and Jackie Wilson.)
"As long as the disaffected in California can flee to Texas, California will just slowly deflate."
No, I don't think so. The odds are the malaise will simply spread, and some of that comes with those fleeing Californians. Besides that the demographics are irrevocable. The future, of Argentine-type mediocrity, will engulf state after state.
Btw, Trumpies are such haters. At least liberals have a sense of humor.
3/1/17, 12:42 PM
There was an Unknown who made a funny and clever remark in last night's speech thread, referencing "the purple gang" and "Jailhouse Rock."
As soon as I saw it, I figured it wasn't you. You are never clever, ever.
As long as the disaffected in California can flee to Texas, California will just slowly deflate.
My own experience in Northern Virginia was that people fled the Maryland suburbs and places north (mostly New Yawk), but brought their insane voting habits with them. Now Northern Virginia is just like the places they fled.
Unknown: "Trump deserves a Gold Star for the SOTU ... he actually read off the TelePrompter and didn't insult anyone. Of course, some would say that is why he didn't insult anyone.
Btw, Trumpies are such haters. At least liberals have a sense of humor."
LOL
This is literally all the dems have.
There is nothing else.
It's funny and sad and wonderful and pathetic and ridiculous and amazing all at the same time.
Just think: right now the intellectual heart and nerve center of liberalism resides in Bill Maher, SNL writers and Michael Moore.
"As long as the disaffected in California can flee to Texas, California will just slowly deflate"
There are actually as many fleeing to Colorado and quite a few to Arizona as well.
"Just think: right now the intellectual heart and nerve center of liberalism resides in Bill Maher, SNL writers and Michael Moore."
You can see the future in the universities.
It doesn't get any better.
The heart is dead, and so the future is dying.
There is no conservatism to replace it really, because the early education isn't there for them either. The kids are not all right.
There are actually as many fleeing to Colorado and quite a few to Arizona as well.
... and when they get there, they start voting for the same policies that created a California worth leaving.
The long term problem is that Gramsci's long march through the institutions, continued like a zombie long after its actual political purpose died (communism was the reason for it all). It ended up not in converting the institutions into a new sort of hegemony, but instead ended up as a sort of intellectual-cultural necrosis. A hegemony of death and corruption. Well, what do you expect of zombies.
So the entire educational system from the highest to the lowest reaches of K-12, the mass media, the popular culture, are all infected and suppressed by the dead hand of the long march.
I'm not so pessimistic as Buwaya, Bob Loblaw and others about the future of red states. We just saw a lot of states turn red in the last election. Issues matter, and people discover that e.g. the soppy environmentalism they voted for is a bunch of bull and they change their voting habits. The future is not already baked.
Wherever Californians move they try to turn the place into another California. And they bitch constantly about it. There's a reason people hate it when Californians move to their communities.
Bob Loblaw: "... and when they get there, they start voting for the same policies that created a California worth leaving."
It has always been thus.
Just look at Florida.
Gramps got the call because all those bright boys and girls in camp Dem saw him as a perfect fit for the group of formerly Dem voters that put Trump in the White House. The ones the Dems need back, and aren't going to get unless The Donald really screws the pooch.
The mystery is why Dems think a 72 year old burned out Baptist Pulpiteer's good old boy shade tricks wins votes in a suffering Kentucky. It must be the work of the same Consultants that talked Hillary into ignoring Wisconsin.
traditionalguy: "It must be the work of the same Consultants that talked Hillary into ignoring Wisconsin"
Or the republican "experts" telling us Trump had no chance in Michigan.
Trump had Kellyanne Conway , a true political pollster by a trade, as his Campaign Manager whom he trusted. And that was what won it for him.PERIOD.
"Could we -- should we -- say the same about 2016? 8-year itch? Economy struggling? Brand in trouble? Was 2016 teed up for ANY Republican?"
Short answer--not "any" but "many". Many factors were in place for the GOP. In some ways Trump had advantages over many of his GOP counterparts in terms of being able to use them against Dems, in others areas he had weaknesses which he had to overcome (and in some cases did so). It was good enough to get him over the line, though.
2008 was conceivably winnable for a Republican, I can think of some scenarios where it would have worked, but there were major headwinds. That was not a good year for GOP.
You don't really think they actually planned to have this guy do the rebuttal, do you?
I'll bet Hillary was scheduled, but she got drunk, fell down, and broke her hip or head or something.
This guy stepped in at the last minute... "Yeah, no, I'm not busy, just sittin' in the Cracka Barra with a bunch a otha crackas. Why you ask? ...Well sure, I'm a PERFESSIONAL politician. I can tawk as long as ya want me to. Sure, sure... ok."
"Uh... ok then... so... what's it pay?"
Brando: "2008 was conceivably winnable for a Republican, I can think of some scenarios where it would have worked, but there were major headwinds. That was not a good year for GOP."
You cannot win if you will not fight.
The vast majority of the republican party establishment gave up fighting long ago.
Being blessed with some pretty big dorks as the donk is the only thing that saved us to some degree but all that did was put of the reckoning that had to occur. Well, 2016 was that time of reckoning and Trump assumed the form of the Destroyer of Democrat Worlds.
I didn't listen to the entire Democratic rebuttal but had to laugh at the stupidity the Dems have shown for the past several years. I mentioned being a little disappointed that they didn't pick Ellison as Chair, as that would have been even greater evidence of their short-sighted, numb-to-reality strategies but I'm also convinced Perez is even stupider than Ellison, so the show goes on.
Someone earlier hinted that there is a cultishness about Democratic Party today and I think they are right.
Chuck said...
Brando you may have unearthed something that you didn't intend, but which is valuable nonetheless...
Could we -- should we -- say the same about 2016? 8-year itch? Economy struggling? Brand in trouble? Was 2016 teed up for ANY Republican?
3/1/17, 12:31 PM
Oh Chuck, and you were doing so well...
And Trump would have defeated Obama. He certainly defeated HRC as his avatar/vicar. If Obama had been running, Trump would have adjusted accordingly. Though the Wikileaks drama would have probably played out somewhat differently.
johns: "We just saw a lot of states turn red in the last election."
Yet to be demonstrated as a fait accompli. What we "just saw" was the popularity of populism among the Yankee white working class (protectionist, pro-infrastructure projecting, anti-immigrant mongering, anti-war in foreign lands, anti-elite, and "parental leave" mandates, fuck yeah!). We'll see if it winds up turning those voters into conservatives (unlikely) or if it turns the Republican party into populists (watered down, but fairly likely, them being politicians and therefore pretty good at determining the wind direction).
Yes, it worked in one election, albeit with some very tight margins, and with a dynamo of a fabulous orator with great hair, but whether it's a long-term change depends on how many Trump kids are as inarticulately beautiful.
In the end, it may be that the Yankee white working class will just move south like everyone else, and damage the "red" status of both places.
See "Reagan Democrats."
@Chuck asks:
Was 2016 teed up for ANY Republican?
No, if 2016 was teed up for anything it was weakly for an anti-establishment, populist candidate. Look at the last 4 candidates on the board: Trump, Cruz, Sanders, Clinton. 3 of those were anti-establishment candidates, and one was Hillary. Trump and Sanders were populists. Cruz was more libertarian than populist. And Clinton was running on...her old, white lady street cred and her long history of strongly believing in those things that will help her get elected right now.
Before any of the candidates announced themselves, after the 2014 mid-term elections, I would have said that the Democrats had an 80% chance of winning the Presidency. The House and Senate had slipped towards stronger Republican control and I think a "generic" Democrat would have had pulled in enough swing voters just for counter-balance.
Republicans swept all of the state offices except for Attorney General and Secretary of State last year.
All you need to know about the Secretary of State,(D) Alison Lundergan Grimes, is that she and her dad are FOB's and she led a Chant from the Podium on U of KY campus for Bill Clinton, and by extension Hillary Clinton for President during a campaign stop last fall.
That was back when they were going to sweep all of the Red States for Hillary.
I can honestly say I'm one of the liberals that would much rather have seen Warren, Kamela Harris or Bernie give that rebuttal speech. I would've also have liked to see more Democrats boycott the Trump speech.
BDNYC said... [hush][hide comment]
Wherever Californians move they try to turn the place into another California. And they bitch constantly about it. There's a reason people hate it when Californians move to their communities.
Yeah, I keep hearing that. Got proof? Why would a lib leave Ca?
I am kinda lonely here in San Francisco bay area.. Most friends cashed out and have moved. None were liberal, progressive, or even old style Dems. All were tired of liberal politics and stuff like "spare the air days" when it is in the thirties and you cannot use your fireplace. We are encouraged to rat on our neighbors if there is smoke coming from the chimney.
None become libs when they moved.
Biggest gripe is Californians raising property prices in other locals. Standard joke is selling fifty year old tract home here and buying a neighborhood in Az.
"Someone earlier hinted that there is a cultishness about Democratic Party today and I think they are right."
Someone is missing the self awareness gene.
cultishness about Democratic Party
It's the human sacrifice thing, right? And Planned Parenthood's clinical cannibalism division is clearly fringe.
Also [class] diversity. Judging people by the "color of their skin" is the definition of insular.
Make social justice, not love, including Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform is a problem.
Then there is their weird twilight faith and Pro-Choice (i.e. selective, opportunistic, unprincipled) quasi-religious/moral/legal philosophy.
Someone is missing the self awareness gene.
Heh heh. Funny you, of all people, should say that.
I would've also have liked to see more Democrats boycott the Trump speech.
3/1/17, 3:00 PM
Oh, yes, now that would have done them a lot of good. They wouldn't have looked like brats continuing their pissy little temper tantrum at all.
Boycott or sit there looking like they had pickles up their asses - either way, your party is screwed. And they did it to themselves.
Full Moon: "Why would a lib leave Ca?"
I heard it's because all the Oxy's in Kentucky.
"...I assume we will after we get over our nutty sugar high."
Hey, Anne, after your rather sour take on the speech (not to mention its over-the-top cynicism), a little sugar-high sounds fabulous!
"I would've also have liked to see more Democrats boycott the Trump speech."
Like all the national Dem elected officials boycotted their own SOTU rebuttal? Not only are they afraid to do the rebuttal, but their afraid to do "town halls".
Chuck said...
We Republicans have run moderates -- John McCain was the high priest of bipartisan work -- and got nothing for our trouble. And we were told that the way to win after several election losses was to try to appeal to Hispanic voters, gay voters, women voters, whatever. Trump never appealed to "moderates." Trump appealed to "middle class grievance." Not to "moderation," but to the roughest imaginable form of "burn down the establishment."
The GOPe hasn't figured out the difference between a "moderate" and a patrician it seems.
They lost elections because their positions were essentially "this is for your own good you idiot voters."
Unknown said...
I can honestly say I'm one of the liberals that would much rather have seen Warren, Kamela Harris or Bernie give that rebuttal speech. I would've also have liked to see more Democrats boycott the Trump speech.
That is because you aren't very smart.
I love how you have 2 ethically challenged liars and a loser on your list too.
I still think the easiest way to explain why Beshear gave the rebuttal is that whoever made the decision did so at the behest of the Clintons. This is why Booker, Warren, or any other plausible Democratic candidate for 2020 was not given this high-profile opportunity to speak to the country. The deck is already being slowly cleared for Hillary! to run again.
Unknown said...
Btw, Trumpies are such haters. At least liberals have a sense of humor.
I love Obama's sense of humor best.
To the queen!
Yancey Ward said...
I still think the easiest way to explain why Beshear gave the rebuttal is that whoever made the decision did so at the behest of the Clintons. This is why Booker, Warren, or any other plausible Democratic candidate for 2020 was not given this high-profile opportunity to speak to the country. The deck is already being slowly cleared for Hillary! to run again.
If she tries I predict someone will do the same thing to the DNC in 2020 that Trump did to the GOP in 2016.
But the DNC is far more corrupt than the GOP. Bernie would have won on a level playing field.
Birches said...
I don't understand how Kamala Harris is becoming a thing. Female version of Barack Obama, I guess.
But she has severe ethical lapses in the very recent future as AG. The country is already turning away from the totalitarians on the left that act like she does.
Hickenlooper is who the dems need. I don't know why he doesn't want the job.
Because he would have to say and do things no decent person could do to be the establishment choice.
But..but..Hil is just moments from dropping dead, remember?
The honeymoon has finally started, but will it last a night, a fortnight, or twenty-four years?
Walter,
I think she did hide serious health issues, and clearly had a big, big problem with stamina- one of the reasons she never visited Wisconsin was that she could only campaign a day or two at a time whereas Trump was on the road nearly the entire time after he secured the nomination. However, this won't stop her from trying again, though it is likely that, as Achilles wrote above, that someone will just beat her over the head in the next primary.
Sanders could have won the nomination despite the collusion of the DNC- all he had to do was believe right from the start that he could win, and not throw away the ammo of her illegal e-mail server. Stating right from the start that he wasn't interested in attacking her on that issue was his fatal mistake. However, Sanders didn't realize how vulnerable she was until he beat her in Michigan, but by then it was too late to undo the unforced error.
walter said...
But..but..Hil is just moments from dropping dead, remember?
Hillary is a terrible candidate as well as human being. She wont win the 2020 DNC primary and have an intact party afterwards. It would be the same pyrrhic victory that Mitt won in 2012 slagging the field and telling the voters to accept Obamacare.
Democrats are going to get slaughtered in 2018. Only a true black swan event will save them. If Hillary big foots the DNC primary and ruins 2020 for the democrats the party implodes in a giant shit hits the fan event.
Sanders lacked the will and the fortitude to win.
Mockturtle,
He had the will to win, but I don't think he believed he could until it was too late. His candidacy was started with him believing he had zero chance to win, so he didn't go negative on Clinton right from the start. After he realized how vulnerable she actually was (when he won Michigan), it was too late.
I really do believe that if he had attacked her with everything available right from the start, could have won some of the other early big state primaries, and eroded a great deal of her support in the superdelegates. By the time he won Michigan, however, she had built up a big lead in non-superdelegates and was never really threatened afterwards.
Bernie Sanders is a 74 year old student sit-in organizer.
He has no wish to be resonsible for actually governing anything.
One of the most encouraging developments in the GOP since the election is the partnership between Priebus and Bannon. Priebus seemed to me last year to be a traditional GOP official. Today he is enthusiastically sticking it to the press with Bannon. Notice that he moved to the Bannon position, not the reverse and not because they compromised. Maybe it's really possible for the GOP to learn from this election and kick some ass next time.
So the entire educational system from the highest to the lowest reaches of K-12, the mass media, the popular culture, are all infected and suppressed by the dead hand of the long march
So true! I see this as the most serious systemic problem we face as a nation. The faculty lounges of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences are stuffed with bloody hair shirt lefties fresh off the barricades of Les Miserables . They are the true 'useful idiots' who haven't had a fresh idea since the 60's. As tenured f*ks, they spread their poison without any accountability.
We need more Scott Walkers.
Most don't remember when Vermont was rock-ribbed Republican until the lefties like Bernie moved there from NY in swarms like vermin.
- Krumhorn
Democrats are going to get slaughtered in 2018. Only a true black swan event will save them.
Every time you win an election you figure that's the end of history, and it's the start of a thousand year reign by your party.
But that's not the case. The ideas and gripes that animated Obama voters in 2012 are still there.
Beshear was the thinking man's response. The greatest thing the Dems have going for them is Obamacare. Beshear can speak with authority about the impact of Obamacare and back it up with numbers...facts. That's better than some fire-breathing demagogue speaking in platitudes and bromides.
A Trumpie said "Democrats are going to get slaughtered in 2018. Only a true black swan event will save them."
Sure! Trumpies won 2016 by 77,000 votes over 4 States.
Maybe you didn't catch the Womens March, the people attending the Town Hall meetings, the groundswell of activism at the grassroots and much more planned for 2017/2018.
Trump will not get his signature policies passed by the Senate. An EO is not law until passed by Congress.
Trump will not get his signature policies passed by the Senate.
Wanna bet?
An EO is not law until passed by Congress.
An Executive Order is never a law...it is an Executive Order. Executive Orders are never signed by, or submitted to, Congress.....that's the point.....
Trump will not get his signature policies passed by the Senate.
Really? He won't get his stuff through a Republican Congress?
An EO is not law until passed by Congress.
Fortunately for Trump, Obama greatly expanded the scope of EOs.
Bob Loblaw said...
Democrats are going to get slaughtered in 2018. Only a true black swan event will save them.
Every time you win an election you figure that's the end of history, and it's the start of a thousand year reign by your party.
But that's not the case. The ideas and gripes that animated Obama voters in 2012 are still there.
It has nothing to do with the base ideas and gripes. I think Trump is shifting the Window but that doesn't matter. What matters is republicans are defending 8 seats in the senate, all fairly safe, and democrats are defending 25 seats 10 of whom were in states Trump carried, 5 of them by double digits.
Some D's will try to switch parties to hold on.
Unknown said...
Sure! Trumpies won 2016 by 77,000 votes over 4 States.
Maybe you didn't catch the Womens March, the people attending the Town Hall meetings, the groundswell of activism at the grassroots and much more planned for 2017/2018.
Trump will not get his signature policies passed by the Senate. An EO is not law until passed by Congress.
This is why Trump is winning btw.
The ideas and gripes that animated Obama voters in 2012 are still there.
Yeah..they were there in 2014 and 2016 too...how'd that work out for you?
The only way things could get worse for the Democrats is if they handed the party over to a corrupt Clintonite and a racist SJW his deputy.......
Fortunately for Trump, Obama greatly expanded the scope of EO
While Obama was profligate in signing Executive Orders, he didn't change their nature. Executive Orders are, and always have been, directives issued by the president to members of the executive branch. They do not, and have never, required Congressional approval, and often their purpose is to thwart the will of Congress.
Gahrie said...
The only way things could get worse for the Democrats is if they handed the party over to a corrupt Clintonite and a racist SJW his deputy.......
Don't forget open borders, pussy hats, and sharia law as key planks in the party platform.
Yancey asserts: He had the will to win, but I don't think he believed he could until it was too late. His candidacy was started with him believing he had zero chance to win, so he didn't go negative on Clinton right from the start. After he realized how vulnerable she actually was (when he won Michigan), it was too late.
Trump could have believed the same thing but he had both the will and the fortitude to win. Sanders did not.
Yeah..they were there in 2014 and 2016 too...how'd that work out for you?
Trump won the 2016 election by a whisker against the worst major party candidate in my lifetime. A few thousand votes going the other way in the right places would have tilted it to Clinton.
Look, I'm no fan of the Democrats, but the idea they're finished as a party is delusional.
Executive Orders are, and always have been, directives issued by the president to members of the executive branch. They do not, and have never, required Congressional approval, and often their purpose is to thwart the will of Congress.
Yes, they don't require Congressional approval, but that's because the authority for an EO comes from Congress. There's nothing nefarious about an EO in principle - it's no different than a memo from the CEO in a corporation spelling out how he wants things to get done.
You say their purpose is often to thwart the will of Congress, but I think that was actually a pretty rare occurrance prior to Obama.
Bob Loblaw said...
Look, I'm no fan of the Democrats, but the idea they're finished as a party is delusional.
30 red states. 20 Blue states. After 2018 the may be fluctuations but we are heading for 60 republican senators being the mean. On a smaller scale the house is set up the same way. Democrats are holed up in tiny urban enclaves. Lots of people with 200ish house dems getting 80% of the vote in their districts and 240ish republicans getting 60% of the vote in theirs.
The way things are now the democrats only hope is to import massive numbers of people to vote and somehow get that past a Sessions led DOJ.
People keep forgetting that Hillary won 4 states by a total of approximately 100,000 votes and that in one of those states, Maine, Trump picked up that stray electoral vote.
In principle, I'm with Loblaw. Always play like you are behind. But you must understand and continue to expand and exploit that which got you ahead.
But on a strictly numbers basis, the key points for 2018 in the Senate are as Achilles as outlined.
Of course, there are a number of republicans who won in districts carried by Hillary as well. So we will see what impact not having a complete POS candidate like Hillary will do to the turnout and vote patterns in those districts.
Just another reason, of many, why the republicans cannot fail to deliver. They will not get another chance.
I think she did hide serious health issues, and clearly had a big, big problem with stamina- one of the reasons she never visited Wisconsin was that she could only campaign a day or two at a time...
Without knowing exactly what the problem was we don't know how serious or enduring her problems were. It could have been anything from just not being in good enough physical shape to... well, there are millions of things that can go wrong with a person. It's entirely possible she'll get whatever health problems she has squared away before the next election.
IMO she's probably missed her window, though. She's going to be 73 the next time around. Reagan was that age in 1984, and it was a major issue. I doubt he would have gotten the nomination had he not been a popular incumbent.
Look, I'm no fan of the Democrats, but the idea they're finished as a party is delusional.
In its present form, it is finished.
MICHAEL GRUNWALD said ...
There was a telling moment last night when Trump recalled how Harley-Davidson employees visiting the White House told him they’re getting crushed by foreign tariffs, and Trump vowed to fix that. “They weren’t even asking for change—but I am,” he said. In fact, Harley-Davidson’s CEO has asked for change in the form of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade deal that would have drastically reduced some of those tariffs, the very same “job-killing” deal that Trump boasted about scuttling in his speech.
The parties in the USA aren't constant. They change. The Whigs disappeared.
It won't be a one-party state, and you wouldn't want a 1 party state. There are about 60 million people in each political coalition in Presidential elections. That's a lotta people. That's why it's not a good idea to generalize.
In the USA millions of people join in political coalitions. But they don't all have the same political beliefs or interests. That is why those parties can transform. Sometimes you get viable third or fourth parties in the USA -- Constitutional Unionists. Because it's winner take all, it tends to devolve back to 2 parties.
Democrats are going through generational change. May go through a major ideological or policy shift.
Republicans may be going through a ideological & policy shift with Trump. Free trade & other issues like immigration -- it's not the Republican party of the 1980s or 1990s.
Both parties are in transition. Who knows who will be the political leaders for the Democrats four years from now.
Is California still planning to secede [she asked hopefully]?
"Guys like Beshear" do not represent a viable path forward for Dems in red states."
That was pretty amusing last night. The whole bunch was a whiteout.
Bay Are Guy, you mentioned Bill Simon as a conservative. That hit a big sore point with me. In 2002, Tom McClintock was the best GOP candidate to run against Davis. Simon swooped in with a ton of money and pushed McClintock out of the race early. He then lost to Davis who was so awful, he lasted one year.
His farther was a conservative and was the best thing about Gerry Ford's administration. The son was not and was a loser.
30 red states. 20 Blue states. After 2018 the may be fluctuations but we are heading for 60 republican senators being the mean.
Sure... if you just focus on the Senate the Republicans look pretty good for the next cycle or two. But historically the more power a party has the more they get blamed for Macmillan's "events". There's always a backlash, and it usually happens the very next cycle - both George W. Bush and Obama started their first term with both houses of Congress, and both lost that advantage within two years. I would not be surprised if the Democrats took the House in 2018. Not because of any policy or event in particular - that's just the way things work.
The Republicans can't do what they did in 2000, which is flush all their promises and go trolling K Street. They have a window of opportunity, and it's going to close quickly if they continue with business as usual. Trump had the right stuff to win the election, but he's not an idealogue of any stripe and doesn't seem to have much in the way of concrete policy preferences. If Congress doesn't step up the opportunity will be lost.
More cowbell Ann.
Is California still planning to secede [she asked hopefully]?
Stow that, please. I'm stuck here for family reasons and have no desire to be a citizen of the People's Bolivarian Republic of California.
Unknown said...
Btw, Trumpies are such haters. At least liberals have a sense of humor.
Bwahahahahahahaha! Well, THAT made me laugh, at least.
Seriously, there is nobody as grim and humorless as a liberal.
"Look, I'm no fan of the Democrats, but the idea they're finished as a party is delusional."
These things do move in cycles. The GOP looked dead in '64, but came back to life in '68, largely as a result of Dem fuckups. People were predicting the end of the Democrats after the '02 midterms and the end of the GOP in '08 (and again, last summer). So the lesson is never to get too triumphal.
That said - I do wonder if 2016 didn't signal the start of a massive shift in the political landscape, evident not only here but in the UK and Europe. There's an article in the UK Spectator about how the British working class, once the mainstay of the Labour Party, has abandoned it for UKIP - something that would have been unthinkable in the '80's and '90's. The great problem for the Dems is that the race and gender cards they have played since 1968 are simply not working that well for them anymore. And the paradigm is no longer left vs. right but globalist vs. nationalist.
It's like the Democrats have planted a flag on an ice floe, which was once huge, but bits of it are breaking off and floating away and they're left standing on an ever smaller piece of ice.
When you read history, it's easy to spot these movements in retrospect, not so easy when you're in the middle of them, as we are. But Trump was not just another Republican and I don't think his election was just the usual pendulum swing.
Bob Loblaw said...
The Republicans can't do what they did in 2000, which is flush all their promises and go trolling K Street. They have a window of opportunity, and it's going to close quickly if they continue with business as usual. Trump had the right stuff to win the election, but he's not an idealogue of any stripe and doesn't seem to have much in the way of concrete policy preferences. If Congress doesn't step up the opportunity will be lost.
I agree with all of this. But what I don't agree with is that democrats will reap any rewards. A large majority of voters realized most of us want borders and the rule of law and that DC/globalists have been trying to undermine this for decades with the BushClintonBushObama machine.
The real problem is a lot of GOPe members of congress don't see this as an opportunity like their constituents do. They are listening to their donors and trying to make the least of this opportunity.
The great problem for the Dems is that the race and gender cards they have played since 1968 are simply not working that well for them anymore.
I would not be so quick to come to that conclusion. Young people (the future) don't think of race and gender as "cards" to be played one way or the other. I would not say that zero of them do, but much fewer of them do. They have internalized a lot of this "race and gender stuff" and not being inclusive would be extremely strange to them.
mmm... donors
Trump is a nationalist and has been for some time. He may be somewhat hypocritical about it, but in his rhetoric is nationalistic.
They have internalized a lot of this "race and gender stuff" and not being inclusive would be extremely strange to them.
One hopes they'll grow up eventually. If not we're going to end up fighting a war over it.
Hopefully not until after I'm gone.
By the way, the comment about cracker barrel is really funny!!! Dems with their new chairman, are not out of the blocks in any impressive way with that selection, I suppose. But I didn't watch the rebuttal. Well, we're back on our heels, it's a little unrealistic to expect to counter right away with a shiny new, ready to do battle, built-up party. It's gonna take time. or not. As pathetic as we seem lately, I don't expect perfection at every turn. We'll see who's willing to do the groundwork over the long term.
exiledonmainstreet said...
"Wow. I've been quoted on the front page by Althouse. "
And let's be clear -- not only front paged but your quote actually WAS the post itself. High praise indeed.
My own quote, just for the record, spoken out loud while having both hands on the wheel, was somewhat pedestrian by contrast. "It was like watching a rerun of Hee Haw without the hilarity or the hooters."
Alright, we can't all expect to have all our zingers frontpaged all the time.
Congrats, exiled.
Unknown said...
Btw, Trumpies are such haters. At least liberals have a sense of humor.
Have to admit it, Unknown! Funniest post you ever made!
That said - I do wonder if 2016 didn't signal the start of a massive shift in the political landscape, evident not only here but in the UK and Europe.
Yes there are potential massive changes. Potential because history is not yet written.
I am unsure what policies and ideologies the two parties will promote 5 or 10 years from now in the US, particularly in regards to foreign policy and trade.
The post-World War II order seems to be shifting, and may shift quite dramatically.
Is the EU going to split? Will NATO continue in the same role? What role will China and Russia play in world politics? What role will the USA have in the 21st century world order?
... and when they get there, they start voting for the same policies that created a California worth leaving.
Arizona has absorbed its California population much better than Colorado. I wonder why.
Kamala Harris is not the female equivalent of Obama.
Rather, she's the black equivalent of Sarah Palin.
Meanwhile, the real Dem powers got a $60M protection payment, uh, bribe, uh, book deal. The shakedown has begun. All is proceeding as I foretold. Gonna outgrift the grifters and try to hold on to the scepter.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा