Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

The Iowa goat orgy comes to an end with Buttigieg getting the most delegates By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/the_iowa_goat_orgy_comes_to_an_end_with_buttigieg_getting_the_most_delegates.html

On Sunday, six days after the Iowa Caucuses took place, the Iowa Democrat Party finally released the 2020 Results. Based upon the complicated, vaguely parliamentary-style algorithm that Iowa uses, Buttigieg won 14 delegates, and Bernie trailed him with 12 delegates. Warren eked out 8 delegates, former frontrunner Biden got 6, and Klobuchar got 1 delegate. None of the candidates got anything out of their Iowa efforts:

With 38-year-old Buttigieg having leaped to prominence in Iowa, it’s time to remind everyone of a few pertinent facts:

1. Between 1972 and 2010, nine of the Iowa Democrat caucus winners secured their parties’ nomination (although both Clinton and Obama were unopposed during their second-term runs). However, of those nine, only three – Carter, Clinton, and Obama – won the presidency. Buttigieg now has the potential to win the primaries.

2. Buttigieg was raised in an extremely Marxist home:

The father of Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was a Marxist professor who spoke fondly of the Communist Manifesto and dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to the work of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci, an associate of Vladimir Lenin.

[snip]

He supported an updated version of Marxism that jettisoned some of Marx and Engel’s more doctrinaire theories, though he was undoubtedly Marxist.

[snip]

Paul Kengor, a professor at Grove City College and an expert in communism and progressivism, said Buttigieg was among a group of leftist professors who focused on injecting Marxism into the wider culture.

In sum, just as was the case with Barack Obama and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, Buttigieg grew up steeped in Marxism.

3. Although Buttigieg is now challenging Bernie, when Buttigieg was a high school senior, he thought Sanders the most admirable politician in America:

One outstanding and inspiring example of such integrity is the country’s only Independent Congressman, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.

The Democrats on Soleimani Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders say they would not have killed the Iranian terror master.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-on-soleimani-11581289385?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

One of Vice President Joe Biden’s better lines in 2012 was “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.” The crowd at the Democratic convention loved it. This year it sounds like the Democratic campaign theme may be that Iranian terror master Qasem Soleimani is dead and the world is more dangerous because of it.

That’s a fair judgment from Friday’s debate in New Hampshire when ABC’s David Muir asked the candidates “if your national security team came to you with an opportunity to strike, would Soleimani have been dead or would he still be alive under your Presidency?”

Pete Buttigieg responded: “In the situation that we saw with President Trump’s decision, there is no evidence that made our country safer.” He deplored Soleimani’s “murder and mayhem” but then zagged to the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear pact, and a wounded veteran friend he saw in an airport. Mr. Muir tried again, but the former mayor came down with a decisive, “It depends on the circumstances.”

Mr. Muir then moved to Mr. Biden, who at least didn’t fudge. “No. And the reason I wouldn’t have ordered the strike, there is no evidence yet of imminent threat that was going to come from him,” Mr. Biden said, before veering to “America First policies” and NATO. No mention that bin Laden wasn’t an “imminent threat” by the time he was killed.

Next up was Bernie Sanders, who listed several of the world’s “very bad leaders” but said we can’t “assassinate” them because that would open the door to “international anarchy.” He said the only recourse is diplomacy.

The answers were revealing and mark a sharp difference in the coming campaign. Mr. Trump shares some of the isolationist impulses of Democrats, but he is willing to use force to kill America’s enemies. The mayhem that critics said would follow the killing of Soleimani hasn’t happened. Mr. Sanders’s answer is no surprise. But Messrs. Buttigieg and Biden missed a chance to show they would act decisively as President to deter those who kill Americans.

Mini Mike Bloomberg thinks Americans are really stupid and lack nuance By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/mini_mike_bloomberg_thinks_americans_are_really_stupid_and_lack_nuance.html

Looking at the dysfunctional group of Democrat presidential candidates, Mike Bloomberg is planning, through strategically placed ads and a well-funded ground-game, to be the last man standing. His problem, though, is that he’s a bully, lacks charm and, as a recently unearthed video reveals, dislikes and disrespects the American people.

American politicians used to pretend they liked the citizens whose votes they sought. Nowadays, though, Democrat politicians limit themselves to attacking their opponents; they also attack the American voters. The most famous example is Hillary’s “deplorables” statement:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Barack Obama castigated Americans as bitter-clingers and hostile xenophobes:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. *** And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry didn’t think much of the military:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

Pelosi and Rumpelstiltskin By Eileen F. Toplansky

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/pelosi_and_rumpelstiltskin.html

Watching Nancy Pelosi and her gang of insolent quislings, it was hard not to think of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tale “Rumpelstiltskin.”  Power, greed, deal-making, sacrifice of children, and petulant rage are a few of the themes of this fairy tale that aptly describe the current Democrat party.

The fairy tale relates that a young woman must spin straw into gold thread because her father, a miller, foolishly boasted to the greedy king that she can.  Clearly, this is an impossible task until a “strange little man” saves the day — but at what cost?  Constantly trying to keep up with the demands of the avaricious king, the miller’s daughter accepts a bargain that entails giving up her newborn baby son if she cannot identify the “little man’s” name.  Through happenstance, she is able to counter the odious demand, and the now identified Rumpelstiltskin flies into a fit of rage.  In fact, in “his anger he stamped with his right foot so hard that it went into the ground above his knee; then he seized his left foot with both his hands in such a fury that he split in two, and there was an end of him.”

So what does an ancient fairy tale have to do with Nancy Pelosi?

For far too long, the Democrats have wheedled their way into American’s lives with sly promises and sleight-of-hand maneuvers.  Oh, a bone or two will be flung, but the depressed Baltimores, Detroits, and Clevelands never improve.  A recreational center may be built, but illegals bearing deadly intentions and drugs will not be stopped as they destroy neighborhoods.

There were important themes in New Hampshire’s Democrat debate echo chamber By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/there_were_important_themes_in_new_hampshires_democrat_debate_echo_chamber.html

After the 2016 presidential race, Scott Adams said that reality isn’t fixed but is, instead, situational. Democrats and Republicans, he argued, were watching two different movies. One movie had Trump as an eccentric, America-loving man who would fix systemic problems; the other movie had Trump as Hitler and his concentration camps. Time would tell which movie was fiction and which was a documentary. (Hint: There are no concentration camps.)

At the Democrat debate in New Hampshire, it was clear that the Democrat candidates are watching a very different movie from the rest of America – and, more significantly, a movie different from the data. Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, and Tom Steyer are not enjoying “morning in America.” Instead, they’re trapped in a nightmarish American landscape filled with poverty, hate, and despair.

The candidates live in an America with both endemic and epidemic poverty, all made worse under Trump. Except that employers created 225,000 new jobs in January alone — and real wages keep rising.

For Democrats, systemic racism is omnipresent. Reality, though, has Americans saying that race relations and minority status are better under Trump than under Obama.

Laughably, Elizabeth Warren, whose campaign witnessed a mass minority walkout in Nevada owing to racist working conditions, earnestly lectured the audience in New Hampshire about the problem of systemic racism. And Bernie, the old Marxist, insisted, “We have a racist society from top to bottom.”

The candidates were united in stating that Trump is an utterly evil, bizarre, dishonest, corrupt, racist blight on America, as proven in part by his saying mean things about Democrats. None were troubled by the irony of their making over-the-top attacks on Trump, while simultaneously claiming that Trump is mean and divisive.

James Carville Warns Dems against ‘Distracting’ Voters with Open Borders Rhetoric: ‘They Don’t Care’ By Tobias Hoonhout

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/james-carville-warns-dems-against-ignoring-voters-with-distracting-rhetoric-on-open-borders-they-dont-care/

Longtime political strategist James Carville slammed the 2020 Democrats for tacking “off the damn radar screen” on issues, including “talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration,” and warned those still in the primary that such progressive advocacy “is not how you win a national election.”

Carville appeared on MSNBC in the wake of the Iowa caucuses debacle, saying Tuesday that “there’s only one moral imperative in this country right now, and that is to beat Donald Trump.”

“We don’t win elections because we talk about stuff that is not relevant,” he argued, and challenged Democrats to rise to the occasion.In an interview with Vox published Friday, Carville elaborated, and highlighted Democrats’ willingness to “get distracted” over far-left issues.

“We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. They’re talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking,” Carville stated. “You’ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesn’t matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments — talking about that is not how you win a national election. It’s not how you become a majoritarian party.”

Carville then explained his alternative as a “coherent, meaningful message that is relevant to people’s lives.” He implied that many of the talking points being peddled in the primary were largely promoted by Republicans to make the candidates “be sucked into every rabbit hole.”

Creepy Pete By Michael Brendan Dougherty

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/pete-buttigieg-uncanny-candidate/

He may not be a robot, but there’s something uncanny about this candidate.

It has to be said: There is something plain amazing about Pete Buttigieg’s run for the presidency. His last election was for mayor of a very small city. No offense to South Bend, Ind., but being the nation’s 308th largest city is not something to brag about. In his last election before the Iowa caucus Buttigieg  won the support of less than 9,000 people. Pete Buttigieg did this by outlasting, out-fundraising, and out-debating former governors and a California senator, and lapping billionaire entrepreneurs. He beat a national front-runner and essentially tied the runner-up to the 2016 Democratic nomination. From unknown to serious contender for the presidency in less than a year: This is real Mr. Smith stuff, a tribute to the everyman nature of democracy.

To repeat myself, this is amazing, amazing stuff.

But also, it’s really creepy.

Right?

A few nights ago, the Iowa meltdown was just starting to dawn on us. Officially the Iowa Democrats were telling us that they had verified precisely zero percent of the votes.

And while we pondered that fact, this man, “Mayor Pete” emerged on cable news to dispel the utter confusion and uncertainty and declare himself the victor, based on his own tabulation. Think about that for a minute.

This is a man from nowhere who seems to have spent a great deal of time in the last few years managing his own Wikipedia page. His popularity is widely attributed to the work of a single media genius, Lis Smith. And as he was declaring himself the winner, a flurry of reports were being filed that there were some questionable financial connections between the developer of the Iowa vote-counting app and the Pete Buttigieg campaign.

Victors in Iowa, Sanders and Buttigieg Are Targets in Democratic Debate

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/politics/democratic-debate-recap.html?emc=edit_na_20200207&ref=cta&nl=breaking-news&campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=21094&user_id=2dfc89bd6c52e6103e5ac62f916a8f0d&regi_id=2636639

In the most contentious debate so far, Joseph R. Biden Jr. challenged Bernie Sanders over gun regulation, and Amy Klobuchar accused Pete Buttigieg of presenting himself as a “cool newcomer.”

The two victors in the Iowa caucuses, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., came under sharp and sustained criticism in a Democratic presidential debate on Friday, as their rivals tried to stop their momentum by assailing Mr. Sanders for his left-wing ideas and past opposition to gun control while targeting Mr. Buttigieg over his thin résumé and ties to big donors.

In the most contentious debate so far, taking place four days before the New Hampshire primary, the runners-up in Iowa charged at Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg, who appeared in the best position among the top candidates to win New Hampshire and perhaps take command of the race.

But their opponents, several of whom have significant advantages of their own, showed that they would not give way without a fight: Mr. Buttigieg especially came in for bruising treatment, drawing tough challenges from every other candidate onstage, including over his criminal-justice record as mayor and his failure so far to appeal to black and Latino voters.

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., seeking to recover from his limp finish in Iowa, raised the issue of Mr. Buttigieg’s lack of support among minorities in the opening moments of the debate, saying Mr. Buttigieg had not shown he could “get a broad scope of support.” He repeatedly alluded throughout the evening to his own base among African-Americans, especially in South Carolina, whose primary is this month and is considered a political firewall if his flagging campaign does not recover before then.But Mr. Buttigieg was not Mr. Biden’s only target: He also warned that nominating Mr. Sanders would taint down-ballot Democratic candidates with the label of socialism, and, in his most blunt attack so far on Mr. Sanders, Mr. Biden rebuked him for having opposed gun control legislation in the 1990s. Mr. Sanders, who has long since disavowed that stance, called it a function of representing “a very, very rural state.”

Democrats Feel the Bern. For Insiders, It’s Heartburn Charles Lipson

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020//06/democrats_feel_the_bern_for_insiders_its_heartburn.html

A specter is haunting the Democratic Party—the specter of socialism.

For several years, this hard-left movement has been gaining support within the party, especially among younger voters. In a few deep blue districts, socialist/populist candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad have managed to defeat entrenched center-left incumbents. The movement is now powerful enough that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose to press forward with impeachment, which she never favored, to retain her leadership position. Bernie is pressing an equally radical agenda in the primaries. He finished in the top two in Iowa and is currently leading a weak field in next week’s New Hampshire primary.

Party leaders are appalled—and alarmed—by Sanders’ strength. They uniformly opposed him in 2016, and they are doing exactly the same this year. They favor Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, or even Warren—anybody but Bernie.

When party insiders “feel the Bern,” it’s acid reflux. Democratic donors, lobbyists, think tanks, and elected officials are convinced their party is doomed this November if an avowed socialist heads the ticket. They’re right, but they don’t have an easy answer.

The insiders’ dilemma is simple to state but tricky to solve. They think Bernie’s nomination would be an electoral disaster, but they must prevent it without alienating his supporters. They need them to win in November.

Democrats Have a ‘Go Big or Go Home’ Problem by David Davenport

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-have-a-go-big-or-go-home-problem

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-have-a-go-big-or-go-home-problem

The fact that Democrats could not even deliver timely results of their own Iowa caucuses underscores their larger problem. They have become the party of big, structural changes led by government in a time when people lack confidence and trust in big government.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren likes to talk about the need for “big, structural change” to our domestic policies. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is right with her, denouncing “half measures” and arguing, as he did in a recent commercial, “America is best when we strive to do big things.” 

Nearly all of the Democratic candidates have jumped on the “go big or go home” bandwagon, with calls for “Medicare for all,” free college, a revolutionary and expensive Green New Deal, and huge tax increases on the wealthy. Apparently, Democrats have concluded that if policy proposals are not blockbuster, then they are merely lackluster. Their pitch is not President John F. Kennedy’s “we can do better” call for improvement, but rather President Franklin Roosevelt’s plea for a revolutionary New Deal.

The problem is that the public increasingly distrusts big government. A Pew Research Center study published last year showed that only 17% of people trust the government to do what is right, while 75% believe that trust in the federal government is shrinking. Examining trust in various leadership groups, government officials came in dead last, behind scientists and educators, but even trailing journalists and business leaders.