Displaying posts published in

June 2019

Neglecting Foreign Policy in the Presidential Debates By Daniel Larison

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/neglecting-foreign-policy-in-the-presidential-debates/?utm_source=ntnlreview&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=amconswap

The second night of the first Democratic 2020 presidential debate had even less discussion of foreign policy than the first. Were it not for a few of the candidates themselves choosing to bring up some of these issues, the audience would have heard almost nothing about foreign policy. There was one important moment when Biden was forced to address his 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and he gave a remarkably bad answer that was consistent with his overall poor performance. It was striking how the former Vice President still had no answer for why voters should trust his judgment.

Biden’s answer was scattershot, and most of what he said wasn’t related to the Iraq war:

Because once we — once Bush abused that power, what happened was, we got elected after that. I made sure — the president turned to me and said, Joe, get our combat troops out of Iraq. I was responsible for getting 150,000 combat troops out of Iraq, and my son was one of them.

I also think we should not have combat troops in Afghanistan. It’s long overdue. It should end.

And, thirdly, I believe that you’re not going to find anybody who has pulled together more of our alliances to deal with what is the real stateless threat out there. We cannot go it alone in terms of dealing with terrorism.

So I would eliminate the act that allowed us to go into war, and not — the AUMF, and make sure that it could only be used for what its intent was, and that is to go after terrorists, but never do it alone. That’s why we have to repair our alliances. We put together 65 countries to make sure we dealt with ISIS in Iraq and other places. That’s what I would do. That’s what I have done. And I know how to do it.

The Buttigieg Illusion By Rich Lowry

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/pete-buttigieg-campaign-south-bend-indiana-politics/

Buttigieg would seem perfect on paper to reach out beyond the woke white element of the party. This isn’t how he’s running, though.

It would tax even the prodigious powers of the late novelist Tom Wolfe to create a more poignant political scene than a bright, young, white mayor of a small city, who is an upstart presidential candidate and progressive darling, getting yelled at by black residents during a town hall.

The mayor, of course, is Pete Buttigieg. A controversial shooting of a black resident by a white police officer in his city of South Bend, Ind., occasioned the emotional meeting. Mayor Pete handled himself ably enough, yet the episode still highlights the manifest shortcomings of his candidacy.

The elite media fell in love with Buttigieg, not just because he’s genuinely talented, but because he’s the type of candidate — young, earnest, credentialed, progressive but with a self-image as an ideologically moderate pragmatist — it always falls in love with.

It is attracted to the idea of an intellectual candidate. This doesn’t literally mean someone with deep intellectual interests or genuine accomplishments — think the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan — but an impressive academic resume, a copy of the New Yorker on the nightstand and marked verbal acuity.

In this sense, Pete Buttigieg is the new Barack Obama, except with limits that will likely keep him from reaching the next level.

No More Chastened Democrats By Michael Brendan Dougherty

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/democrat-debates-no-more-chaste-democrats/

Freak flags flew for two nights in a row.

Chastened Democrats win elections. In 2006, 2008, and 2018, Democrats humbled themselves before moderate and even conservative voters and triumphed. Arrogant Democrats lose these voters. Nancy Pelosi must have been watching the past two nights of Democratic primary debates in horror.

In the 2018 midterm elections, Pelosi’s Democrats far outdid Hillary Clinton’s 2016 performance. Pelosi’s Democrats won the popular vote over Republicans by 6.7 points nationwide. How? By relentlessly talking about pocketbook issues, particularly the Democrats’ commitment to protecting voters’ existing health-insurance arrangements. Attack ads against Republicans in 2018 focused on the provision of a bill that would have weakened protections for those with preexisting conditions. Pelosi’s Democrats said Republicans would “raise your premiums” and “kick you off your health-care plan.” For good measure they accused Republicans of “doubling the debt.” Pelosi and Chuck Schumer tried to tamp down the story of the migrant caravan then traveling through Mexico, calling President Trump’s focus on it a distraction from health care. Pelosi’s Democrats retook the Rust Belt districts that Donald Trump had won in 2016.

Her operation reminded me of the last time Democrats had been humbled: after the 2004 elections. In the following midterms in 2006 and the election of 2008, Democrats ran against Republican radicalism. Just twelve years ago, Democratic candidates for president competed with each other on how tough and realistic they could be on illegal immigration. The leading candidates for president advertised not just their opposition to same-sex marriage but also their opposition to drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants. Dennis Kucinich quoted from the Bible.

Over the last two nights, we saw a completely different Democratic party. Several leading candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris, vowed to kick 100 million Americans off their private insurance plans in favor of Medicare for All. This is a position supported by less than 15 percent of Americans. Just a tiny fraction of that number of cancellations in the wake of Obamacare caused an electoral earthquake for Democrats in 2010.

California Legislature Passes Bill To Put Trans Men In Women’s Prisons, Even Rapists There are no exceptions in the bill to make sure that men who have committed violent or sexual crimes against women are not placed in prison with women. By Libby Emmons

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/28/california-legislature-passes-bill-put-trans-men-womens-prisons-even-rapists/

While it should be obvious that women’s prisons are for convicted criminals who are female, California Senate Bill 132, sponsored by state Sen. Scott Weiner (D–San Francisco), requires men who say they are women to be housed in women’s prisons.

The State Senate passed the bill in May, and it passed the state Assembly with very little opposition on June 25. The bill demands that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ask prisoners their preferred pronouns and gender identity at intake, then house them accordingly. This means that a man need only say at intake that he is a woman to gain access to women’s prison. In passing this bill, California has turned its back on incarcerated women.

In describing the bill, the Legislative Council’s Digest states:

The bill would require staff and contractors to consistently use the gender pronoun and honorific an individual has specified in verbal and written communications with or regarding that individual that involve the use of a pronoun or honorific. The bill would require the department, for a person who has a gender identity that differs from their sex assigned at birth, to only conduct a search of that person by an officer of the gender identity of the person’s preference, and to house the person in a correctional facility designated for men or women consistent with the incarcerated individual’s gender identity, except as specified.

Former President Jimmy Carter Said Trump Was Not Legitimately Elected By Madeline Osburn

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/28/former-president-jimmy-carter-said-trump-not-legitimately-elected/

Former President Jimmy Carter said he believes President Donald Trump’s election was illegitimate and that “he didn’t actually win the election in 2016.”

At a Carter Center event in Virginia with author Jon Meacham, Carter said that Russian interference in the 2016 election invalidated Trump’s presidency, reported USA Today’s Susan Page.

“I think the interference, though not yet quantified, should be fully investigated and would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election,” he said.

“He was put into office because the Russians interfered,” he said. Carter was then asked if that meant he believed Trump was illegitimate.

Roberts The Mind Reader Joins Liberal Justices On The Census Thomas McArdle

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/06/28/roberts-the-mind-reader-joins-liberal-justices-on-the-census/

The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 ruling on Department of Commerce v. New York is being characterized as nothing more serious than a temporary setback regarding President Trump’s wish to reinstate a citizenship question in the 2020 U.S. Census; the administration is expected to whip up a new rationale that the high court won’t consider “contrived” and get the question in.

Unfortunately it is far worse than that, and Chief Justice John Roberts is giving further sign that he is yet another unpleasant surprise in GOP appointments to the highest level of the Judicial Branch, following in the footsteps of David Souter (Bush 41), Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan), and John Paul Stevens (Ford).

“The Court’s holding reflects an unprecedented departure from our deferential review of discretionary agency decisions,” Justice Clarence Thomas warns in his dissent, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. “And, if taken seriously as a rule of decision, this holding would transform administrative law … the Court has opened a Pandora’s box,” Thomas declared.

Motivated by politics and ideology, lawyers would challenge all sorts of Executive Branch decisions “with accusations of pretext, deceit, and illicit motives” leading to “an endless morass of discovery and policy disputes,” Thomas cautions. “Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction.”

Science as Political Orthodoxy By Peter Schwartz

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/28/science_as_political_orthodoxy_140663.html

There is an intellectual orthodoxy being imposed by the left, abetted by much of the news media. Certain viewpoints are forbidden — not simply regarded as wrong, but not permitted to be considered.

We can observe this attitude at our colleges, where speakers who challenge leftist premises have been forcibly silenced. But it is most entrenched in discussions about global warming, in which non-orthodox views are treated the way religionists treat challenges to biblical dogma. A striking example is provided by a recent New York Times front-page story. 

The print-version headline reads: “In Climate Fight, Trump Will Put Science on Trial.” On the continuation page, the headline is even stronger: “. . . Put Science Itself on Trial.” (The online headline is not quite so aggressive: “Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science.”)

The article presents what it calls the Trump administration’s “attack on science,” which will “undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.” What exactly is being proposed? “[T]he U.S. Geological Survey …  has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040 rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.” Consequently, the reporter notes, “parts of the federal government will no longer be able to fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet.”

The Debate’s Winners and Losers By Tom Bevan & Philip Wegmann

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/28/the_debates_winners_and_losers_140672.html

MIAMI — Ten candidates shared the stage on the second night of the first debate of the Democratic primary. After two hours of questions and cross talk, of impromptu barbs and prepared talking points, a tentative picture has emerged of the initial winners and losers.

Winner: Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris has arrived.

Pollsters and pundits had wondered whether the freshman senator from California could start to deliver on her well-received campaign rollout. She answered Thursday night by pummeling the front-runner in prime time, questioning former Vice President Joe Biden about civil rights.

Harris pushed the 76-year-old Biden to explain his record on federal busing, which he opposed while a young senator from Delaware, and his association with segregationists, which he has defended as necessary for compromise.

“I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground,” Harris told Biden.

“But I also believe,” she continued, “it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing.”

Although that decades-old legislative record is hardly new, Harris made it personal.

“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,” Harris said. “That little girl was me.”

MY SAY: THE DEBATES….ON FOREIGN POLICY AND DEFENSE….DON’T ASK….DON’T TELL

The compliant and biased media lobbed no real questions on present defense or foreign policy and cagily deflected serious questions on national security and immigration.

Again, these tyros want to be Commander in Chief?….rsk

All Ten Dems at the Second Debate Would Provide Health Insurance for Illegal Immigrants By Tyler O’Neil

https://pjmedia.com/trending/all-ten-dems-at-the-second-debate-would-provide-health-insurance-for-illegal-immigrants/

In the second round of the first 2020 Democratic presidential debate on Thursday, all ten of the candidates onstage said their government health care plans would provide coverage for illegal immigrants.

NBC News co-anchor Savannah Guthrie asked the candidates — including frontrunners former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg — if they would cover illegal immigrants.

“Raise your hand if your government healthcare plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants,” she said.

Every single candidate raised his or her hand.