Blame the Republican

In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina smashed into Louisiana and left a path of devastation, the media piled on President Bush - a Republican - for his failure to respond in a timely fashion.  His poor leadership made a bad situation worse.  Governor Blanco - a Democrat - was hardly mentioned.  Mayor Ray Nagin - a Democrat - did receive some criticism for not evacuating New Orleans, but that was overshadowed by Spike Lee's claims that the levees were intentionally destroyed to flood black neighborhoods.

In 2022, when Hurricane Ian smashed into Florida, the media press Governor DeSantis - a Republican - regarding deaths and short-notice evacuations orders.  President Biden - a Democrat - is hardly mentioned in relation to the hurricane.

Regardless of the situation, somehow it is always the Republican's fault.  Threat of a government shutdown when the president is a Republican and the congress is Democratic?  The president is to blame.  Threat of shutdown when president is a Democrat, and the congress is Republican?  The congress is to blame.  Gridlock in congress when the house is Democrat, and the senate is Republican?  Senate at fault.  Gridlock when house is Republican, and senate is Democrat?  Clearly, the house is in error.  When a Republican does something wrong, the story is how the Republican did something wrong.  When a Democrat does something wrong, the story is how Republicans are making political hay over Democrat missteps.

A Democrat calls a Republican a Nazi or a fascist, he's speaking truth to power.  A Republican says anything negative toward a Democrat and he is accused of being uncivil and perhaps even encouraging violence.

It's a one-way street in most of the media.  Republicans bad, Democrats good.  It's a miracle Republicans ever win an election with the non-stop negative press.

Welcome Wagon

Related to the previous post, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has long talked about a Welcome Wagon project to introduce blue state refugees to red state values.  Too often, blue staters leave the blue state that has become unlivable and relocate to a red state.  However, once established in the red state, they continue to vote for blue state policies.  If sufficient blue staters migrate to the state, it starts to resemble the state they left.  The goal is to explain the cause and effect of their voting patterns.

Tim Pool, who describes himself as a milquetoast fence sitter who leans left, recently moved to a more conservative state.  He had previously lived in such places as the Philadelphia metro area, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.  Though he rarely votes, he announced that he would not try to impose his values in his newly adopted state.  It was working well enough before he arrived.  This is exactly the mindset sought by the Welcome Wagon.

Voting with Your Feet

Many years ago, some pundit was saying great things about Cuba, espousing the healthcare and high literacy rate.  The opposing pundit replied that people vote with their feet (i.e., they leave or enter a country) and Cuba had net negative migration.  People were choosing to leave.  Though I cannot recall who said it, this idea has stuck with me ever since.  Often, when someone starts bashing America as a bad country, I ask why everyone wants to migrate here rather than all those superior countries?  A change in topic is the typical result.

With that in mind, there was a link on Instapundit to a page showing tax burdens by state.  The most burdensome states are New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont, and California.  The states with the lowest tax burden were Alaska, Wyoming, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Michigan.  Given that, where are people moving?  Let's take a look at U-Haul.

The highest inflow is to Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Arizona.  The highest outflow comes from Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.  There are a couple of matches between the U-Haul chart and the tax burdens, but not much.  Let's see what northAmerican Moving Services moving shows.  Alaska and Hawaii are listed as undefined so there are only 48 states to consider.

Tennessee and Florida are again ranked in the top five for destinations while New Jersey, Illinois, and California are listed for departures.  The inflow states tend to have lower taxes than outflow states.  However, Texas and Michigan have about the same tax burden, just levied in different ways (Texas has no state income tax while Michigan does).  The departure states are generally colder than the destination states, but California, Ohio, and Idaho throw a wrench in that theory.

Let's go back and get the tax burden ratings for the states that appear in the two charts.  What does that look like?

Again, it is pretty clear that the inflow states have the lower tax burden but Michigan is an outflow state with a low tax burden.  Odd.  Idaho is an inflow state with an above median tax burden.  What gives?  Let's combine the three charts and sort:

I pasted them all together and then sorted by the total of Tax Burden + northAmerican Ranking + U-Haul Ranking.  I should have gone back to the various charts and filled in the missing numbers, but I've already spent enough time on this.  After a little more investigation, there was a pattern.

There is a clear migration away from Democrat-controlled states toward Republican-controlled states.  People are voting with their feet.

Virus Discriminates by Governor's Party?

Does Covid-19 impact Democrat-run states more harshly than Republican-run states?  I heard that comment and thought it weird.  However, it's easy to check.  Let's look at the latest numbers.

Of the 10 states with the highest death tolls, 8 have Democratic governors.  Massachusetts and Florida are the exceptions.  Of the 10 states with the lowest death tolls, 7 have Republican governors.  Interesting but hardly conclusive.  More rural states tend to vote Republican while more urban states tend to vote Democrat.  Contagious diseases are harder on urban centers.

26 states have Republican governors and 24 have a Democrat.  Of note, 178 million people live in the Democrat states while only 150 million live in Republican states.  Of the 1.2 million people infected with Covid-19, 72% live in Democrat states.  80% of the deaths have been in Democrat states.  Correcting for population differences, 1 in 3,112 citizens of Democratic states have died while only 1 in 10,200 citizens in Republican states have died.  Odds of death are tripled in Democratic states.

Is this just a reflection of urban vs. rural populations or does it show that one party is better at handling such crises?

Look into My Crystal Ball

Just over two months ago, I predicted that the Republican would win the 6th District of Georgia.  Tonight, Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff in the runoff.  In truth, it wasn't much of a prediction.  A heavily Republican district elected a Republican.  What a surprise.  Thanks to vast sums of money or the approval ratings of the president, it was closer than it might otherwise have been.  However, I was incorrect in saying that Reuters would only provide a colorless two sentence summation of the results.  Though Republicans have won four special elections since the Orange Overlord was inaugurated, the AP managed to paint the margins of victory as portending future doom for the Republicans:

Republicans are claiming momentum ahead of the 2018 midterms, but each race was much closer than expected for the four districts.

Next time, the Republicans are toast.  Be of good cheer, Democrats, this winning can't continue much longer.  Yes, the AP is a totally unbiased news organization.

 

With the pathetic legislative accomplishments, it is clear that the Republicans could be in serious trouble if they don't achieve something.  The only positive that the GOP currently has is that the alternative is the Democrats.

 

Why isn't everyone celebrating that the woman won?  I think she may be the first woman to win the 6th District in Georgia.  That's historic!  Of course, such 'firsts' are only important if accomplished by Democrats.  No one cares that Mia Love was the first Haitian American and first black female Republican elected to Congress, nor that she was the first Black American elected to Congress in Utah.  Only the achievements of Democratic women are worthy of note.

Party-affiliation Buried

Ex-mayor charged in 4-year-old’s rape said girl was a willing participant, records say

The Washington Post

 

Beyond the horrific picture that is painted by the headline, I immediately noticed that the mayor's party affiliation wasn't included in the headline.  Let's see how long it takes in the article to mention.  Ah, there it is in the 14th paragraph: Richard Keenan is a Democrat.  I'm sure that is how long it normally takes to get to that point.  Hmm.  Let's check.  To provide a similar circumstance, let's only consider Republicans with little or no name recognition.

 

Christopher Lee had posted shirtless pictures of himself in 2011.  Here is an ABC story that offers the details.  Oh, first sentence of first paragraph notes that he is Republican.

 

Chris Myers, also a mayor, is the 'Knucklehead of the Week' in this 2011 story.  It isn't until the 6th paragraph that his party-affiliation is mentioned.  Of course, that is also the first paragraph in which he is mentioned.  Hmm.

 

Phillip Hinkle, an Indiana legislator, was caught in a sex scandal in this story.  Not only does the headline reveal his affiliation, it is also mentioned in the first sentence of the article.

 

Mike Duvall bragged about his sexual prowess on an open microphone in this LA Times story.  His party is revealed in the subhead and again identified in the 2nd paragraph of the article.

 

In this Daily Beast story, Senator John Ensign of Nevada is revealed to be a Republican in the 3rd Sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

 

Okay, maybe it was a fluke that Richard Keenan's affiliation appeared late.  Let's see how quickly Democrats are identified in stories.

 

In this 2013 Huffington Post story regarding Anthony Weiner, his party affiliation is never mentioned.  Well, he is widely known to be a Democrat but there isn't even a perfunctory (D) after his name.

 

Here is a story in the New York Times about Eliot Spitzer suing a woman who accused him of choking her.  Interesting.  Though the story mentions that Spitzer is a former governor, it somehow never comes up that he is a Democrat.  Huh, that's odd.

 

Buzzfeed details the antics of former Congressman David Wu.  Though the article makes it clear that Wu is friendly with Democrats and was forced to resign by Democratic leadership, he is never identified as a Democrat.  Very peculiar.

 

In this 2008 Newsweek article, sex scandal involving Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick somehow fails to mention that he is a Democrat.

 

In this 2011 Time piece, John Edwards is listed among the Top 10 Political Sex Scandals and yet his party is not mentioned.  Actually, this is a great piece to use though it does repeat much of what has already been detailed.  I'll just go through the 10 and look for party identification:

 

1. Mark Sanford: It is noted that he was the head of the Republican Governors Association, thus revealing his party.
2. John Ensign: That he is a Republican is not mentioned.
3. David Vitter: Not only is he described as a staunch conservative advocate, it is also noted that he is a Republican.
4. Kwame Kilpatrick: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.
5. Larry Craig: That he is a Republican is not mentioned.
6. Barney Frank: He is identified as a longtime Democratic Congressman.
7. Bill Clinton: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.
8. Eliot Spitzer: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.
9. John Edwards: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.
10. Anthony Weiner: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.

 

Wow, that is interesting.  There are 4 Republicans and 6 Democrats.  Though half of the Republicans are revealed, only 1 in 6 of the Democrats is.  Weird.  That probably wasn't intentional, was it?  It's also interesting that the first 3 on the list are all Republicans.  If you stopped reading half way through, you would be of the impression that 80% of sex scandals are Republican.

 

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit often says that if you look at the media as Democratic operatives with bylines you won't go far wrong.  This would appear to prove his point.

Uncivil Service

Here is an excellent article by Glenn Reynolds.  The civil service has demonstrated that it is in the pocket of the Democratic Party.  The DOJ declined to indict Hillary but was happy to go after Republican Governor Bob McDonald.  The DOJ had plenty of free time to harass Tea Party groups applying for tax free status but somehow could not do anything regarding the armed Black Panthers who had loitered at a polling station during the 2008 election.

 

In the late 19th Century, it was determined that something needed to be done about the spoils system.  Back then, when a new President arrive in Washington, he started handing out jobs to supporters.  This wholesale sweep of government officials to make room for Cousin William, long time friend Robert, and that fellow who provided alcohol for that campaign event started to look bad.  It had looked bad for a long time but it had become intolerable.  Thus, Civil Service Reform was passed and one of my heroes, Theodore Roosevelt, served on the US Civil Service Commission, seeking to stamp out the spoils system.  Henceforth, there would be professional civil servants who would do their job regardless of which party was in office.  Now the Department of Justice would indict criminals without regard to party affiliation.  Right?  The IRS would apply the same standards to applications for tax free status regardless of political beliefs.  Wouldn't it?

 

It turns out that people in favor of bigger government are the kind of people who become civil servants in bigger government.  Over the decades, the various bureaucracies have been taken over by Democrats.  Sure, the occasional Republican will be appointed to run the bureaucracy but the leftward bent remains entrenched.  This is certainly a huge improvement from the Democrats' view but a permanent and growing obstacle to Republicans even when they are in charge.  Democrats want to expand government, something civil servants want.  Republicans supposedly want to shrink government, which means job losses for civil servants.  Is it any wonder the bureaucracies are innately hostile to right-leaning groups and also willing to ignore wrongdoing by Democrats?

 

Nepotism is less corrupt.  Bring back the spoils system!

Stop the Emails

Yet again, email has proven destructive to the career of woman in the hierarchy of the Democratic Party.  Wikileaks has exposed thousands of emails that show Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS), the DNC chairwoman, was indeed steering the nomination to Hillary and seeking to torpedo Bernie.  Bernie's demands that she resign and support for her primary opponent were completely justified.  His argument that the system was rigged is borne out by the evidence.  The Democrats weren't running a primary campaign but a predetermined coronation.  Doubtless, Bernie's supporters are going to be even harder to bring back into the fold.  Many of them would be thrilled if he accepted Jill Stein's repeated offer to let him lead the Green Party ticket on the November ballot, perhaps garnering enough support to appear in the debates.  The party has stabbed him in the back and perhaps bringing ruination upon them will teach them a lesson.  With the barely Republican, and fellow New Yorker, Trump as the alternative to the Wall Street shill and carpetbag New Yorker Hillary, he might actually do it.  Yes, it is still very unlikely.  Strategically, it might not be a bad idea to stay in the race and make sure his voters don't break for Trump.  Risky.

It is late in the day for DWS to resign.  Her tenure as DNC Chair has been mostly a series of losses for her party and yet she has been the longest serving chair in decades.  Her ties to Hillary Clinton have likely allowed her to remain as long as she has (her predecessor in the job is Tim Kaine, the newly announced VP candidate) but even that cannot save her from the latest email disaster on the eve of the Democratic Convention.  The stars are aligning against Hillary with conspiracy-like precision.

Why I prefer Republicans

Glenn Reynolds has a great article today that explains one of the main reasons I prefer Republicans to Democrats.  The Founders had expected the press to be antagonistic of government power, regardless of who was wielding it.  They had not foreseen the rise of the party system but early in the republic, each party had party-run papers.  Andrew Jackson had newspaper men in his Kitchen Cabinet so that he could get the right propaganda to the masses.  Want to read that Jackson is a murderous villain who is exceeding his authority and ruining the nation?  Read a Whig-supported paper.  The bias was out in the open and everyone knew which papers supported which party.  Today, the press is composed mostly of left-leaning journalists who cheer when a Democrat is in office.  However, when a Republican is in office, it is a sin if he goes golfing.  The press is a lapdog or an attack dog depending on the letter (D or R) after the president's name.  I want attack dogs; I'm with Glenn.

When the Shoe is on the Other Foot

One of many reasons that I want a very constrained and limited government, even when those who share my views are in office (who am I kidding, that doesn't happen), is that I know it won't last.  Eventually, someone with whom I profoundly disagree will get the reins of power.  If I have been a cheerleader while my guy was riding roughshod over the traditional give and take of a Representative Republic, it is going to look really bad when I change my tune when the other party does the same thing when the shoe is on the other foot.  If he is elected, Donald Trump is going to have no more power than Obama currently has and yet the left is panicked as if he is going to impose fascism with his first executive order.

 

While Obama has by his own definition exceeded the authority granted to him by the Constitution, the left has cheered.  These short-sighted boosters may now be seeing the light.  If a President Trump follows the precedents of President Obama but instead uses them to impose a non-leftist agenda, how does the left complain?  Obama set a precedent when he rewrote immigration law without the participation of the Congress.  He decided certain immigrants would not be deported even if they were caught.  Very well, then if President Trump decides that no Muslims can emigrate to the US, the principled argument has already been lost by supporting Obama.

 

Here is another take.

An Unexpected Turn of Events

For months, there has been speculation that the Republicans would have a contested convention in which Donald Trump would duke it out with Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and the Republican establishment.  It was going to be exciting and probably destroy the Republican Party for a generation, if not longer, regardless of the outcome.  But Ted Cruz lost in Indiana and dropped out leaving the field clear for Trump to get the 1237 delegates he needed.  Exciting convention averted.

Also for months, it has been said that Hillary will easily win the nomination.  In fact, she should get the necessary delegates in the next batch of primaries.  However, there is a problem.  Thanks to the super delegate system, Bernie will be well within the margin for a switch by these party leaders to make him the nominee.  Even though Hillary will have secured in excess of the 2382 she needs before the convention, there is yet wiggle room.  Super delegates aren't locked to the candidate like those earned in the primaries and caucuses.  Thus, if Hillary was suddenly indicted by DOJ, the super delegates could abandon her en masse and Bernie would get the nomination.

Ever since the 2000 election disaster, Democrats have been big fans of popular vote rather than delegates.  In that regard, Hillary has crushed Bernie.  She has received 12,989,134 votes to Sanders 9,957,889, a gap of more than 3 million.  She has garnered 56% of the popular vote to Bernie's 43%.  Clearly, she should be the nominee.  However, her trend is not good.  Her portion of the popular vote is shrinking.  In February, she won 59.7% of the votes.  In March, she dropped to 58.2%.  April was 55.4%.  In May, she has fallen to 46.3%.  It is too late for Bernie to overtake Hillary in the primaries but you can be assured that party bosses are aware of this trend too.  Will super delegates reconsider?

 

We were promised a contested convention, it was just assumed that it would be the Republicans who would be having it.  Apparently not.

Bernie Cooked

With his lackluster showing, Bernie's campaign is becoming embarrassing.  He only has 851 delegates to Hillary's 1606.  He needs to win 66% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination.  Despite all the talk of his magnificent insurgency, he only gets further and further behind with each primary.  A more traditional Democratic candidate would bow out as gracefully as possible and allow the party to unite against the Republicans.  Hillary's eventual victory is plain as day.  Unless Bernie has inside information on a pending indictment, it's time to suspend his campaign.

Interesting bit about the Democratic primaries.  There are 4051 delegates allocated through state contests and 712 allocated by Super Delegates.  It is possible, though highly unlikely, that one candidate to accumulate 2381 delegates (1 short of the 2382 need for the nomination) through state elections (58.8% of the total) and then lose to the candidate with 1670 delegates because the super delegates chose that person instead.  Such is not the case, but it is interesting just how far the super delegate system can thwart the will of the voters.

Who's Running the Show?

It is regularly said that Republican are racists and that's why blacks aren't doing as well as white in America.  The Democrats offer dog whistles, code language, and opposition to race-based admissions at colleges as clear evidence of Republican racism.  Sounds like the bar has been set fairly low to level the racism charge.  But here is a question: where are these hotbeds of Republican racism?  Where are blacks being treated unfairly, where cops are shooting them, where the murder rates among blacks are particularly high?

In an October story, St. Louis was listed as having the highest per capita murder rate in the US, having 50 murders for every 100 thousand residents.  The last Republican mayor of St. Louis was elected in 1943.  Okay, that's probably just a fluke, an outlier.  What city is number 2?

In that same story, Detroit was listed with 44 per 100K.  The last Republican mayor was elected in 1957.  All right, another oddball.  Let's continue.

New Orleans ranks 3rd, with 38 murders per 100K.  The last Republican mayor was Benjamin Flanders, who served from April 1872 to November of that same year.  Wow, that a long time of one party rule.

According to the FBI, the 4th city on the list is Jackson, Mississippi, with 35 murders per 100K.  Searching the records, I could not find the last Republican though everyone since the late 40s has been a Democrat.  Fine, next city.

The 5th city is Baltimore and it last elected an evil racist Republican in 1963.  Hmm.  This is starting to look less like a fluke and more like a pattern.  Too soon to tell.  Let's move on.

Newark, New Jersey had 33 murders per 100K.  The last Republican mayor was elected in 1949.  Just because the top 6 have been run by Democrats for decades doesn't absolve Republicans!

Birmingham is 7th and George Siebels was the last, and also first, Republican elected in 1967.  Buffalo, NY had the last Republican mayor elected in 1950.

Baton Rouge had a Republican mayor elected in 2000!  There it is!  The city with the 9th highest murder rate in the nation had a Republican mayor as recently as 2004!    Clearly, his racist four years led to the high murder rate of today.

Pittsburgh (22 murders per 100k) elected a Republican mayor in 1933 and thus rounds out the top 10 highest murder rate cities in the country.  Of course, the current mayor in all 10 is a Democrat.

The national average per capita murder rate is 4.5.  Only one of the nation's largest cities comes in under that number: New York City.  Yes, NYC had only 3.9 murders per 100k.  Interestingly, NYC had 8 years of Republican Rudy Giuliani followed by 7 years of Republican Michael Bloomberg and 5 more years of Independent Michael Bloomberg.  Bloomberg generally left Giuliani's crime prevention policies in place but added nanny-statism to the mix.  In 1990, under Mayor David Dinkins, there were 2,262 murders in NYC.  By 2001, Giuliani's last year in office, there were 639.  In 2015, there were 333 murders.  This is a massive success but, for some reason, these other cities - run by Democrats - are not implementing the policies that made it happen.

 

Who is running the cities where police shoot young black men?  Who is running the cities where gangbangers are slaughtering each other and random - usually black - bystanders?  Democrats are running these cities and have done so for decades.  If it has stayed this way for so long, whoever is in charge must like the status quo.

Ouroboros

An ouroborous is a snake that eats its own tail.  Such creatures have existed in many mythologies though the most noted is probably Jormungandr, the Norse serpent that encircles the world.  It is fated to slay Thor during Ragnarok (Norse Doomsday) while also being killed by the thunder god.  I mention this because the Democratic Party is starting to resemble an Ouroboros.  A few months ago, I noted here that most Democratic Presidents would be found lacking as far as racial sensitivity was concerned.  At that time, the problem was Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.  Now the issue is Woodrow Wilson.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/princeton-students-take-over-presidents-office-demand-erasure-of-woodrow-wilson/

As more and more Democratic Presidents are attacked by Democratic constituencies, the foundation will erode.  Recall, it was the Democratic Party that defended segregation and Jim Crow into the 1960s.  It was Orval Faubus - Democrat Governor of Arkansas - who opposed racial integration and Dwight Eisenhower - Republican President - who federalized the national guard to enforce Brown vs. Board of Education.  Eisenhower also signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.  Today, the only one anyone remembers is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It should be noted that Strom Thurmond - then a Democrat - filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights act for more than 24 hours, setting a record for a one man filibuster.  What about the infamous Bull Connor?  Yeah, he was a Democrat.  Governor George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" Wallace was a Democrat.

 

The Ku Klux Klan was an ally of the Democratic Party from its founding, achieving its highest membership in the mid 1920s.  Let's look at Klansmen who entered politics:

Harry Truman, Democrat President: Briefly dabbled with the Klan in the mid 20s, when it was at its peak.  If he did join (it is in doubt), it was in order to get votes for his reelection campaign of 1924.

Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator: Achieved title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops but left organization in 1940s.

Hugo Black, Democrat Supreme Court Justice: Joined in early 1920s to gain votes.

Theodore Bilbo, Democrat Senator: Stated in interview that once a Klansman, always a Klansman.  One had to take an oath to that effect.

Bibb Graves, Democrat Governor: Joined to improve electoral chances.

Clifford Walker, Democrat Governor: Revealed as Klansman in 1924.

George Gordon, Democrat Congressman: First Grand Dragon of Tennessee.

Benjamin Stapleton, Democrat mayor of Denver: Appointed Klan members to most positions in municipal government.

David Duke, Democrat (pre-1989) & Republican (post-1989) Legislator: Democrats' favorite Klansman because he has an R after his name these days.  According to Duke, he left the KKK in 1980, which puts him in the Democrat column.

Truman is going to have to go.  Half the government buildings in West Virginia are named for Robert Byrd; need to rename them all.  Democrats prior to the 1960s are almost certainly going to be unacceptable to the Black Lives Matter crowd.  The ones after 1960s should also be unacceptable but thanks to the deft political skills of LBJ and a compliant media, everyone now thinks that it was the Republicans - party of Lincoln, the party founded to oppose slavery - who were the slave owners and segregationists.

 

The Democrats have championed Political Correctness and been only too happy to attack minor incidents in their opponents' past as a reason such people should be reviled.  They never expected this to be used against them, especially by those they had inculcated with PC.  Oh, the irony.  The poetic justice.  I am curious to see how much more this ouroboros is able to devour itself.

Bernie Sanders: Incompetent Campaigner

After the Democrat debate, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffey dropped out of the race, which left only Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley.  Thanks to Bernie announcing that he didn't care about Hillary's "damned emails," he took character off the table as a reason to choose between them.  If character is not an issue, then it comes down to policies.  Hillary and Bernie voted the same almost 80% of the time while they were in the Senate together.  Policy-wise, they are pretty close.  Since the debate, Hillary has made up lost ground.  In October, she was polling at 46% but has risen 10 points.  Sanders has also risen but only by 4 points to 31%.  O'Malley finally registers in the polls at a paltry 2%.  This according to the FOX News poll.

 

If Sanders is serious about winning the nomination (I don't think he is), he has to make the case that he is a better candidate.  With his views relatively close to Hillary's stated views, he needs to tack toward something that differentiates them.  Those 'damned emails' are a real scandal that has deserved far more attention than they have gotten.  However, if a Republican mentions them, it is instantly viewed as partisan and therefore discarded by Democrat voters.  Bernie could make a bipartisan case and deliver a serious hit on her ethics and honesty.  Sanders is essentially an isolationist as far as foreign policy, so he could make hay with Hillary's Libyan adventure.

 

"We Came, We Saw, He died."

Hillary Clinton on Muammar Gaddafi

 

She was proud of the intervention then, but in the aftermath of Benghazi, this is a monumental failure waiting for an opponent to exploit.  It is almost certainly going to come up in the Presidential Debates if Hillary is the nominee.  Sanders may as well use it, if only to prepare her for the inevitable attacks later.  After all, it was Al Gore who first used Willie Horton against Dukakis.  How about the Russian Reset; are things going swimmingly between us and Putin thanks to her smart diplomacy?  Maybe she can dump that disaster on Kerry.  Hillary was proud of the amount of miles she traveled during her tenure as Secretary of State; what is her legacy?  Treaties?  Ally-building?

 

Maybe her time as Secretary of State was unimpressive but she still has her time in the Senate.  She voted in favor of invading both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Of course, like many Democrats, she recanted on Iraq and voted against the 2007 Iraq surge.  Her most famous quote as Senator is probably this:

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!"

I completely agree though I don't think she does.  Disagreement with Obama has too often been labeled as racism and disagreement with her is sexist.  In any case, the accomplishments in the Senate are not impressive.  I know of no legislation with her name on it (I count that as an achievement since I would rather not have new laws but her base disagrees with me) and her voting record is unremarkable.  Those votes for Afghanistan and Iraq are a big problem for the base but Bernie is letting them slide.

 

Hillary is a weak candidate.  She is such a weak candidate that a little-known senator in his first term was able to defeat her for the nomination in 2008.  In much the way Sanders is treating her now, she did not attack Obama despite some easy and obvious issues.  McCain opted to follow Hillary's losing strategy and, unsurprisingly, lost.  Now, Sanders is no Barack Obama but if he made an issue of Hillary's lack of achievement, her perceived untrustworthiness, and her scandals, he could eek out the nomination.  I don't think he'll do that, in which case I suspect he has already resigned himself to losing.  However, even in loss he can win influence.  Hillary parleyed her loss into Secretary of State.

 

I've seen a meme on Facebook that congratulated Sanders for dismissing the 'damned emails,' calling him a gentleman for it.  Sad to say, but gentlemen lose elections.  Bob Dole was a gentleman.  John McCain was a gentleman.  Mitt Romney was a gentleman.  Romney was savaged by the Obama campaign, made responsible for the death of a former employee's wife, painted as a bully for an incident from high school, falsely accused of not paying his taxes, and on and on.  Yes, it would be nice if elections had some sort of Marquis of Queensbury rules but they don't.  If you can't reply in kind, you're probably going to lose.  Of course, since Sanders is playing the gentleman and also losing, Hillary is content to have a 'civil' primary campaign.  But if the situation was reversed, Hillary would not let an email scandal or the like be ignored.

Democrat Debate

There has been much grief from lesser candidates in the Democrat field that there are only going to be 6 debates.  There are 19 declared candidates though I doubt most Democrat voters could name more than 3.  Of course, only the top five are of note:

Hillary Clinton: Former Secretary of State, New York Senator, First Lady.  She is the current front runner.  Her email scandal is damaging her standing.  On account of this, the top three words associated with her in a Quinnipiac poll were "liar," "dishonest," and "untrustworthy."  She has more than a year to counter that but the continued bleeding and lack of resolution with the email server will be an anchor on her campaign.  She is a member of the New Nobility.

 

Bernie Sanders: Vermont Senator, former Congressman, former Mayor of Burlington.   He is a self-described socialist and Clinton's most successful rival at this point.  Bernie is an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate.  Unlike Democrats who only offer lip service to opposing Wall Street (while taking the lion's share of political donations from them), Bernie is a true believer.  As such, the party elites do not want him.

Martin O'Malley: Former Maryland Governor and Baltimore Mayor.  He barely registers in the polls at this point, thus his strong interest in lots of debates.  He is likely hamstrung by the failure of his hand-picked successor to win the governorship.  Also, the recent trouble in Baltimore reflects on him, fairly or not.  However, he is a solid Democrat with executive experience who doesn't have the baggage of Hillary or the outspoken socialism of Bernie.

Jim Webb: Former Virginia Senator and Secretary of the Navy.  He served in the Reagan administration and is too pro-military and bipartisan to win the Democratic nomination.  The most conservative of this leftist field, he is going no where.

Lincoln Chafee: Former Rhode Island Governor, Senator, Mayor of Warwick.  Former Republican, former Independent.  Lincoln was a liberal Republican back when that was openly allowed.  He has since transitioned to a Democrat.  He wants the US to switch to the Metric System.  He is a member of the New Nobility.

The choice of the party elites is clearly Hillary, thus the desire for as few debates as possible.  Hillary lacks her husband's charm and political instincts, thus debates are likely to harm her candidacy while simultaneously offering alternative candidates.  The last time the voters were given an alternative to Hillary, they took him.

Of late, there has been a growing 'Draft Biden' movement that would like to see Vice President Joe Biden jump into the race.  For the political novice, this might sound like a great idea but Biden has plenty of baggage himself, from plagiarism to inaccurately reporting his voting record on issues like Iraq.  This is a man who lost the nomination to Dukakis in 1988.

There is also some hope that, if Hillary falters, Elizabeth Warren might jump into the race.  Warren is quite popular with the base, probably more so than Hillary.  This popularity with the base is unlikely to translate to the general election voter.  I see her as the counterpart of Ann Coulter; Coulter is hugely popular with the base but couldn't possibly hope to get elected because of her divisive nature.  Warren has had electoral success in the bluest of blue states.  Let's see, how did Dukakis do on the national scene?

Obviously, I am opposed to all of these candidates but with no incumbent, it does strike me as fair to have lots of debates to give the voters an opportunity to get to know the candidates.  The Republicans have already had two debates, the second of which has so far been great for Carly Fiorina.  O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee certainly wish they had such an opportunity to connect with the voters.  They should get it and the base agrees.

 

http://therightscoop.com/democrat-mutiny-dnc-chair-debbie-schultz-heckled-by-huge-crowd/

Crime? It Depends on Your Party-Affiliation

Remember the Valerie Plame fiasco during the Bush Administration?  Richard Armitage had revealed Ms. Plame's name to Robert Novak.  Novak mentioned it in a column and scandal ensued.  Eventually, we had a Special Prosecutor to investigate this non-crime.  Armitage was never charged with releasing Plame's name because she wasn't a covert agent: no crime.  Still, it was a big deal and Scooter Libby - who did not reveal Plame's name to anyone - was convicted of a felony and fined $250,000.

 

Today, it is becoming increasingly clear that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had classified and top secret data on a private server located in a restroom closet in Denver.  Some of these emails had to be copied from secure servers and transferred to Ms. Clinton's far less secure server.  If someone of lesser status (or a Republican) had done this, there would be an immediate revocation of all security clearances and criminal charges filed.  Thus far, nothing.  Unlike Plame-Gate, crimes were clearly committed.  Where is the Special Prosecutor?

 

Former Governor Rick Perry of Texas is currently under indictment (by a Democrat Prosecutor) for using his veto when he was governor.  Apparently, using his veto - an integral power of his office - was a crime.  This has surely contributed to his failing presidential campaign, which was the point.

 

Lois Lerner of the IRS somehow only allowed one conservative group to get tax-exempt status in the 3 years leading up to the 2012 election.  When Congress sought to look into this anomaly, her emails from that window were reportedly destroyed in a hard drive crash.  When asked to testify on the matter, she invoked her 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.  No charges have been brought against her or anyone at the IRS.

 

Tom DeLay, former Republican Congressman and very effective Majority Leader, was indicted (by a Democrat) for violating election laws.  Because Republicans have standards, DeLay had to step down as majority leader while under indictment (Democrats have no such rules).  He was eventually acquitted in the appeals court (8 - 1 ruling) but his political career was long over by then (again, that was the point).

 

Vice President Al Gore attended a fundraiser at a Buddhist Temple in California where thousands of dollars were funneled from China to the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign (that's a violation of election laws, by the way).  Though some of the foreign fundraisers were charged and convicted, Janet Reno declined to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clinton Administration's part in the crime.

 

A mere whiff of impropriety can torpedo a Republican but a city dump stench of scandal has little impact on Democrats.  This double-standard probably explains the spinelessness that I constantly attribute to Republicans.  However, this is also why - even as a Libertarian - I prefer Republicans.  The press will hammer them and the Democrats will oppose them tooth and nail.  When Democrats are in office, the press cheers them and the Republicans are too scared to oppose them lest they be called racists, sexists, homophobes. or whatnot.

Democratic Troubles

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Democrats-drop-Thomas-Jefferson-and-Andrew-6400544.php

The NAACP has demanded that the names of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson be dropped from an annual fundraiser because both men were slave owners.  This does not bode well for the majority of former Democrat Presidents.  Let's consider:

 

Thomas Jefferson (1801-09), the first Democratic-Republican president, was a slave owner.  In fact, it is widely held that he had children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings.

 

James Madison (1809-17), Father of the Constitution, was a slave owner.

 

James Monroe (1817-25), Last of the Founding Fathers to serve as President, was a slave owner.

 

John Quincy Adams (1825-29) did not own slaves and was a noted Abolisionist but he started as a Federalist and died as a Whig.  If he had lived a few more years, he would have joined the Republican Party.

 

Andrew Jackson (1829-37), who founded the Democratic Party and was the 'jackass' that inspired the party symbol, was a slave owner.

 

Martin Van Buren (1837-41), called the Little Magician, was a New Yorker who thought slavery immoral but it was Constitutional and beyond his authority.  He only served one term and was not popular.

 

James Knox Polk (1845-49), the ultimate expression of America's Manifest Destiny, was a slave owner.

 

Franklin Pierce (1853-57) presided over Bleeding Kansas when he abandoned the Missouri Compromise, the Ostend Manifesto which was a secret effort to expand slavery to Cuba through purchase from Spain, and had Jefferson Davis as his Secretary of War.  His is viewed as a failed presidency and he is often ranked as the worst President.

 

James Buchanan (1857-61) saw the Civil War coming and twiddled his thumbs.  Regularly ranked among the worst presidents.

 

Grover Cleveland (1885-89; 1893-97) is the only Democrat elected president between 1861 and 1913.  He is also the only one to server non-consecutive terms.  Little remembered for anything else, he was not an enthusiastic supporter of the 15th Amendment (Votes for former slaves) and refused efforts to enforce their voting rights.

 

Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) was an apologist for the Ku Klux Klan.  He was a segregationist and showed Birth of a Nation (1915) in the White House.  On the other hand, he was in favor of the 19th Amendment (votes for women).

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45), who is regularly rated among the greatest presidents, setup internment camps for Japanese (George Takei being one of those interned as a child).  He was also friendly with Joseph "Uncle Joe" Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers in history.  However, he was generally good to minorities (Japanese excluded), so the NAACP may not complain if his name is associated with a fundraising dinner.

 

Harry Truman (1945-53) presided over the Red Scare which he minimized but history has since shown that it was as bad as the much maligned Joe McCarthy said.  Russia got the bomb and China went communist.  Also, he approved the dropping of the bomb (I'm okay with that but most Democrats today are not).  However, he is noted for desegregating the military and probably acceptable to the NAACP.

 

John F Kennedy (1961-63) allowed the FBI to tap Martin Luther King's phone.  He also toppled the government in Vietnam that brought us fully into the war.

 

Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-69) is generally viewed as a hero on Civil Rights grounds but his presidency is tainted by Vietnam and urban riots.  He continued the JFK policy of tapping MLK's phone.

 

Jimmy Carter (1977-81) is viewed as the worst president since Hoover.  No one wants to have a fundraising dinner with his name on it.  Who wants to revisit Iran Hostage Crisis right now?

 

William "Bill" Clinton (1993-2001) remains popular among his party despite having been impeached, having his law license revoked, and multiple affairs.  Prior to President Obama, he had been called the 'First Black President.'

 

As many people have forgotten, the Democrats are the party of slavery and segregation.  The NAACP will find that most Democrat presidents are unsuitable in today's climate.  Maybe they should take a look at the Republican Party for a change.