Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Democrats Tag

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 15, 2015 16 Comments
The first 20 or so minutes of last night's Democrat debate was devoted to national security with an emphasis on the terror attacks in Paris. It was a subject that made everyone on stage visibly uncomfortable. Jenna Lifhits of the Washington Free Beacon:
Hillary Clinton refused to use the term “radical Islam” to describe groups like the Islamic State Saturday at the Democratic debate, despite having used the term “radical Islamic jihadist groups” four days prior. When moderator John Dickerson asked Clinton whether she agreed with Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R., Fla.) statement that the Paris attacks show “that we are at war with Radical Islam,” Clinton said she would use a term other than “Radical Islam.”

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 14, 2015 19 Comments
The Democratic Party is in big trouble and people are starting to notice. The last two mid term elections have flipped control to Republicans on a massive scale and the Democrats have no back bench. Just look at their leading candidates for president. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders aren't up and comers, they're senior citizens and there are no Marco Rubios waiting in the wings. Ashe Schow writes at the Observer:
Obama Has Decimated His Own Party Unlike Any Other Modern President Last week concluded the final election of President Obama’s tenure that didn’t involve replacing him. After seven years in office and as many elections, the Democratic Party has taken a beating worse than the Republican Party took under George W. Bush.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 20, 2015 22 Comments
Once upon a time, referring to a Democrat as a "socialist" was an insult. Now? Not so much. HotAir's Allah Pundit pointed out Monday that in a few short months, full throttled socialism is making a comeback. Data released by YouGov explored socialism tolerance among political parties. Compare the stats from May: may1

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 17, 2015 14 Comments
Back in 2008, Obama supporters would foam at the mouth if you suggested Obama was a socialist. Today, progressive activists are positively giddy about Bernie Sanders who openly identifies as a Democratic Socialist. Now that the mask has come off, should the Democratic Party change its name? MSNBC's Chris Matthews was on The Late Show this week and when host Seth Meyers asked him who best represents Democrats, Matthews suggested it's Bernie. Jeffrey Meyer of NewsBusters has the details (emphasis is his):
Chris Matthews Admits Socialist Bernie Sanders Best Represents Democrats Rather than name frontrunner Hillary Clinton has emblematic of the Democratic Party, Matthews eagerly touted how Socialist Bernie Sanders’ views are the future of the party as it moves ever so far to the left:

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on October 11, 2015 8 Comments
The meme we've been hearing for years is that radical right-wing "hard liners" are hijacking the Republican party and forcing it to the right; however, an interesting new study argues that Democrats are moving more quickly to the left than Republicans are moving to the right.  It also indicates that the Democrats' move leftward has had the unintended consequence of moving state legislatures to the right. The study--conducted by social scientists from the University of Oregon, Princeton, and Georgetown--was funded by a grant from the Washington Center for Equitable Growth (John Podesta's think tank) and focuses on income inequality and the redistributive goals of the current Democrat party.  The authors come to the conclusion that political polarization is the result of income inequality and that income inequality is the result of political polarization. American Interest provides a helpful summary of the authors' argument:
The study’s overall argument is that income inequality has increased political polarization at the state level since the 1990s. But the authors find that that this happens more by moving state Democratic parties to the left than by moving state Republican parties to the right. As the Democratic Party lost power at the state level over the past 15 years, it also effectively shed its moderate wing. Centrist Democrats have increasingly lost seats to Republicans, “resulting in a more liberal Democratic party” overall. The authors find that the ideological median of Republican legislators has shifted much less.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 22, 2015 41 Comments
Marco Rubio did a pretty good job in the Republican debate last week. He didn't hurt himself in any way and when he had a chance to speak, he sounded strong and got applause. Since then, two liberals have expressed fear of Rubio as a candidate and it seems real, not the type of fear liberals express for a weak candidate they secretly want to get the nomination. First up is MSNBC's Chris Matthews who claims that Rubio "terrifies" him. Here's what he says in the video below:
I'm sorry, I see this race going to Marco Rubio and it terrifies me. He's the biggest hawk running, he's a beautiful speaker, a very attractive young candidate who really knows how to spellbind. He's the young new breath, he's an Obama!
Watch:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 18, 2015 2 Comments
Earlier this week, protesters rallied outside of the Democratic National Headquarters in Washington, DC to oppose the rules that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has imposed on Democratic primary candidates. What's the controversy? Most of the opposition boils down to the limited number of debates candidates will have the opportunity to participate in. In addition to scheduling just 6 officially-sanctioned debates, the DNC (via DWS) has limited the potential for rogue forums by creating a new rule: if a Democrat chooses to participate in a non-sanctioned debate, they’ll be banned from future sanctioned ones. The candidates aren't happy; even some of DWS's DNC colleagues aren't happy (DNC Vice Chairs Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) and R.T. Rybak released a joint statement asking DWS to revoke the sanctioned debates only-rule); and now, Democratic heavy-hitter Nancy Pelosi has weighed in against DWS's mandate. From the LA Times:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 16, 2015 11 Comments
Today, advocacy group #AllowDebate will occupy the steps of the Democratic National Committee headquarters and perpetuate a little Democrat-on-Democrat violence over what many believe are unfair and unreasonable restrictions on the Democratic primary debate schedule. From the Weekly Standard:
"Hundreds of protesters will rally at DNC headquarters on Wednesday afternoon to demand that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz allow Democratic presidential candidates to debate more than 6 times. There were 26 Democratic primary debates in the 2008 campaign, including 11 before September 14th, 2007," says an email from the organizing group #AllowDebate. Says the group's founder, “DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is unilaterally defying the will of Democratic voters, Presidential candidates, and the DNC’s own Vice-Chairs. ... Her dictatorial suppression of free and open debate is an attack on the democratic process.”
Wasserman Schultz has repeatedly come under fire from both candidates and activists over this cycle's debate rules. In addition to scheduling just 6 officially-sanctioned debates, the DNC (via DWS) has limited the potential for rogue forums by creating a new rule: if a Democrat chooses to participate in a non-sanctioned debate, they’ll be banned from future sanctioned ones.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 10, 2015 11 Comments
Hillary. Bernie. O'Malley? Biden! Right now, the Democratic field feels both random and predictable: we have Hillary Clinton, who should be the anointed one; Bernie Sanders, whose numbers defy reason; and Joe Biden, who everyone laughs at but no one counts out. Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and a few others round out the top tier, but don't get near the attention that Clinton or Sanders are able to pull. If Hillary or Bernie get the nod, then, who steps into the VP slot? That person could come from the current field---or he could come from inside agency land, with a little help from his twin brother. Julian Castro and his identical twin brother Joaquin have been the objects of the left's affection since Julian stole the show at the last Democratic Convention, and now they're making their way toward the front lines of the progressives' full court press against the GOP's high-profile presidential bench. In 2014, President Obama appointed former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro to the post of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The appointment was less of a policy move and more of a tucking-away for safekeeping; Julian is being groomed, and many Democratic operatives believe he belongs in the #2 slot on the ticket:

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 08, 2015 10 Comments
While everyone has been talking about the Republican debate on Thursday night, the Democratic Party finally announced its (small) debate schedule. It's almost like the party wants to minimize the number of times Ms. Clinton appears in a debate with her challengers, some of whom are already complaining. CNN reported:
CNN to host first Democratic presidential debate CNN and the Democratic National Committee announced Thursday the network will host the first Democratic primary debate in Nevada on October 13. The exact location will be announced in the coming weeks. CNN's is the first of six planned that the Democratic Party announced Thursday. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the schedule will give Democratic voters plenty of time to vet the candidates, though some Democratic candidates are already complaining there should be more debates. "With six debates scheduled  --  at a pace of roughly one per month  --  voters will have ample opportunities to hear our candidates discuss their visions for our country's future," Wasserman Schultz wrote Thursday in a post on Medium.

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 04, 2015 16 Comments
If you thought the faith progressives have in Elizabeth Warren was over the top, you ain't seen nothing yet. So strong is the left's love of all things Warren, they're now trying to create an army of political candidates just like her to run for public office. Sam Frizell reports at Time:
The Left’s Quest to Create Hundreds of Elizabeth Warrens “Elizabeth—she’s here?” The thumbs up came from the back of the meeting room, and two hundred future Sen. Elizabeth Warrens stood up and waited for their prototype to enter. Spindly and with a bouncy step, the Massachusetts senator strode rapidly into the room and was waylaid by a friendly sea of imperfect facsimiles calling for selfies. “What a way to start the morning!” Warren said at last, breathless at the podium.

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 01, 2015 39 Comments
DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews this week and to Matthews' credit, he asked her a tough question. First, the two were discussing Bernie Sanders and the role he should play in the next Democratic National Convention. Then Matthews asked Schultz to explain the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist and things got very interesting. Josh Feldman of Mediate describes the exchange:
Matthews asked Wasserman-Schultz if, even if he loses, Sanders would have a place at the DNC convention, seeing as how he’s really popular with the base and could fire up a Democratic audience before the election. She said he should get to speak, but Matthews kept prodding away to see if he would be allowed to speak in primetime instead of “when nobody’s watching.” Wasserman-Schultz talked up his “progressive populist message” that people like, when Matthews asked her point-blank, “What’s the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?” Wasserman-Schultz ducked the question, but Matthews pressed her and said, “You’re the chairman of the Democratic Party. Tell me what’s the difference between you and a socialist.”

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 30, 2015 11 Comments
Chaka Fattah, a Democrat who represents Pennsylvania's second district, has been charged with racketeering conspiracy alongside four other people in a case that smacks of influence peddling. The Department of Justice announced the charges yesterday:
Congressman Chaka Fattah and Associates Charged with Participating in Racketeering Conspiracy A member of Congress and four of his associates were indicted today for their roles in a racketeering conspiracy involving several schemes that were intended to further the political and financial interests of the defendants and others by, among other tactics, misappropriating hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal, charitable and campaign funds. Congressman Chaka Fattah Sr., 58, of Philadelphia; lobbyist Herbert Vederman, 69, of Palm Beach, Florida; Fattah’s Congressional District Director Bonnie Bowser, 59, of Philadelphia; and Robert Brand, 69, of Philadelphia; and Karen Nicholas, 57, of Williamstown, New Jersey, were charged today in a 29-count indictment with participating in a racketeering conspiracy and other crimes, including bribery; conspiracy to commit mail, wire and honest services fraud; and multiple counts of mail fraud, falsification of records, bank fraud, making false statements to a financial institution and money laundering.
Naturally, Fattah denies the charges:

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 13, 2015 32 Comments
Now that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage has been made, liberals have set their sights on destroying the language used to describe traditional marriages. Pete Kasperowicz of the Washington Examiner reports:
Dems declare war on words 'husband,' 'wife' More than two dozen Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the words "husband" and "wife" from federal law. Those "gendered terms" would be replaced by "gender-neutral" words like "spouse" or "married couple," according to the bill from Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif. "The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts," Capps said. "Our values as a country are reflected in our laws. I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages." The Supreme Court ruled in June that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution means all states have to license same-sex marriages, a ruling that effectively ended the same-sex marriage debate in America. Capps said her bill was aimed at taking the next step, which is to ensure the United States Code "reflects the equality of all marriages."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 06, 2015 16 Comments
Frank Luntz recently conducted polling of American "opinion elites" attitudes toward Israel. The results, but not the data, were published in an article by David Horvitz, Editor in Chief of The Times of Israel, Israel losing Democrats, ‘can’t claim bipartisan US support,’ top pollster warns:
Three quarters of highly educated, high income, publicly active US Democrats — the so-called “opinion elites” — believe Israel has too much influence on US foreign policy, almost half of them consider Israel to be a racist country, and fewer than half of them believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors. These are among the findings of a new survey carried out by US political consultant Frank Luntz. Detailing the survey results to The Times of Israel on Sunday, Luntz called the findings “a disaster” for Israel. He summed them up by saying that the Democratic opinion elites are converting to the Palestinians, and “Israel can no longer claim to have the bipartisan support of America.” He said he “knew there was a shift” in attitudes to Israel among US Democrats “and I have been seeing it get worse” in his ongoing polls. But the new findings surprised and shocked him, nonetheless. “I didn’t expect it to become this blatant and this deep.”
Read the rest of Horvitz's article for more details. The article created huge concern in pro-Israel circles, and delusional euphoria among Israel haters. But is the sky really falling on Israel? I have written a response, published in The Times of Israel.

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 03, 2015 12 Comments
In the newest edition of Afterburner, Bill Whittle sets the historic record straight on the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to racism. The Republican Party was founded to end slavery while Democrats sought secession to preserve the practice. The Confederate flag, which is a big problem all of a sudden, was created by Democrats. Walk up to any person in the street and ask them which of the two major parties created the KKK. The correct answer is the Democratic Party but sadly, I'd bet against the public answering that question correctly every time. Have you ever been told the progressive myth that the parties "switched" at some point? Whittle gets into all of this and walks you through history right up to the present day.

Posted by Mike LaChance on June 20, 2015 8 Comments
The Democratic Party has made it clear that income inequality will be one of their main issues for 2016. The fact that the Clintons are multi-millionaires is conveniently overlooked, as are the party's ties to incredibly rich donors. Dave Boyer of the Washington Times provides this interesting new report:
Obama, Pelosi mend fences at fundraiser hosted by billionaire activist There’s nothing like a big-money fundraiser for House Democrats to bring President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi closer together. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, made a show of mending fences Friday night at a fundraiser at the home of billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer overlooking the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco. Friday was their first meeting since Mrs. Pelosi turned against the president last week by leading the opposition that temporarily derailed crucial trade legislation Mr. Obama is seeking. Despite those tensions, Mr. Obama told more than 50 wealthy Democratic donors, who paid up to $33,400 each to help Democrats win in 2016, that Mrs. Pelosi has been instrumental to his achievements in office.

Posted by Mike LaChance on June 07, 2015 19 Comments
Do you like the idea of tax dollars being used for research to support gun control? Two Democrats introduced legislation last week for that very purpose. The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action reported:
Legislation Proposes $60 Million for Anti-Gun Research On Monday, NRA F-rated Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to authorize the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to give $60 million of the taxpayers' money to anti-gun activists over the next six years, to conduct "research" promoting gun control. The two longtime anti-gun legislators say that their bill is necessary for two reasons, both of which are hokum: First, they say, Congress in 1996 "almost halted entirely" all funding of gun control research, the operative word being "almost." In 1996, Congress did stop the CDC from funneling millions of the taxpayers' dollars to anti-gunners to conduct "research"--pitiful by academic standards--designed from the get-go to promote a political agenda against a constitutionally-protected right. However, it didn't shut off the spigot through which millions of dollars flow to the same anti-gunners from leftwing philanthropic foundations. For example, the Joyce Foundation alone has given several million dollars to a variety of anti-gun groups and individuals every year since 1996.
Accessibility by WAH