Image 01 Image 03

Democrats Tag

Virginia had an election in November which Democrats, including governor Terry McAuliffe, hoped would give them control of the state senate. They campaigned in part on gun control and lost, but that hasn't stopped them from pushing their agenda. After failing to achieve their goals through the democratic process, top Democrats are enacting gun control measures at the executive level. The Washington Post reported:
Virginia to stop recognizing concealed carry gun permits from 25 states

There is not enough popcorn in the world for this one. This is going to be one heckuva show. Politico reported this evening:
Bernie Sanders' campaign on Friday sued the Democratic National Committee for suspending its access to the national voter database, saying the move threatens to undermine the Vermont senator's presidential run. Even as the campaign admitted its staffers had inappropriately reviewed and saved Hillary Clinton campaign data made available as a result of a software error, it emphatically accused the DNC of sabotage and of blatantly favoring Clinton.
This afternoon, Sanders' campaign threatened to sue. Shortly thereafter, they made good on that threat:

Last month we reported that the DNC was going into debt while the RNC was raising millions. In a new but related development, the cash poor Democrats want taxpayers to help pay for their national convention. Stephen Dinan reported at the Washington Times:
Struggling DNC craves tax dollars for convention Already struggling with finances, the Democratic Party has drafted a plan to have taxpayers help pay about $20 million for next summer’s nominating convention, reversing a change Congress approved just a year ago. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is also a congresswoman from Florida, has drafted a bill to restore money that both parties used to receive from the federal government to help defray the costs of running their quadrennial conventions.

You may have noticed that the narrative around violent crimes changes depending on who committed the act. When someone with a Muslim sounding name is the suspect, we're repeatedly told by the media and public officials not to rush to judgement. If however, there's even the slightest chance that the perpetrator is in any way conservative, people start talking about violent Republican rhetoric and everyone right of center is suddenly urged to reexamine their views. It's a scenario we've documented on this blog multiple times: Ted Cruz is sick of this narrative and talked about the issue with Hugh Hewitt.

If current fundraising totals are any indication of the 2016 election, and they should be, the Republicans are in much better shape than the Democrats. The Republican National Committee is flush with cash, while the Democratic National Committee is mired in debt. This news doesn't apply to any single presidential candidate at this point but it's still important because these organizations fund congressional races. FOX News reports:
DNC deep in debt as RNC builds up $20 million war chest The Republican National Committee keeps building its cash advantage over its Democratic rivals, strengthening the party’s position going into the election year – with the latest monthly reports showing the DNC with a major debt, while the RNC has accrued a $20M war chest. The Republicans announced last week that they had raised $8.7 million in October, which they say broke a record for presidential off-year fundraising record.

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.”

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.

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

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:

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.

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!

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.”

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: