Democrat Campaign Rhetoric

I scanned a few “up and coming” Democrat candidates for Congress and here is what I find. Caution: it is a murky picture. Very entertaining though.

As background, you’ve heard about new Democrats being recruited to run in largely Republcan held districts. Many of them touting military careers and many of them women.

In the last few weeks, districts who were Republican are considered “toss ups”. More recently, some are being relabeled now “leaning Democrat.” Right, I believe that.

When you look at their social media campaign statements you see similarities.

Well, one after another their statements read like a book of platitudes. No, not about current hot button issues but glowing terms. My sampling were not heavily campaigning. They did not seem to have layers of popularity and comments on their posts.

But those posts themselves, claiming the reason they were running, read eerily similar too. They didn’t tell you about their stand on issues. But like this one, it was personal. Well like this: “I’m running for Congress so that our children will have a brighter future and so that all our daughters will know that they can grow up to be and do whatever they dream.”

‘Hello’…. I mean your children had no hopes or dreams without you running? Wait, children have had those ideals and goals as long as I remember. Glad yours now have a brighter future only because you are running! What does that say? Well, kids have had those rosy ideals until 2009, when dreams took a nose dive. Now they are back?

They talk about about “shared values” and “moving the country forward.” What does that mean? I prefer an ash heap, myself. All undefined, vague terms to try to appeal to voters’ emotions and inspirations without much thought to what the words mean. You are supposed to know if you are a left wing progressive Democrat. And you do: against tax cuts, raising taxes, growing spending, cutting military spending. All of which is like caviar on a cracker to Democrats. “Come get it”. Free college, socialized medicine, single payer, Medicare for all, opening up the borders. Who can be against all that?

Another lofty word they are for, “equality”. So like we Republicans are for inequality, the more unequal the better. They want “affordable” things; like we want everything unaffordable. They actually support policies that make things less affordable. “Together, we’ll bring a sea change to Congress.” What kind of change, doing what? What will be different with you in Congress? Right, your children will finally have a bright future. “We know how vital our educators are to our communities.” (pandering to teachers – unions) We don’t even like teachers or value them. In fact, we see no use for them.

“We are fighting to keep dark money out of politics.” That’s popular. Naturally, a reference to Citizens United and reversing the Supreme Court decision. Hillary touted that in her campaign along with overturning the Heller decision. They use a complete script of progressive code words for which only Dems have a decoder. Dog whistles like their talk about hatred or hate speech. We are racists while they are, well, the good racists.

No election is complete today without sympathy for illegals. Say nothing about the crimes committed by illegals which impact Americans from coast to coast. Then there is the animus for law enforcement, ICE or border control. But of course they use the right statements to frame it. So they want people afraid of law enforcement and unsympathetic to cops being killed. They want to dehumanize law enforcement, along with anyone who works for the Trump administration. Amnesty is the bomb, “a path to citizenship” is the rage, from people who don’t much value US citizenship. And we are not exceptional. In fact, NY Governor Cuomo led the charge saying “America never was that great.”

Give a shout out for “justice,” especially the more radical candidates. The rest of us must want injustice. Except that we have a lot of injustice going on coming right from the Dep of Justice, but Dems see none of it nor do they care. As long as Deep State is in control Dems are happy. And as long as they are in control of Deep State. But “justice” talk is usually the segue for Resistance — sedition. That subversive obstruction is always a good thing for Dems to run on and support, for justice’s sake, when they do not control government.

Another popular favorite is ____ is against women… “”who stand to lose access to affordable birth control.” I wish I had a nickel every time I heard that bumper sticker phrase. It was popular against Kavanaugh, too. No one is losing access. “Affordable” is now a code word for free or almost free. Losing access, a guaranteed right, to free this or that. Like I’m losing access to a Mercedes 450 SL. I declare such access a “right.” Still, loosing access to something free is a popular notion. Affordable just translates to what they think they should not pay for.

Then there is the golden altar or calf of abortion, Planned Parenthood. Useful against Kavanaugh and campaigning. But I see nothing threatening Planned Parenthood’s status or Roe v. Wade. Nothing. Yet the great scare is on to “protect women’s reproductive health, rights” from invisible harm.” Personally, I’m opposed to women’s reproductive health.

They tell us “stay out of women’s sex organs” yet march in the streets with vagina costumes, condoms and protest wearing pussy hats. They live and breathe in women’s reproductive organs, at least in campaigns, and want them exhaustively legislated. How can killing babies be a stand for women’s reproductive health, or for healthcare? Just do not not legislate that. They yell about preserving lives by preserving abortion and planned parenthood. Planned Parenthoods are saving lots of lives, aren’t they?

Another habit Dems seem to have in common, these up and coming pretenders, is that they make the entire campaign about them not the people they are running to represent. Is that telling? It is not about the issues. And the kicker is the Democrats seem to eat it up. They could not care less, only that he/she is a card carrying socialism-pushing progressive. In fact, whatever he/she says is fine, as long as they are progressive. They will vote with the Marxist left anyway, so what does it matter what they do or say?

So which is worse: the platitudes of vague ideals or what they do say about the issues? San Fran Nan called MS-13 members a spark of divinity. It contradicts her staunch support and protection for abortion. Does a spark of divinity only apply to gang-bangers? Aborted lives must be much lower on the chain than even MS-13 gang members.

But this is getting long, the hour is getting late. The contradictions and vague platitudes remain, popular only to the Left. What outcome can we expect from this soup for fools?

Right Ring | Bullright

Screw the Debates

I look forward to and enjoy the debates as much as anyone. They are informative and have a place. But they are only one part in the whole process. Like everything else, we see how biased or corrupted they can be. Politicized, for sure, but have they outlived their status?

I mean what else would we expect? It is their system, the establishment likes its control and uses it every way they can. So debates are one of their tentacles. They own it.

However, in case the elite inside, power-control estabos — who know better than the people — have not noticed, the people have been having a debate from the beginning. That’s the real debate, a referendum on them. Estabos do not like that one at all.

So if they haven’t noticed by now, we have come to a few conclusions too. The status quo has got to go. The ruling class told us we are irrelevant and what we want doesn’t matter. They tell us what issues are important. And they tell us how we should vote. That’s the way it is done, they say. Our vote must be based on others’ their choice and endorsements.

While we had this kick down dragged out debate this far, they’ve opposed the will of the people every step. They didn’t notice we won every round. People are fed up. We get faux hearings about phony responsibility with no accountability. Nothing short of that is on their menu now. The establishment is insulted that we dare resist their status quo bargain.

These days they complain about “structural racism” inherent in all places, yet they have a structural bias in the whole election process — from establishment to media — just as they have in government. That structuralism doesn’t bother them one bit, they thrive on it.

Now this elite status-quo is using the race card in every way to keep their establishment in control of the process to control the results. Then the debate injects the label of racist even into the debate. They play the gender card in the same way. Put that together with the smear tactics and you have a structural establishment cocktail to destroy any opposition to it. That’s their plan. Some value debates mey have, but they change nothing.

Under that light, what do even the debates really mean? Use the debates to screw us? What’s new? It’s better not to bestow any more value on them than they deserve — consider the source.

RightRing | Bullright

Real time results on elections?

A new organization wants to call the progress of elections, the winning or losing in chosen areas, in real time as it happens.

Depending on your preference for more information, you may disagree or agree with what they are doing. I don’t happen to like it. Much of it is based on modeling etc.

New York Times: Real-Time Election Day Projections – By Nick Corasaniti

PALO ALTO, Calif. — Now, a group of data scientists, journalists and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs is seeking to upend that reporting tradition, providing detailed projections of who is winning at any given time on Election Day in key swing states, and updating the information in real time from dawn to dusk.

The plan is likely to cause a stir among those involved in reporting election results and in political circles, who worry about both accuracy and an adverse effect on how people vote. [More]

The spokesman has been promoting their system as an announcer of a ball game. That sounds quaint, doesn’t it?

The problem I have is he wants us to think of it as just calling the “play by play” without accepting any responsibility for its influence on results.

He claimed it is still up to press or media to call the final result. Yes, but in a way that is what he is doing all along. People can then be influenced or react based on their coverage. And we already see enough media involvement with the elections.

Red Scare strikes the Left

After being deemed albeit irrelevant by Obama in 2012, the Kremlin worry is back. This time inflicting the Left and whipping them into a frenzy.

This time Hillary is leading the anti-Russia charge. Reset to Red Scare. But what won’t she do to try to pull off her anointing, even if she has to use Russia to accomplish it?

The new Red Scare? Russia ups role in world events, US elections

(CNN)The Cold War was supposed to have ended a quarter of a century ago.
But Russia is commanding center stage in a presidential election for the first time in decades and President Vladimir Putin is being portrayed as a sinister puppeteer looming over the bitter contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.

Democrats have blamed him for orchestrating a huge cyberespionage operation using stolen and leaked emails to sow chaos and distrust in America’s democratic process ahead of November’s election. Putin’s even been accused of cultivating one of the candidates in the election — Trump — as an unwitting agent to further his quest to strangle US global power.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/putin-trump-obama-clinton-russia/index.html?sr=twCNN091516putin-trump-obama-clinton-russia0454PMVODtop

So the progressive, Marxist Left has found a useful whipping post along with Trump. But of course it is only for campaign election purposes. At the very same time, Kerry was making a “cease fire” deal on Syria.

Obama, after all, followed the Kremlin footsteps on Syria. Leading from behind the iron kurtain. They couldn’t have asked for a better stooge. And Obama promised Medvedev and Putin “flexibility” in 2012. Now they are collecting.

Suddenly, the Leftists awoke to see Russia scare everywhere. Gee, I wonder what could have sparked that? Now they see Russia directly involved in our election.

Well, that’s odd, considering Obama and the entire left mocked Trump for mentioning election fraud problems in our system. In a grand speech from the White House, Obama said Trump didn’t even have a valid concern until after the election.

Finally, Hillary found something other than the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy to blame. Russia has already coined a new term for it called Russiaphobia.

Now the Red Scare is back with a vengence, temporarily anyway. Hackers in Russia have nothing over the political hacks here on the left. Maybe Russia will start running ads?

McCain in ‘his agents of intolerance’ mode

So McCain is worried about his next election. Ah, that’s too bad. Time for blame.

McCain on tape: Trump damages my reelection hopes

‘If Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket,’ … ‘this may be the race of my life.’

By Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim | 05/05/16 | Politico

Publicly, John McCain insists Donald Trump will have a negligible effect on his campaign for reelection. But behind closed doors at a fundraiser in Arizona last month, the Republican senator and two-time presidential hopeful offered a far more dire assessment to his supporters.

“If Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket, here in Arizona, with over 30 percent of the vote being the Hispanic vote, no doubt that this may be the race of my life,” McCain said, according to a recording of the event obtained by POLITICO. […/]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-latinos-mccain-222810

From his speech at a private fundraiser:

“People are angry. they’re upset, they feel that there’s this disconnect. All of that and, frankly, there’s an element of nativism in it as well, as you know.”

People are justifiably angry and, Senator McCain, you are one of the chief causes. Ouch, “nativism” in there too? That nasty nationalism, we can’t have that. (Video)

But people didn’t forget what John McCain and his McAmnesty did to our Party, and our country. How we were all undermined and attacked because of you, John. So it’s the election of your life? Maybe it is about time.

But hey, “race of his life” probably makes for great fundraiser fodder though.
This election was another referendum on all that plus Obama’s executive amnesty.

Money flows from 50 top donors

Close to Half of All Super PAC Money Comes from 50 Donors

(Washington Post) – A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.

More: http://www.teaparty.org/close-half-super-pac-money-comes-50-donors-158566/

Are you ready for Jeb 2.0?

You might be ready for the newest technology or the latest Iphone or gadget, but I doubt you are ready for the newest Jeb. That’s if you are like most people polled who show less than room temperature for him.

Way before he announced his run I said if he’s in it then I’m loaded for bear. I wasn’t alone. But up until now the critics have been pretty quiet, almost as quiet as his supporters. There just is not any enthusiasm for him and those that dislike him as a nominee are everywhere.

Still Jeb puts forth this line that he is not in it for the short run but the long run. He also muttered something before announcing about not wanting to get dragged into current debates. (read relevant issues)(1) No, he was above that. Then he said he doesn’t want to be lumped in with his brother and father that he’s his own man. (2)

Now he makes this call it the state of his campaign speech(3)

Politico reports that Bush was meeting with family and wealthy, big donors. So it was originally supposed to be a pep rally for the third heir in the dynasty, like sort of a send off into securing the nomination, at least by best guesstimates. Only now on skid row, the same meeting looks more like he is bringing up the rear with no sign of gaining traction, he is forced to cut back on his campaign’s expenses.

“The patient is either in intensive care and in need of some good doctors who can save him or being put into hospice and we’re going to see a slow death,” said one K Street lobbyist supporting Bush.

Now infamous line

Then came the line from Bush that did make it to front page news, from same article. Sounding angry himself he says:

“I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke,” he said in South Carolina. “Elect Trump if you want that.”

Whoa, let’s stop right there. He has a lot better things to do. I guess managing director in Bloomberg’s fund was really cool compared to this, even if it was engulfed in a global abortion agenda. He can always return to that. No one forced him to do that either.

We didn’t exactly force or draft you to run. It’s all your decision. (2)The family thing you didn’t want to be known for is exactly who you are. Nothing will change you being a Bush, Jeb. America does not like dynasties. But you knew all that before you plunged into what you expected to be a rocket climb only to be burned out on the launch pad.

Now you can blame Trump or whomever you want. You won’t blame 43 or the Bush dynasty syndrome. So maybe it is a good thing, for your sake, Trump is there to blame? And you wouldn’t dare blame the establishment or RNC Party for sabotaging your run with its questionable reputation.

How bad is the dislike for Jeb Bush? Its so bad that it is just a symptom of a greater problem that doesn’t even deserve the specter of the press to cover it in detail. Yet it is emblematic of the whole establishment problem.

(1)He didn’t want to get drawn into current issue debates like all other candidates. He shouldn’t have to, he’s a governor and a Bush. We don’t play that. Other candidates should have to go through that not a favorite son. It sounded elitist and arrogant.

He didn’t want to be labeled a Bush, which is why he used only the Jeb name. Buried in hypocrisy and contradiction he keeps saying he’s his own man but proves himself a Bush at every turn. His donor list looks typical and probably a hand-me-down like everything else. He’s been planning this run for years. But don’t play the Bush card against him. More elitist arrogance, he relies on the Bush Dynasty to seal the deal.

It doesn’t seem to matter that people have moved on and said no dynasty. Establishment, dynasty, elite, insiders are not in vogue. He’s still a Bush with all the baggage. He doesn’t seem to understand the word no — so typical. We aren’t smitten any more with you for the long run than we are for the short run. Evolve away it won’t pay. 3 big strikes….

Hillary, despite the truth

A Quinnipiac poll “shows that voters no longer consider her “honest and trustworthy.””

On the face that sounds horrible for the first-Heiress of the White House. However, could they somehow spin that into filet mignon? Not really, but they probably don’t have to.

On the contrary, that is exactly how Democrats like their candidates. In fact, it just qualifies her as the right nominee. That sounds like exactly the reason Democrats will vote for her. It might even guarantee she wins, in their eyes. So it’s terrific news.

Let’s recap the typical Democrat voter, on the major issues — we call them scandals — of the day. They see the news but its how they think that counts.

Benghazi — Dems said that it was a “fabricated scandal” by Republicans. They said voters would not care and, come 2016, it would not make any difference to voters.

Email servergate — they said it was certainly no scandal and that it would not make a bit of difference to Democrat voters, who already like and believe in her.

Hillary’s lack of a record (even the ones she didn’t hide) — they said that would not make any difference to voters.

Clinton Foundation and Hillary — read my lips, everybody now, Democrats will not care about that stuff. It won’t matter to voters.

See a trend yet? To punctuate it, top Clinton operative Paul Begala put it in layman’s terms for us, just in case we missed the drumbeat-message. (enjoy)

“Voters do not give a shit. They do not even give a fart… Find me one persuadable voter who agrees with HRC on the issues but will vote against her because she has a non-archival-compliant email system and I’ll kiss your ass in Macy’s window and say it smells like roses.”

So go suck on an exhaust pipe, she’s a shoe-in. Run her up the flagpole. Voters don’t care.

Now, people don’t think she is trustworthy. So you can correctly assume it will not make a bit of difference to voters. Actually, with Dems a negative is more often a positive.

How many ways can they say “we don’t care,” even if she’s not “honest or trustworthy”?

“Hard Choices”…. I think not.

Hey, big spenders…

Teachers Unions Spent Big, Lost Big

Record-breaking spending wasted on lost Senate seats, govr’s mansions
BY: Bill McMorris – November 7, 2014 | WFB

The nation’s largest teachers unions blew about $60 million of their members’ money on the disastrous 2014 midterms elections.

The record-breaking campaigns waged by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, which represent more than 4 million educators nationwide, did little to stem the Republican wave.

The NEA was the second-largest Super PAC donor of the 2014 cycle, spending more than $22 million to aid Democratic candidates for federal office. The federal spending was on top of an estimated $28 million push at the state and local level. The NEA declined an interview request to discuss the election results and its political strategy moving forward.

The AFT had said it planned on spending $20 million during the 2014 cycle, a ten-fold increase from the $2 million it spent on 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The AFT did not return request for comment. AFT President Randi Weingarten said that Democratic candidates suffered from President Obama’s unpopularity among the electorate.

More at: http://freebeacon.com/issues/teachers-unions-spent-big-lost-big/

If they just had a little mo’ money! Haha Now they know where their union money is going. They were determined to spend to defeat their opponents, which are us the American taxpayers. And this was just a midterm. Note the 2010 spending by comparison.

So their objective was to spend as much as they could to overcome Obama’s unpopularity. And they lost. Maybe his unpopularity cannot be compensated for? They were campaigning against Obama, I like that.

Here’s to you teach’s, and Randi Weingarten.

Maybe they need to spend a little time with the common folk. (not the common core)

The lady sings the blues

‘Too close to call’ was not the verdict for leadership in Congress.

Said outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, ” The message from voters is clear: They want us to work together.”

Dingy Harry could assume such nonsense after being obstructionist-in-chief. Only he can read those tea leaves.

Maryland and Massachusetts went to Republican governors. Republican Bruce Rauner won in Illinois and Quinn would not concede defeat. “We will never yield until all the votes are in,” Quinn said

[AOL] After years of a sluggish economic recovery and foreign crises aplenty, the voters’ mood was sour.

Nearly two-thirds of voters interviewed after casting ballots said the country was seriously on the wrong track. Only about 30 percent said it was generally going in the right direction.

Someone send out a search party because 30% of the electorate are seriously lost.

And Kay Hagan lost. Oh my, those testy voters.

RightRing | Bullright

Holes in Olson’s case

Ted Olson goes to media in defense of SCOTUS and same-sex marriage. He may be the next Att. General, who knows?

He claimed this (SCOTUS dictate) is a prescribed Constitutional process. This is judicial supremacy. Where exactly is judicial supremacy spelled out in the Constitution?

Then he stood on the old claim this is a protection from majority rule. But where is that minority rule in the Constitution? We go to the ballot to elect our Representatives, and now Senators. What if you told them that the loser wins the election – minority rules? They have overturned the voice of the people in elections.

And Dems stood against the rights of the minority by killing the filibuster for presidential nominees in Congress. Remember Fili the Filibuster was their hero of Democrats under Bush. It was a necessary Constitutional protection, then.

What they have done and argued for is no boundaries on marriage. Morphed into whatever the individuals want it to be. So now any boundary they claim there is can be argued against in the same way. If someone wants to marry a child then what? You can say there should be age restrictions but why?

So we need an age of consent, that is a limitation/restriction to someone. For that matter why does it have to be human beings? Aren’t you, then, denying someone their relationship? The point is, of course, there has to be some limitations or boundaries on marriage. There are limitations on many other things. There sure seems to be a limitation on the will of the people.

RightRing | Bullright

Open letter to the future

Dear Future,

If you are reading this and we are still a Constitutional republic, then congratulations. I’m certain it was not easy and luck had nothing to do with it.

If you are reading this and it was downhill after this letter, then I send my deepest regrets. It was not for lack of warnings or trying to stop the carnage. Still, I regret our efforts were not enough. I know apologies at this point are worthless. So all I can add is may God bless you and protect you in your remaining days.

RightRing | Bullright

Tight security on secret Democracy Alliance

Security Tight at Secretive Democracy Alliance Meeting

Billionaires and millionaires rub elbows behind closed doors with Democratic pols and progressive foundations

BY: Alana Goodman | Free Beacon
May 1, 2014 4:15 pm

Democrats have long railed against the lack of transparency in political funding, but security was airtight this week as a hush-hush network of progressive moneymen and activists held a closed-door conference to map out their plan to shift U.S. policy to the left.

At the elegant Ritz Carlton hotel in downtown Chicago, wealthy donors, Democratic politicians, and representatives from left-leaning activist groups met for a conference hosted by the Democracy Alliance, a progressive donor network that funnels millions of dollars to undisclosed activist groups and political causes.

The four-day conference, which was closed to the public and media, drew high-profile Democrats including DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Access to the conference was invite-only and tightly controlled. Democracy Alliance officials manned a table outside the entrance to the conference areas, where attendees heard speeches by progressive rising stars like New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio and Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes.

More at http://freebeacon.com/politics/security-tight-at-secretive-democracy-alliance-meeting/

Got to love how the hypocrisy on the Left is on full display. Reid makes his daily rants against the Koch bros and they have such a gathering of elites clearly setting the agenda. And at the very same time they are spouting their minimum wage talking point and telling everyone they are the spokespeople for the middle class. What BS.

Pot-Pandering for votes in Florida

Democrats Hope Pot Gives Them Boost in Florida

by Mike Flynn 14 Apr 2014 | Breitbart

Democrat operatives are openly touting a medical marijuana ballot initiative in Florida as a means of helping Democrats win elections in 2014, saying the move, which will likely help bring young voters to the poll, is necessary for the greater good.

“I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters to go and vote,” said Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party told the Associated Press. “But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”
Midterm elections experience a steep drop-off in voter turnout compared with presidential elections. Those less likely to vote include young, minority and low-income voters, who are all important parts of the Democrat vote in elections.

In 2006, Democrat and union activists backed initiatives to increase the minimum wage in several battleground states to draw voters inclined to support Democrats to the polls. Democrats took control of Congress that year, although their win likely had more to do with Bush-fatigue and set-backs in Iraq than the narrow wage issue.

Democrats are banking on the chance to legalize some pot use to draw young voters in Florida, which is host to several competitive House races and a close Governor race.

It is a kind of “bank-shot” campaigning. The party fears that its direct message and platform isn’t enough to draw voters to the polls. So, it hopes that a side issue like medical marijuana will increase interest in the election and the voters most likely to support that initiative will then reflexively back the Democrat candidates.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/14/Democrats-Hope-Pot-Gives-Them-Boost-in-Florida

If you didn’t like pot as an issue before, how do you feel about pot-the political issue now?

Pot is now THC to the DNC. “But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it”: doesn’t that sum it up? I suppose that qualifies as medicinal use to them.

Trial lawyer lobby: Democrats’ golden parachute

The many, the proud, the arrogant… and the powerful

Trial Lawyers Spend Big on Democrats

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
April 2, 2014 8:10 am

Rep. Bruce Braley (D., Iowa) shot to fame last week for his cringeworthy gaffe, making Iowans question whether or not he really is the man for the Iowa Senate seat, for which he is running.

In front of a group of trail lawyers, Braley mocked Grassley saying he is “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.”

Though he has since issued an apology, Braley’s dig at Grassley could cost him the election as Americans are becoming weary of lawyer politicians and a legal system they believe is out control. […]

More: http://freebeacon.com/politics/trial-lawyers-spend-big-on-democrats/

Becoming? Americans have been weary of them for years. It’s the kind of self-serving flatulence that’s ruining our environment. (not the only)

John–“two Americas”– Edwards should be their poster child. If people think Democrats stand for the little guys, think again.

“I loved it for the decades I did it, and I think it’s what I was born to do,” — Edwards said on opening a new law firm last fall, with an office in DC.

It’s always for the poor, little people. (wink wink)

RightRing | Bullright

Christie in Crisis

Has Christie crossed the line?

There are a couple problems with the Christie story. For now I’ll accept it as he has told it.

Here was another article on it: http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/19915/a-few-thoughts-on-the-christie-scandal/ It’s good basic information.

When Christie says he didn’t know anything about it, I will accept that premise. But when I do that a few things happen: first it says he was unaware of a major undertaking of his team. That hurts because it could indicate incompetence. See to believe all the “know nothing” claims from Obama, in scandal after scandal, you would have to conclude that he is incompetent.

And if Christie knows nothing, then it actually makes the case that an executive in government can excuse the actions of his subordinates by claiming he/she did not know anything about it. See Hillary and Obama’s records on how that works. Try that in business. Fairness to Christie, he did claim he was still responsible.

So I do have a problem that he did not know what was going on. Remember even Axelrod came to Obama’s defense claiming government is so big and vast that he could not possibly know what was going on. Interestingly, David Axelrod was one of the first to claim Christie did the best he could in this situation. (was that a compliment or an insult…which is it?)

If we were out to make the case for “ignorance is an excuse” in office, Christie’s apology-presser goes a long way in doing that. If we are to buy it, then we also grant that Obama and Hillary could be ignorant to what was going on, say, in Benghazi. Or even in the IRS.

I now have a problem. Is it now a legitimate excuse to just say you didn’t know, even though you should have and you are being paid to know? I don’t think that is a good enough excuse. I don’t think it was for Obama, nor for Hillary, nor for Holder, nor should it be for Christie. Ignorance is not a good enough excuse. We know how politicians rely on plausible deniability (i.e. Being such that plausible disavowal or disclaimer is possible).

Just what we need, another excuse for Obama’s conduct and abuse of power. No thanks.

RightRing | Bullright

Clinton vs. Christie

A snapshot glimpse from a Quinnipiac poll in Pennsylvania.
Look at the difference from Liberal to Conservative.

                                                              POLITICAL PHILSPHY
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Lib    Mod    Con

Clinton              44%     8%    88%    31%    36%    51%    82%    48%    19%
Christie             43     83      7     47     51     36     11     40     67
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      1      -      3      2      2      -      2      2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      3      4      1      5      4      3      2      2      6
DK/NA                 7      4      4     14      7      7      5      9      6

What did Hillary ever do? They all think this is what its going to be.
Why not do away with primaries? 19% of conservatives would support Hillary?

I can see the promotion now, “Hillary VS. Christie: steel cage match-up”

On a related matter, what would anyone want the 2016 election to be about?
What issue, issues should be front and center?

RightRing | Bullright