Monday, February 9, 2015
The fade of the liberal left
The Iowa State Daily ^ | February 9, 2015 | Clay Rogers
A tectonic shift is occurring in American politics. The old guard of the Democratic Party will soon be far too ancient to contest an election. This creates serious problems for the party once 2016 passes. It’s obvious that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden will soon announce their candidacy, but who will fill the ranks when they’re gone?
It’s important to know that there was once a socially conservative generation deemed "The Greatest Generation." These, the heroes of Anzio and Guadalcanal, gave birth to a litter of selfish creatures called "baby boomers." The baby boomers soon colonized communal settlements known as colleges. Yes, it was here in this garden of earthly delight that millions of children sowed the seeds of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, which would destroy our civilization.
This is the cultural revolution that most prominent democrats belong. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are all remnants of that era. The '60s revolutionaries were fierce and brazen because liberalism was brazen during that time period. But now, times have changed. Liberalism predominates and modern Democrats are left with nothing to rebel against. The revolution has ended and the time of the milquetoast liberal has begun.
In her youth, Hillary Clinton dipped her hands in the blood of the revolution that uprooted our Christian society. She and her contemporaries were fanatical, and their fanaticism helped turn them into popular politicians. Indeed, I challenge any reader to produce an example of a new Democratic face that could compete with Hillary. There is no competition even among her own cohort.
It is my firm belief that in two years we’ll have another Clinton in the White House. "Uncle" Joe Biden is the only other serious contender for the Democratic nomination. According to polling data, Hillary runs 40 points ahead of her nearest Democratic competitor in the state of Iowa. If one supposes, as I do, that Republicans cannot win a national majority in 2016, then there’s no way she can lose. But what happens after she’s gone?
The Republicans have time on their side. While the Democratic lower ranks are barren, the Republicans have no shortage of rising stars. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and Joni Ernst will all be around for decades to come. Though none of these people stand much of a chance against Hillary, they may sweep the field in the 2020s. Where is the new generation of democratic leaders who will stand against them?
We caught a glimpse of the future last fall. The Republicans swept congress because Democratic resistance was so feeble. The Iowa race was a great example. Leaving politics aside, Ernst was infinitely more interesting than Bruce Braley. A motherly war veteran who packs a gun in her purse faced a sort of awkward-looking white guy. And Democrats ran awkward candidates across the entire country.
The difference between the parties is quite profound. Conservatives hate their establishment, and wait like hyenas around a dying elephant for its departure. Democrats have nothing but an establishment. What will happen when the Bruce Braleys of this world inherit the party? The Democratic tribe does a very good job at stirring itself up into a wild frenzy during presidential campaigns, but will the tribe be so inspired when its champions are gone?
Well, that’s the future, what about the present? In 2016, Republicans will probably commit election suicide as usual. They run elections so poorly that I’ve come to believe they actually enjoy losing. If Jeb Bush gets the nomination, then the election is as good as over. They’ll split the conservative vote among four or five minor candidates and allow a liberal Republican like Bush to take the nomination. Most true conservatives would rather be hit by a train than vote for Jeb Bush.
Liberals have the habit of not turning out in mid-term elections. With the Democratic warrior queen leading them into battle, turn out will not be a problem in 2016. Republicans may have youthful candidates on their side, but the culture is not. It goes without saying that our country is now center-left. The new liberal majority has many members in the GOP wanting to shift left. This adds another incentive to run a suicidal candidate like Jeb Bush.
Though the culture war ended many years ago, the culture warriors survived. Cunning, ruthlessness and cruelty hoisted them to the top. It’ll be a different society when they’re gone. Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech will almost certainly be the last gurgling bubbles of a sinking ship.
A tectonic shift is occurring in American politics. The old guard of the Democratic Party will soon be far too ancient to contest an election. This creates serious problems for the party once 2016 passes. It’s obvious that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden will soon announce their candidacy, but who will fill the ranks when they’re gone?
It’s important to know that there was once a socially conservative generation deemed "The Greatest Generation." These, the heroes of Anzio and Guadalcanal, gave birth to a litter of selfish creatures called "baby boomers." The baby boomers soon colonized communal settlements known as colleges. Yes, it was here in this garden of earthly delight that millions of children sowed the seeds of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, which would destroy our civilization.
This is the cultural revolution that most prominent democrats belong. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are all remnants of that era. The '60s revolutionaries were fierce and brazen because liberalism was brazen during that time period. But now, times have changed. Liberalism predominates and modern Democrats are left with nothing to rebel against. The revolution has ended and the time of the milquetoast liberal has begun.
In her youth, Hillary Clinton dipped her hands in the blood of the revolution that uprooted our Christian society. She and her contemporaries were fanatical, and their fanaticism helped turn them into popular politicians. Indeed, I challenge any reader to produce an example of a new Democratic face that could compete with Hillary. There is no competition even among her own cohort.
It is my firm belief that in two years we’ll have another Clinton in the White House. "Uncle" Joe Biden is the only other serious contender for the Democratic nomination. According to polling data, Hillary runs 40 points ahead of her nearest Democratic competitor in the state of Iowa. If one supposes, as I do, that Republicans cannot win a national majority in 2016, then there’s no way she can lose. But what happens after she’s gone?
The Republicans have time on their side. While the Democratic lower ranks are barren, the Republicans have no shortage of rising stars. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and Joni Ernst will all be around for decades to come. Though none of these people stand much of a chance against Hillary, they may sweep the field in the 2020s. Where is the new generation of democratic leaders who will stand against them?
We caught a glimpse of the future last fall. The Republicans swept congress because Democratic resistance was so feeble. The Iowa race was a great example. Leaving politics aside, Ernst was infinitely more interesting than Bruce Braley. A motherly war veteran who packs a gun in her purse faced a sort of awkward-looking white guy. And Democrats ran awkward candidates across the entire country.
The difference between the parties is quite profound. Conservatives hate their establishment, and wait like hyenas around a dying elephant for its departure. Democrats have nothing but an establishment. What will happen when the Bruce Braleys of this world inherit the party? The Democratic tribe does a very good job at stirring itself up into a wild frenzy during presidential campaigns, but will the tribe be so inspired when its champions are gone?
Well, that’s the future, what about the present? In 2016, Republicans will probably commit election suicide as usual. They run elections so poorly that I’ve come to believe they actually enjoy losing. If Jeb Bush gets the nomination, then the election is as good as over. They’ll split the conservative vote among four or five minor candidates and allow a liberal Republican like Bush to take the nomination. Most true conservatives would rather be hit by a train than vote for Jeb Bush.
Liberals have the habit of not turning out in mid-term elections. With the Democratic warrior queen leading them into battle, turn out will not be a problem in 2016. Republicans may have youthful candidates on their side, but the culture is not. It goes without saying that our country is now center-left. The new liberal majority has many members in the GOP wanting to shift left. This adds another incentive to run a suicidal candidate like Jeb Bush.
Though the culture war ended many years ago, the culture warriors survived. Cunning, ruthlessness and cruelty hoisted them to the top. It’ll be a different society when they’re gone. Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech will almost certainly be the last gurgling bubbles of a sinking ship.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Insider says Obama administration 'sent a message' to black Democratic lawmakers that they should...
Daily Mail ^ | 2/06/15 | David Martosko
That disapproval apparently was orchestrated, or at least strongly encouraged, by the White House through comamunications with lawmakers connected to the Congressional Black Caucus.
'I'm not saying the president called anyone personally,' a current White House staffer told Daily Mail Online.
'But yeah, the White House sent a message to some at the CBC that they should suddenly be very upset about the speech.'
The source said it was a 'back-channel' arrangement that did not involve the higher echelons of the West Wing.
Butterfield's spokeswoman Kezmiché Atterbury denied it on Friday afternoon, saying he 'was not asked by anyone at the White House or otherwise' to skip Netanyahu's planned address.
That disapproval apparently was orchestrated, or at least strongly encouraged, by the White House through comamunications with lawmakers connected to the Congressional Black Caucus.
'I'm not saying the president called anyone personally,' a current White House staffer told Daily Mail Online.
'But yeah, the White House sent a message to some at the CBC that they should suddenly be very upset about the speech.'
The source said it was a 'back-channel' arrangement that did not involve the higher echelons of the West Wing.
Butterfield's spokeswoman Kezmiché Atterbury denied it on Friday afternoon, saying he 'was not asked by anyone at the White House or otherwise' to skip Netanyahu's planned address.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Friday, February 6, 2015
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
The Cowardice of Michael Moore
Front Page Magazine ^ | February 3, 2015 | Daniel Greenfield
mm“It has been said truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press,” Senator Zell Miller said at the Republican National Convention in 2004. “It is the soldier, not the poet who has given us the freedom of speech.”
“But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today,” the Democrat added.
Miller, a former Marine, was reviled by the same media trolls who had called Michael Moore’s Oscar rant a year earlier “courageous”. But there was nothing courageous in a lefty activist bashing Bush to an audience of fellow lefties.
Jimmy Carter had furiously written to Miller, “By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.” But Zell Miller had chosen loyalty to country, over loyalty to Carter.
mm“It has been said truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press,” Senator Zell Miller said at the Republican National Convention in 2004. “It is the soldier, not the poet who has given us the freedom of speech.”
“But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today,” the Democrat added.
Miller, a former Marine, was reviled by the same media trolls who had called Michael Moore’s Oscar rant a year earlier “courageous”. But there was nothing courageous in a lefty activist bashing Bush to an audience of fellow lefties.
Jimmy Carter had furiously written to Miller, “By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.” But Zell Miller had chosen loyalty to country, over loyalty to Carter.
[Dem] Fla. lawmaker: Texas is a 'crazy state'!
The Hill ^ | February 2, 2015 | Cristina Marcos
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) unequivocally declared Monday that Texas is a "crazy state" he never wants to live in, infuriating a Texas lawmaker.
Tensions flared between Hastings and Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) during a House Rules Committee meeting to prepare a bill slated for a floor vote Tuesday to repeal ObamaCare.
Hastings showed disdain for Texas during a discussion about states' implementation of the 2010 healthcare overhaul and decisions over whether or not to participate in the exchanges.
"I don't know about in your state, which I think is a crazy state to begin with," Hastings told Burgess.
Burgess immediately took offense.
"The gentleman made a very defamatory statement about my state, and I will not stand here and listen to it," Burgess said. "As a member of Congress, I'm used to attacks and invective being tossed my way. That's part of the territory. But there is no reason at all to impugn the people, the governor of a state of this country. And I will await the gentleman's apology."
But Hastings refused to shy away from his comments and made it clear he won't apologize.
"Well fine, then you don't have to listen. You can leave if you choose. I told you what I think about Texas. I wouldn't live there for all the tea in China. And that's how I feel," Hastings said.
"You will wait until hell freezes over for me to say anything in an apology," Hastings said. "I would apologize to you if I was directing my comments to you. I was commenting about the state that you happen to be a resident of. So I will not apologize."
When asked about the incident after House floor votes later Monday evening, Burgess appeared visibly tense.
"I'm still really mad," Burgess told The Hill, refusing to discuss the dustup further.
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) unequivocally declared Monday that Texas is a "crazy state" he never wants to live in, infuriating a Texas lawmaker.
Tensions flared between Hastings and Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) during a House Rules Committee meeting to prepare a bill slated for a floor vote Tuesday to repeal ObamaCare.
Hastings showed disdain for Texas during a discussion about states' implementation of the 2010 healthcare overhaul and decisions over whether or not to participate in the exchanges.
"I don't know about in your state, which I think is a crazy state to begin with," Hastings told Burgess.
Burgess immediately took offense.
"The gentleman made a very defamatory statement about my state, and I will not stand here and listen to it," Burgess said. "As a member of Congress, I'm used to attacks and invective being tossed my way. That's part of the territory. But there is no reason at all to impugn the people, the governor of a state of this country. And I will await the gentleman's apology."
But Hastings refused to shy away from his comments and made it clear he won't apologize.
"Well fine, then you don't have to listen. You can leave if you choose. I told you what I think about Texas. I wouldn't live there for all the tea in China. And that's how I feel," Hastings said.
"You will wait until hell freezes over for me to say anything in an apology," Hastings said. "I would apologize to you if I was directing my comments to you. I was commenting about the state that you happen to be a resident of. So I will not apologize."
When asked about the incident after House floor votes later Monday evening, Burgess appeared visibly tense.
"I'm still really mad," Burgess told The Hill, refusing to discuss the dustup further.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Middle-class manufacturing jobs? Not in California
The San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | January 24, 2015 | The Editorial Board
It took far too long, but finally many state politicians are taking seriously Census Bureau reports that California is ground zero for American poverty. Once the high cost of living is factored in, the Golden State moves from the middle of the pack nationally to a clear number one, with nearly one-quarter of residents in a constant struggle to make ends meet.
But with this harsh fact finally internalized, when will state leaders come to the parallel realization that having among the nation’s highest energy and real estate costs is also bad for the economy — and for job-seekers without college degrees?
This is underscored by recent reports on manufacturing’s renaissance in the United States — a phenomenon that stops at the California border.
Manufacturing jobs are a classic steppingstone into the middle class, paying much better than service or retail work. Such jobs in the aerospace and automobile industries were a central pillar of the state’s economy from World War II to the end of the Cold War. Then California and the rest of the United States began to hemorrhage millions of manufacturing jobs to lower-cost nations, especially China.
In the last half-dozen years, however, as wages soared in China and as exploding U.S. natural gas and oil production drove energy costs down, we’ve seen a “reshoring” phenomenon in which dozens of manufacturers have returned to America — sometimes to the states in which they were originally based.
Except the Golden State. Returning manufacturers take “a fresh look at the whole country. Unless you’re forced to be in California for some reason, increasingly it’s hard to find reasons that you have to be here,” Dorothy Rothrock, president of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, told The Los Angeles Times.
The number of manufacturing jobs in California has edged up 1 percent over the past five years versus about 7 percent nationally.
Unfortunately for the millions of state residents without white-collar job skills, these sorts of statistics don’t seem to bother California’s dominant Democrats. Environmentalists are more likely to see factory jobs as grubby and unsavory than as welcome. There’s also the view offered by Gov. Jerry Brown and others that amounts to a shrug — there’s nothing anyone can do about the fact that lots of people want to live here, so of course California will be an expensive place to live.
That’s only partly true. The streamlining and fine-tuning of the California Environmental Quality Act recommended by the past three governors would make building factories much cheaper.
And the decision to force energy costs much higher by using cleaner-but-costlier sources of electricity is also something that can be reversed. This policy hasn’t remotely achieved its original goal of inspiring the rest of the world to copy California. Instead, its main effect is to reduce the state’s economic competitiveness.
That California has been left out of the U.S. renaissance in manufacturing isn’t just unsurprising. It was predictable.
It took far too long, but finally many state politicians are taking seriously Census Bureau reports that California is ground zero for American poverty. Once the high cost of living is factored in, the Golden State moves from the middle of the pack nationally to a clear number one, with nearly one-quarter of residents in a constant struggle to make ends meet.
But with this harsh fact finally internalized, when will state leaders come to the parallel realization that having among the nation’s highest energy and real estate costs is also bad for the economy — and for job-seekers without college degrees?
This is underscored by recent reports on manufacturing’s renaissance in the United States — a phenomenon that stops at the California border.
Manufacturing jobs are a classic steppingstone into the middle class, paying much better than service or retail work. Such jobs in the aerospace and automobile industries were a central pillar of the state’s economy from World War II to the end of the Cold War. Then California and the rest of the United States began to hemorrhage millions of manufacturing jobs to lower-cost nations, especially China.
In the last half-dozen years, however, as wages soared in China and as exploding U.S. natural gas and oil production drove energy costs down, we’ve seen a “reshoring” phenomenon in which dozens of manufacturers have returned to America — sometimes to the states in which they were originally based.
Except the Golden State. Returning manufacturers take “a fresh look at the whole country. Unless you’re forced to be in California for some reason, increasingly it’s hard to find reasons that you have to be here,” Dorothy Rothrock, president of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, told The Los Angeles Times.
The number of manufacturing jobs in California has edged up 1 percent over the past five years versus about 7 percent nationally.
Unfortunately for the millions of state residents without white-collar job skills, these sorts of statistics don’t seem to bother California’s dominant Democrats. Environmentalists are more likely to see factory jobs as grubby and unsavory than as welcome. There’s also the view offered by Gov. Jerry Brown and others that amounts to a shrug — there’s nothing anyone can do about the fact that lots of people want to live here, so of course California will be an expensive place to live.
That’s only partly true. The streamlining and fine-tuning of the California Environmental Quality Act recommended by the past three governors would make building factories much cheaper.
And the decision to force energy costs much higher by using cleaner-but-costlier sources of electricity is also something that can be reversed. This policy hasn’t remotely achieved its original goal of inspiring the rest of the world to copy California. Instead, its main effect is to reduce the state’s economic competitiveness.
That California has been left out of the U.S. renaissance in manufacturing isn’t just unsurprising. It was predictable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Today Dispatch ^ Oops! Apparently, the state of Rhode Island had 150,000 people incorrectly placed on their voter rolls and nobody not...
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
