It's the Tom and Keith Show at the DNC

When will Bernie supporters - whose proxy, Keith Ellison, lost a close one in Atlanta for Chair of the DNC - ever learn? You wait for Barack to decide. Barack phones up his friends on Wall Street. They tell him Keith Ellison is a far left anit-Semite rabble rousing Nation Of Islam follower. No, not Keith. How about Tom Perez? He’s a far left rabble rousing progressive who would turn America into a quasi Scandinavian socialist state. How could Bernie supporters not like Tom? Plus he’s also got a trim goatee. And Barack likes Tom.

And to bridge the gap between JP Morgan and the molotov cocktail throwing thugs at Berkeley, Keith Ellison gets to be deputy to DNC Sheriff Tom Perez.

Will it work? Does Barack still control the identity goon squads who have unleashed the great resistance against Trump's presidency? Or will he and his top aides find themselves chasing the beast they have set upon the GOP administration?

Maybe the more relevant question is: does it matter to Obama if the protests spin out of his control? Does he care if the resistance makes governing America a rubble-strewn task?

Or is Indivisible - one of the groups helping organize the town hall protests, among others - more important to Obama than the DNC? It's hard to tell at this point whether Obama has merely nodded favorably in the direction of Invisible, or whether his former aides have lent logistical support and are indeed a part of Indivisible's fast-evolving structure.

It may be that the Tom and Keith show at the DNC has to take it's cue from a fast-moving protest culture that is demanding the identity politics that Hillary thought was her winning ticket at the ballot box, be ramped up even more aggressively than was the case in her failed 2016 campaign.

Because what Perez and Ellison are facing is a hard-left base that is screaming for blood and demanding that radical identity politics be the litmus test for any aspirant to any position of any significance within the Democratic Party. Or the courts. Or most anywhere. And what Tom and Keith have to do is balance themselves and their party between those cries for blood, and the big money that is still flowing in from East Coast donors, whose elite interests are threatened by Trump's administration.

Hollywood is a big expensive side show that they don't really have to worry about. West Coast tech money is an important consideration as well - and all they really want in Silicon Valley is plenty of H1-B visas - but the real balancing act, the potential civil war, in the Democratic Party is between Wall Street and hard-left progressives. Not that Wall Street doesn't mind a little progressive values - it's called their compliance departments. They just want to make sure they can tell progressives what to do. Like any investor.

Tom and Keith will have to work hard to bridge that gap and to make sure the DNC remains relevant up to and into the 2018 midterm elections.

Posted by Keeley at February 27, 2017 7:19 PM
Comments
Comment #413900

Keeley, let us know when you’ve written something with an actual factual basis, m’kay?

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 1:31 PM
Comment #413901

I really miss the moderate common sense of the old Democratic Party.

“screaming for blood and demanding that radical identity politics be the litmus test for any aspirant to any position of any significance within the Democratic Party. Or the courts. Or most anywhere.”

That pretty much sums up this liberal democrat party we face today. Blah!

Posted by: kctim at February 28, 2017 1:34 PM
Comment #413904

Good grief Tim, Keeley’s article is no basis in truth. There’s no significant group screaming for blood on the Left. There’s no significant group on the Left demanding radical identity politics be the litmus test for anything either. The premise is total bullshit.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 1:50 PM
Comment #413905

Keep telling yourself that, Warren. Regular people though, see the protests, riots, violence and demands for special treatment for one group over another, as pretty dam significant.

Posted by: kctim at February 28, 2017 2:00 PM
Comment #413906

Continued thought from the previous post, WP continues to be delusional.

Rush Limbaugh had a great monologue, at least it was similar to monologue. It tied right in with Keeley’s post:

“The Combination of Hatred and Victimhood Is Killing the Democrats”

I hesitate to copy and paste it, but it is a great read. The Democratic Party is in complete disarray and there’s no one who can solve the problem. It’s the party of victimhood. Everyone on the left is a victim of something:

“This is what I think is the glue of the Democrat Party. Every damned one of them thinks they are a victim of some American atrocity. They are a victim of racism, traceable to slavery, traceable to the founding. They are a victim of sexism, tracing to the beginning of the country when women couldn’t vote. They are victims of — you name it. They are victims of the homophobia, they’re victims of bigotry, they’re victims of transgenderography, whatever it is. They are all victims of something.
But the point of it is, America is what has harmed them, America and its unfairness and its unjustness and its immorality is what has made these people victims, and therefore America has become the enemy, and thus anybody who loves America, like you and me, we are also the enemy. We are blind, we are suckers, or we are genuine enemies because we don’t see the evils of this country.

I maintain to you that the vast majority of Democrats and average, ordinary American leftists in this country who think they’re victims have been talked into it by university professors, high school teachers, Hollywood, and the media, because that’s who everybody focuses on, the disenfranchised, the hungry, the homeless, the thirsty, the starving, you name it.
If you look at every one of these protest marches, everybody in it, Black Lives Matter, women against guns, what it, they’re all victims; they have all willingly joined some group that consists of victims. Look at how many of these colored ribbons that people wear. You’ve got red for AIDS, you’ve got pink for whatever it is. You can make yourself look like a more decorated five-star general with all the different victim ribbons out there. Global warming, you’re a victim of evil oil, you’re a victim of capitalism, you are a victim of global carbon pollution, whatever it is. And you are helpless.

But you have as a victim a built-in excuse for never achieving anything. Victims can’t. By definition, a victim can’t accomplish anything because the oppressor is preventing it. And this has become the glue that attracts and holds the Democrat Party united. And I’m telling you, folks, victimhood and victim status is not a growing, winning political organizational theory. It’s devoted to pessimism. It is enmeshed in negativism. It is enshrouded in anger and rage. And it offers no solutions. It offers only continual, perpetual victimhood. And it’s what provides the excuse for all of the, at times felonious behavior, misdemeanor behavior, the destruction of private property, the bullying.

So it is a resentment and a hate for America that binds them all together. Martin Luther King, I’ll tell you what he said, that hate is too great a burden to bear, because hate burns fast. You can’t build a movement on the smoldering ashes of hate, because there’s never any redress. Once you start hating, you don’t want to stop. It’s what animates you; it’s what informs you; it’s what gives you your meaning in life. You couple that with being a victim of one of those invisible, mysterious American indignities, and you are then faced with a lifetime of running around trying to point it all out to people and march against it and protest against it.
But there’s no champion leading these people. There’s nobody now. The media cannot do glowing stories on whoever the Democrat Party leader today is. Not like they could with Obama and not like they could with Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton. There’s a vacuum. So the stories have to be an echo of the hate that exists in the constituency groups of all these different victim and minority bunch of groups made up of the Democrat Party. They scream; they taunt; they rage; they demand; they drive you crazy. But they will not sustain a movement that will win back Democrat control of the American political system.”

Rush is correct, you can hear the pure hate in every comment written down. They hate Trump, because America voted him in office and they can’t understand why Americans would turn against liberalism.

Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 3:03 PM
Comment #413907

WP,
This premise comes from Limbaugh. It is a little confused. The idea seems to be that Democrats are confused and disorganized and their ideas are unpopular. At the same time, Democrats are at fault for Trump’s terrible approval numbers. It is the fault of Obama, a shadow DNC, paid protestors, and liberal activists. On the one hand, Democrats are utterly disorganized; on the other, they are fiendishly well organized, and so clever that no one can actually find a paid protestor or liberal activists being bused about the country. The enormous number of people showing up at town halls is just more of those paid protestors and liberal activists who invariably come from someplace else.

The other part is the kind of ‘whataboutism’ we see all the time on WB. ‘Racist?’ They exclaim. ‘Who, me? Uh-uh. It is the other side practicing identity politics.’

The idea is that if everybody would just get on board with white male identity politics, none of this would be a problem. Instead, women- the majority bloc in this country- are daring to march in enormous numbers. People are demanding answers on the ACA and health care reform, and they are demanding very loudly.

The GOP is floundering. Today Trump literally blamed Obama for his problems. Not very becoming behavior for a grown man! People keep refusing to serve in his administration due to ethical concerns. The State Department, which takes care of diplomacy and development projects abroad, has been gutted. Tillerson is standing on an island. Meanwhile, Trump wants to increase defense spending dramatically.

That should work out well. Or not. I’m guessing not. If we’re ditching diplomacy and developmental projects, then we’d better prepare for some wars.

Posted by: phx8 at February 28, 2017 3:06 PM
Comment #413908

Continued yapping like a little dog at you heels. Nothing ph says can be believed, because it’s all fake news from the FNM (Fake News Media).

Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 3:25 PM
Comment #413910

The lefts heads will literally explode when Trump gives his address tonight and speaks of the deep cuts to the budgets of the state department, EPA, and other departments. Do you understand how long we have waited for someone like Trump to actually do what politicians promise, but never do?

Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 3:29 PM
Comment #413912

I think back to the Republican debates and recall the promises Trump was making and the laughter that followed in Liberal and Republican circles. Conservatives however, loved what he was saying.

All my Democrat Liberal Pals on WatchBlog were rooting for Trump as they would readily tell us that he couldn’t possibly win the elections.

Running as the Republican candidate Trump suffered the arrows of nearly every major media outlet, both print and Television. The evening talk shows were virtually vibrating with derision. The pollsters were all predicting another Clinton presidency. the West Coast elite were so brazen as to brag about leaving the country if Trump was elected.

Trump did not back down on his promises to calm the worst of his detractors, he continued with his promise to build the wall and control illegal immigration, to drain the State Department swamp in Washington DC, revoke needless business and public harming federal regulations, return our military to the readiness required, to convince our NATO allies to pay their fair share, to return jobs to America and balance our federal budget.

He promised to reign in the overreach of the presidency and return legislative power back to congress and much of what Washington DC had co-opted back to the individual states.

I am absolutely convinced that President Trump means to accomplish exactly what he promised. Conservatives and many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are thrilled to see our nation begin to return to those principles upon which it was founded.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 28, 2017 4:22 PM
Comment #413914

Yes Royal, the American people overwhelmingly voted for Trump to do the things he said he would. He was underestimated by Hillary, by the democrats, by the media, and by the republicans. In fact the republicans were making plans on how to govern under a Clinton presidency. Now we have the left playing their same old games of attacking Trumps legitimacy, just as they did Bush and Reagan. Reagan was a senile old man, Bush II was a stupid young man, and now Trump is not competent enough to be president. Same old, same old. The left got their as*** handed to them and it will happen again. As Rush said, they are all victims full of hate, and as long as they are of that attitude, they will never govern.

Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 4:50 PM
Comment #413915

Hey, with the rollback of environmental regulations, maybe we will get to see Cleveland’s river catch fire again.

RF,
He promised to build a wall. That is not going to happen. He promised to make Mexico pay for it. That will not happen either. Illegal immigration was already under control. Does that count as keeping a promise?
Drain the swamp? He backed up to the swamp and unloaded a whole truck full of gators, including 6 Goldman Sachs people, billionaires like DeVos and Ross, and corrupt public employees like Price- hey, maybe he can bring the rest of us into his next inside trading deals- and Pruitt, who literally put letters from fossil fuel companies on his own letterhead and sent them on to the federal government.
The military is fine.
The economy has generated jobs for an all time record number of months.

Let’s see what happens on the budget.

By the way, look into the new Commerce Secretary, Ross, and his connections to the Russians through the Bank of Cyprus.

“The White House has been accused of withholding information from Congress about whether Donald Trump or any of his campaign affiliates have ever received loans from a bank in Cyprus that is partly owned by a close ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/27/commerce-nominee-wilbur-ross-bank-of-cyprus-putin

The Bank of Cyprus was notorious for money laundering for the Russians. Trump is connected. The other major investor in that bank was a Russian oligarch who paid Trump $100 million for a $40 million property at a time when Trump was desperate for money.

These guys will eventually get caught.

Posted by: phx8 at February 28, 2017 4:51 PM
Comment #413917

“Hey, with the rollback of environmental regulations…”

Can you be specific phx8? Which ones do you despise the most?

When ever the Right would speculate about investigations being conducted during the Obama administration, phx8 and Pals would usually respond by asking when there will be official charges filed.

That was a good ploy phx8 and I will apply it to your charges.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 28, 2017 4:58 PM
Comment #413918

Fake news, bark, bark, bark, yap, yap, tap…

Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 5:00 PM
Comment #413921

I hope he abolishes the EPA.

The wall has been started.

Illegal immigration was never under control.

Hillary’s support came from Goldman Sachs.

We have business leaders in leadership positions instead of community organizers.

The military was gutted by Obama.

There was no job creation under Obama.

Anything to do with a Russian connection is a red herring.

There is absolutely no proof of a Trump/Russian connection. Fake news

Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 5:20 PM
Comment #413922

Holder: Obama is ‘ready to roll’

“Marc Elias, a top election lawyer who’s advising the group, (National Democratic Redistricting Committee) said that in addition to joining existing challenges to state laws, they’re already prospecting for states where they could file new lawsuits, predicting they’ll file more before the end of 2017.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/eric-holder-obama-ready-public-235508

phx8, it appears to me that the Obama led Democrat attack plan to win seats in congress will focus on winning in court rather winning at the polls.

I will look forward to your analysis.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 28, 2017 5:21 PM
Comment #413923

Blaine, I really like this comment; “We have business leaders in leadership positions instead of community organizers.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 28, 2017 5:24 PM
Comment #413924

Sorry guys, I will not participate in your mass hallucination. Perhaps a WatchBlog conservative provide me with facts instead of sophistry and innuendo and we can have an intelligent debate?

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 5:31 PM
Comment #413925

If I were a Democrat, the visuals in this link would be an eye-popper.

Since 2008, nearly every state moved right in both presidential and state politics

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/28/since-2008-nearly-every-state-moved-right-in-both-presidential-and-state-politics/?utm_term=.3a359e388675

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 28, 2017 5:34 PM
Comment #413926

RF,
Coolidge said “The business of America is business.”
Bush #43 was supposed to be a business leader/CEO president.
The problem is that governing involves laws and legislating, which is why a disproportional number are lawyers. It is very different from running a business, which is why ‘business leaders’ have had such a bad track record in the White House. It is part of the reason Trump is flailing. He has figured out EO’s, but he has no idea how to put together a coalition to push bills through Congress.

Interesting link on lawsuits over gerrymandering. I hope they succeed. Many states already have non-partisan gerrymandering. Some Democratic states do it. A LOT of Republican states do. The House is supposed to represent the people, and although only 49% of Americans voted for GOP Congressmen, due to gerrymandering 55% of the House is Republican.

I see no reason why representation should not be fair and… well, representative.

Posted by: phx8 at February 28, 2017 5:37 PM
Comment #413927

In reply to WP comment about not participating: some will miss you.

The only thing the Democratic Party has left are hopeful judicial decisions and the FNM.

The Democratic Party has not been this low in national power in almost 100 years. Since 1920.

Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 5:47 PM
Comment #413928

Frankly phx8, I too am not a big fan of gerrymandering for the same reasons you cite. We lost our beloved Democrat congressperson due to redrawing of the district.

However, I can’t be certain if this is a federal judicial and legislative issue, or one that is the business of the individual states. In such cases, I lean toward the state’s right to govern.

phx8 wrote; “The problem is that governing involves laws and legislating, which is why a disproportional number are lawyers. It is very different from running a business…”

I think about the men who fought to birth our nation and who wrote the documents that guide our nation. It is true, many were lawyers; and many were not. My google search finds that 25 of our presidents have had law degrees.

Today’s federal legislators have huge staffs who do much of the research and polling of issues freeing the elected person from the nuts and bolts involved.

Give me a legislator with common sense, love of country, and devotion to the Constitution and I don’t care what his/her occupation is/was.


Posted by: Royal Flush at February 28, 2017 6:10 PM
Comment #413931

Concerning the presidents speech tonight. He hit it out of the park. The democrats looked petty and little, sitting on their hands with scowls on their faces. Trump looked presidential and the democrats looked defeated. What you saw tonight was the future of the democrat party.

Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 10:53 PM
Comment #413938

They did. They looked like spoiled children sitting in the corner, pouting, because someone else is eating their cookies.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 1, 2017 8:42 AM
Comment #413942

Ellison has past ties to the Nation of Islam. Fact.
Perez IS a far left progressive. Fact.
The “hard-left base” protesting and rioting in the streets have formed ‘exclusive political alliances’ and ARE screaming for blood and demanding special treatment for members of THOSE groups. That is radical identity politics.

For the past few months all the left has been doing is hinting at President Trump, those who voted for him, and pretty much all on the right, of being Nazi’s. They have been intentionally deceiving people with nonfactual claims of the Russian’s hacking our election, racism, and with dishonestly equating illegal aliens to legal immigrants.

But you want to accuse others of avoiding intelligent debate with sophistry and innuendo?

Posted by: kctim at March 1, 2017 9:23 AM
Comment #413948

Blaine-
Do you happen to recall what happened at the end of that decade? Or what happened the last, most recent time that Republicans held both chambers of Congress and the White House.

No, you don’t. It’s a talking point to impress people like you. You’re the main audience for, and target of, the political propaganda coming from the Limbaughs and Hannities. It’s meant to get your support for the swamp and it’s swampiness.

There’s something inherently self-destructive about a party that has dedicated itself to keeping power in Washington, yet is perpetually running against what your man Bannon called, “The Administrative state.” They’ve never made the transition towards governing. They continue, despite years of tenure for many of their people, to claim themselves apart from Washington politics.

What I would submit is that they are in fact the reason today’s Washington is such a dark and malodorous swamp in this day and age. They vote to hide their records, vote to keep Trump from getting investigated. They’re more interested in creating a witch-hunt for leakers and Whistleblowers than actually dealing with the various scandals.

They’re doing the same thing they’ve been doing for a long time. The Tea Party didn’t end that problem, it gave it new life by putting those old corrupt leaders back in power. You all don’t see the big picture, the folks who have the votes and have the leadership positions necessary to serve the special interests.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2017 11:52 AM
Comment #413949

Stephen, there has been a steady decline of democrats role in politics for the past 6+ years. In fact, the last time the democrats won a majority in an election was in 2008; that’s 8 years ago. Your side controls 4 states out of 50, and you have steadily lost house, senate, and of course the Oval Office. At some point, you have to take a real look at the direction you’re going and ask the question, is this working for us? I personally don’t give a rats behind. Your party is in auto self distruct and I could care less. What I do object to is the lefts insistence on quoting fake facts fro fake news outlets and trying to make it sound real.

What is it you want Trump investigated for…are you still harping on the Trump/Russian plan to cheat Hillary out of the presidency? Ok, provide the proof? Where is your evidence of a conspiracy? I’m not talking about fake news, I’m talking proof.

Posted by: Blaine at March 1, 2017 12:11 PM
Comment #413951

1) Ellison is not an anti-semite. He has publicly rejected those philosophies. In fact, he’s rejected them in far less uncertain terms than our current President.

2) I find your “rabble rouser” comment similarly weak. First, what exactly do you call it when you encourage your followers, as our current President did, to beat up on protestors? The Former President, in fact, had a habit of telling voters who booed when certain names were mentioned, “don’t boo, vote.” We don’t encourage riots, we don’t encourage violence against Trump supporters, because we’re not as sociopathic as Trump is. We know, at the very least, that it doesn’t reflect well on us. Current Trump voters and Trump associates… well, they don’t seem to care how they look. That’s a concern for the losers they scapegaot.

3) We are in the business, in the Democratic Party, of inclusion. We’re the party that has the courage to face the fact that divisive tactics and bitter bigotry will not make America great. We would be remiss in presenting ourselves as the less divisive party if we did as much bridge burning as the Republicans seem to do.

4)

Will it work? Does Barack still control the identity goon squads who have unleashed the great resistance against Trump’s presidency? Or will he and his top aides find themselves chasing the beast they have set upon the GOP administration?

Maybe the more relevant question is: does it matter to Obama if the protests spin out of his control? Does he care if the resistance makes governing America a rubble-strewn task?

The Trump Administration is being brought down by it’s own corruption and divisiveness. Most of the civil service doesn’t much care who they serve under. They serve under Clinton, under Bush, under Obama, and might have been happy to serve under Trump or Hillary, but Trump decided to act like a petty dictator rather than a President.

You start firing people, making public and ideological war on the civil service, you’re guaranteed to alienate people. When your prime choices for the department heads are picked with a deliberate mind to sabotage the missions of the organizations, how in goodness’s name do you expect not to provoke a rebellion?

As for the rest… It sounds like the raving of a paranoid delusional. Somebody who really believes the rest of us are purposefully hostile to all that is good.

Do yourself a favor and step off that high horse. You talk of identity politics. Well, when you point at immigrants, point at Muslims, start singling them out, aren’t they, in this free country of ours, allowed to band together to speak up for their own interests? If you or your cops make the decision to come down on one racial group harder than another (as the evidence tells us,) aren’t they allowed to band together to speak up for their own interests?

Yeah, that’s right. We have a right to assemble, but only symbolically. a right to speak, but only symbolically, We have all these freedoms, but we’re wrong for exercising them because you say so.

5) You talk of special interests, but who did you hire for Trump’s cabinet? Who is Trump himself, when you come down to it?

Trump refused to publish his tax returns. Don’t bother with the excuses. Romney probably had his share of them, and he at least could only be criticized for not publishing as many as Obama did. Trump refuses to relieve himself of distractions and ethically fraught conflicts of interest by setting down his business interests in favor of his new job. Already, there’s evidence he’s violated his constitutional duties, world leaders feeling compelled to frequent his businesses, and taxpayers forced to pay Trump’s own businesses for Trump’s use of them. I mean, putting Ketchup on a Well-Done steak is bad enough, but forcing them to pay for that fifty dollar steak at YOUR restaurant?

By any reasonable definition, Trump is a crook, the biggest crook to occupy the White House in decades. Unfortunately, you’re completely oblivious to that, completely unwilling to push the matter. You act like you and yours are the cure for corruption. But you are the corruption. You’ve made the conscious, deliberate decision to accept the risks and the turn the blind eye to the blatant ethical failures of your government.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2017 12:23 PM
Comment #413952

.” We don’t encourage riots, we don’t encourage violence against Trump supporters…”

And yet, you ARE the ones engaging in riots, threats and violence against Trump supporters.

“We’re the party that has the courage to face the fact that divisive tactics and bitter bigotry will not make America great.”

And yet, you ARE the party that divides people along racial lines, sexual preference, gender and religion, in order to push the goal you desire. You ARE the party that shouts ‘racist’ to all who disagree with your policy. That shouts bigot at all who believe in traditional marriage. That shouts ‘sexist’ when a man isn’t PC enough. That shouts ‘hatred’ at those concerned about national security, and who ignores the wrongs of Islam while making gross comparisons of Christians to radical Islamic terrorists. You ARE the party who created and shouts all this “white privilege” and “white male privilege” nonsense.

“Does he care if the resistance makes governing America a rubble-strewn task?”

As a former President of the United States, it dam well should matter. A LOT!

“We have all these freedoms, but we’re wrong for exercising them because you say so.”

No, you are wrong for lying, silencing and threatening those who disagree with you. You are, and always have been, for your blatant hypocrisy. You are wrong for ‘protesting’ your own hyperbole. You are wrong for rioting. You are wrong for the targeting and destruction.
You are wrong for acting like spoiled little children who didn’t get their way, or who are afraid of losing something that wasn’t yours in the first place.

Posted by: kctim at March 1, 2017 1:07 PM
Comment #413956

As I watched President Trump address the joint session of congress and the television audience I recalled, with amazement, his unlikely political journey to this place and this time.

There are a mere handful of people who believed Trump would survive the nomination process and actually win the election. I believed he was bored and was going through the motions just for fun. How wrong I was.

Our country has been blessed by the rise of great leaders when in greatest peril. I think of the men who risked life and fortune to throw off the reigns of tyranny; the men who wrote the greatest governing document the world has ever seen.

We had Lincoln when most needed. FDR was in place to lead us through the turmoil of World War and Truman to end the war.

The nation is once again in peril of our own making. Not since the Civil War has our nation been so divided. As the president spoke last night I could feel the healing words we so desperately need. I heard the invitation for all Americans to come together. We have a president who loves this nation and places its future above all else.

Down thru the ages we have read of unlikely men and women used by God Almighty to accomplish His will. Perhaps Donald Trump is such a person.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 1, 2017 2:20 PM
Comment #413957

Perhaps my Lefty Pals can shed some light on the horrible choice of former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to deliver their rebuttal to President Trump.

I listened to Senate Minority Leader Schumer explain why he was chosen and found his reasons very unconvincing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 1, 2017 4:11 PM
Comment #413958

Wasn’t it Obama who said “if they bring a club, you bring a gun”.

The democrats are inclusive unless you’re white middle class, Christian, gun owner, or blue collar worker.

The rest of SD’s comments are under the heading of fake news.

Posted by: Blaine at March 1, 2017 5:45 PM
Comment #413965

kctim-
I’m sorry, but we don’t divide people along those lines. We unite people who were divided by the status quo people like you are so desperate to get back to. You seem to think that everybody else needs to be treated as probationary citizens, including your political rivals, until they prove to you that they are of good quality. Yet, your people engage in many of the same behaviors, as evidence by people sucker punching protestors at your rallies. Where Obama didn’t even leave people unscolded when they booed certain names, Trump talked about the days in which protestors like the ones he was singling out would be taken out on stretchers. I doubt that would be for their rest and relaxation.

I’ll do you the favor of not accusing your side of being inherently this way. White, Black, Asian, Latino… we all have the capacity for good and bad behavior, for violence and peaceful action. The question is, which dog of those pairs do we feed more?

You have idiots like Wayne LaPierre out there with that cold, dead hands rhetoric, scaring people into believing their government’s out to get them. You got Trump reminiscing fondly about the days in which protestors would be taken out on stretchers (presumably not to save them the shoe leather.) and People at Trump rallies feeling emboldened enough to sucker punch people already being led out of the venues.

This isn’t about PC versus Anti-PC. This is a question of whether we encourage civilized politics, or degenerate politics. As much as you talk about riots, people like me and people like my leaders strongly discourage that misbehavior.

As for the rest?

1) We shout racist when the black guy gets his citizenship questioned, his State of the Union Address heckled, gets called uppity by another member of Congress, gets accused of being the instigator or the beneficiary of academic fraud, gets accused of being a black panther any time he talks about black causes with any sympathy, gets accused of being lazy for taking fewer vacation days than Presidents of recent memory, etc. We shout racist when black people get pulled over, convicted, and killed for doing the same things that don’t result in white people getting that treatment.

This, in contrast to the Republican’s use of the word, which is often meant to describe people who are complaining about racial inequality, even when it’s frigging DOCUMENTED. Being racist isn’t about paying attention to race, it’s treating people unequal to one another on that account. It’s not giving the benefit of the doubt to the Citizenship and qualifications of a man, something his predecessors never got so much crap about.

2) This isn’t about you BELIEVING in traditional marriage. It’s about you using the LAW to bar those who believe in more than just traditional marriage to deny them that right, without any clear, constitutional rationale. You are free to believe that those aren’t real, true marriages, as a personal matter, just as Catholics are free to believe that divorces make subsequent marriages illegitimate. You just shouldn’t be free to deny those marriages as a matter of the state.

3) I shout hatred at those who don’t abide by an evidence based, rational model of securing our immigration process, who seem more eager to reinforce their own political power by prying into people’s social media accounts and questioning the bonafides of people who have already been scrutinized by investigators according to the law. I shout hatred at those who maintain the unsubstantiated charge that undocumented immigrants are more violent than others people in this country, even in the face of evidence that says the opposite is true. Otherwise, what would motivate it? When you attack people without sufficient evidence, an emotional reason is all that can properly explain it.

4)I shout sexist when men treat women like their consent doesn’t matter, when they claim that they can grab them in the you know what and they’ll never complain. I shout “sexism” when women are denied at least the right to attempt a job, before men tell them they aren’t able to do it. I shout “sexism” when men keep telling women what to do with their bodies, keep insisting that they can’t control their reproductive freedom.

5) I don’t talk about the wrongs of Islam, because it’s not Islam doing the wrongs, any more than Christianity is responsible for the wrongs of the Serbs or whatever other European government out there. It’s people, not religions that do wrong, and people need to be held accountable. And yes, if Christian Fundamentalists here insist on imposing their will on the state, I will compare them to those in the Islamic World who insist on doing the same, especially when they show contempt for the rights of women and religious minorities. If you complain about what Isis does to Christians in their country, it is hypocrisy to inflict the same harm on Muslims in this country.

As for White Privilege? Look it’s like John Dunbar was talking about in Dances with Wolves, about running the fort like he was part of it, and not the whole affair. Well, we’ve been running the fort here in America like we were the only ones who mattered, like our religion and everything else had to be assimilated to, like nobody else’s concerns about housing, income, etc., mattered. We’ve acted like everybody else had to deal with our prejudiced jokes and behavior, and just gut it out.

Well, I’m not a big fan of that, because it makes us look like hypocrites, like weak-minded followers of the constitution’s principles. We can talk about the inalienable rights and the constitutional protections, about limited government and such, but all of those things are only strong if we apply them consistently, conscientiously. If we are to be truly exceptional, we need to break out of this shell, stop demanding that other people coddle our cultural sensitivities while we neglect theirs.

I am not lying. I am not silencing anybody here, and I am not threatening anybody. It’s time for you to stop acting like children while you demand perfect behavior from everybody else!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2017 7:48 PM
Comment #413966

Royal Flush-
Blah, blah. I recall his majestic journey, slandering his predecessor, getting bent out of shape out of being roasted for his slander at the White House Correspondents Dinner, which he will skip, unlike Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and many of the Republican candidates. Seems like he doesn’t trust himself to be able to laugh at himself.

He then spewed a bunch of promises he had no intention to keep, and made a bunch he should never have tried to keep, given their stupidity.

After his first month, how many laws has he signed, versus how many of those executive orders that were supposedly bad during the Obama Administration?

Everybody else looks at your praise for this man and just roll their eyes. He’s not making America Great, he’s presiding over it’s decay as a world power.

Blaine-
You say I’ve got fake news, you’re one to talk. Trump boasts he brought jobs back to Ford Plants. Obama made sure Ford Plants continued to exist. He never took your guns, never put Christians at an actual disadvantage, and his administration brought back the jobs yours destroyed.

And really, quit talking about Fake News. You have Alex “Obama smells like Satan” Jones as one of your Press Corp, praised by Trump for his Reporting. I especially liked the time that he and others talked about Jade Helm as being an Obama pretext for taking over the country. Oh, and the multiple occasions where he said FEMA was going to take over the country, or the NWO was going to take over, etc.

Your use of the term “fake news” is often to cover your USE of fake news to support your fake leaders in their fake attempts to drain the very real swamp. Trump is not an unassailable reformer, he’s a New York Real Estate Speculator who has a track record of unpaid workers and contractors, shady labor deals, corrupt bargains with foreign powers, defaulted loans, bonds cashed out for fractions of their values, etc. You picked the King of the Alligators to be your Swamp Drainer. You’re probably gullible enough that you’ll believe that even after four years of getting screwed. The rest of us will understand it long before.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2017 8:00 PM
Comment #413968

Stephen, I can respond to the 2 essays you wrote very simply. You love to hear yourself speak. In bible times, they were called Pharisees. But, your side lost and our side won. Trump is your president, so have a little respect for the office. Get over it. Obama will go down as the worse president in history, worse than Carter. Hillary was an old hag and that was the best your side could do?

Posted by: Blaine at March 1, 2017 9:55 PM
Comment #413988

Blaine-
I write essays because I like to write complete thoughts.

I like to include facts, actual premises in my arguments, rather than demanding like a petty tyrant that they see things my way just because. I see that you have no response on the Fake News purveyor Alex Jones. I didn’t expect you would, as I have him dead to rights. This is a man who Trump is on record as calling a good reporter. This is a man who relentlessly shilled for Alex Jones.

Facts you can’t contradict. I can show you video of Alex Jones’ insane rants. What will you say, that they’re out of context? That he’s only speaking figuratively?

Your only response is to belittle me, and my style.

The evidence that Trump colluded with Mafia-owned businesses is public record. His bankruptcies, multiple marriages, public record. Multiple instances of unpaid contractors, on the record. In fact, the latest cheap-ass display of contempt for the terms of a Contract came with the new Trump Hotel. He’s already being sued for failing to pay on that.

Your response is either to be ignorant, or to ignore.

You say that Obama will go down as the worst President ever. It doesn’t look that way. He will be framed by two incompetent, spoiled brats of Presidents. Trump exposes the hypocrisy of the Right. Trump is close to making his time off more expensive in one year than Obama’s whole administration’s worth of time off ever got. He golfs more than Obama did, has had more controversies and scandals rage through his short, though overly long administration than Obama ever had. The Conflicts of interest at this point could probably fill an encyclopedia, not the least of which is that hotel he opened simultaneously with his campaign.

You’ve got little capacity to see what most people can plainly observe: that Trump is corrupt, and worse than that, unashamed of it. Why aren’t you ashamed of these people? Why aren’t you struck by the contradictions between saying you’ll reform the corruption out of Washington, and engaging in the most ethically problematic governance since Nixon?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2017 11:25 AM
Comment #413996

Stephen,
Please explain how separating people into different groups and then providing them with special treatment, is not divisive? How castigating people who don’t hold a special reverence for those created groups, is not divisive?
Truth is, you intentionally demonize and divide people in order to unite those groups, for political and emotional gain.

“Yet, your people engage in many of the same behaviors”

That’s exactly what myself and others have been trying to get through to you for years now. You take the extreme and apply it to the whole when it comes to those on the right, but are quick to separate the left from their extremes with “people like me and people like my leaders strongly discourage that misbehavior.”

You complain about LaPierre somehow scaring people with a slogan as if it is even comparable to all the fear your people are peddling with all their fascist, racist, sexist etc… fear mongering. Give me a break.

This has nothing to do with encouraging “civilized politics” to you guys. For you, it’s all about encouraging left-wing politics and making liberal policy normal in a Constitutional Republic such as ours.

1 - In your own words: “We shout racist when the black guy…”
Why do you see “the black guy” when you see Obama, instead of seeing the President? Why do you presume everybody else does the same?
THAT is your problem, Stephen.

“We shout racist when black people get pulled over, convicted, and killed for doing the same things that don’t result in white people getting that treatment.”

Unfortunately, you also shout racist when a black person is killed while attacking and beating the crap out of somebody, and ignore the fact that white people also suffer the same fate when behaving the same way.
You also choose to ignore the effects of the environment, prior history, and the fact that we all are only human.

2 - No, it’s not about believing in traditional marriage, but neither it’s not about the law. What we are discussing here is the unfair and dishonest labeling of those who support traditional marriage. Many more times than not, support of traditional marriage has absolutely nothing to do with hate or bigotry towards the individuals.
And just to remind you Stephen, I DO support same-s*x marriage and have always voted in favor of it.

3 - Basically, you shout hatred at those who disagree with your view of things. Again, THAT is your problem.
Fact: We have an immigration process to come into our country.
Fact: It is illegal to ignore that process when entering our country.
Fact: Very dangerous illegal aliens enter our country on a daily basis.
Truth is, you feel sorry for illegal aliens so you shout hatred at those who support enforcing an immigration process. THAT is the only “emotional reason” at play here.

4 - You use hyperbole and shout sexist only to further your politics.
99% of men don’t treat women like their consent doesn’t matter, but you take some pig slapping a girl on her a$$, call it rape and apply it to every man. You shout sexist at those who acknowledge the fact that there are just some things that men can do that 99% of women just can’t do. You shout sexism at those who acknowledge that there are two lives involved in the abortion equation, and at those who simply don’t want to pay for what a woman chooses to do with her body.

5 - You don’t talk about the wrongs of Islam because of politics. Period.
IF American muslims were a large enough group and voted for right-wing candidates, you would gladly be pointing out how terrible Islamic nations treat women, homosexuals and the poor.
Fact is, Islam has not evolved as Christianity has, and to compare a Christian Fundamentalist that doesn’t support gay marriage to those who stone homosexuals to death, is ridiculous. As is comparing the inconvenience this country may cause to the harm ISIS actually inflicts.

As for White Privilege:
The problem isn’t that people ignore the fact that it was once a privilege to be white in this country, it’s that you guys pretend that NOTHING has changed.
Fact is that there is no longer any law that specifically designates whites for any kind of privilege over others, so what you are really seeking is to condition individual behavior, with programs and laws that actually give privilege to others over whites.

And sorry Stephen, the ideas, customs, and social behavior that Americans have, takes priority over others. If it doesn’t, then there is no point in being our own country.
That doesn’t mean we should “neglect” other cultures, but it sure as he11 doesn’t mean we mandate respect for them, or pass laws that promote their culture at the expense of our own.

“I am not lying. I am not silencing anybody here, and I am not threatening anybody.”

Neither am I, Stephen. But it’s “your people” who ARE, not “my people”

Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2017 12:01 PM
Comment #414004

Stephen, you make claim that your comments are based on fact, and then you allow your hatred for Trump to come in your adjectives used to describe Trump. I won’t even grace this conversation with repeating you claims about our sitting president; people can read them. Your side lost Stephen, liberalism was rejected overwhelmingly, the American people told Hillary to crawl back under the rock from which she came. The Democratic Party has nothing left to do but whine and cry, to claim unfair, to quote fake news articles and hope to God that judicial activism can change you bleak future. Obama, on the other hand is doing his best to preserve a wasted 8 years and a failed legacy. Trump gave a great speech the other night and the left is terrified. What if Trump succeeds, what if he does as he promised? How will the Democratic Party ever recover? I certainly see your dilemma.

Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 12:57 PM
Comment #414013

kctim-
1) You assume that they were not separated into distinct groups to begin with. Unfortunately, the legacy of my party, as it was before the sixties, and of the government in general, with either party, was one that did that separation. It was written into housing, immigration policies, and others. It was inculcated in unwritten fashion into the manner in which law enforcement dealt with members of minority races. People were literally treated under a system that claimed to keep them “separate, but equal.”

We didn’t just suddenly create distinct racial groups. Policy did that, and the effects of that shape the very landscapes of our cities, the very economic problems some of us pretend are merely do to deficiencies in character and culture. Unless we face the consequences of past policy and work to undo them, the injustices continues. Now there’s a question as to whether instituting certain policies can help to unwind those consequences, but unless that unwinding is shown to occur in fact, it should not be assumed to just happen. We have to acknowledge the structure of previous official injustice to undo it.

2) The people supporting traditional marriage… would that be polygamy, as in the bible? Arranged marriages, as were once typical here and abroad? The outlawing of interracial marriage, as was once legal?. But aside from that, your people aren’t just out there saying to people, “I don’t like/recognize the validity of gay marriage”

No, they are pushing for court decisions and laws that codify those attitudes into laws that impose on that freedom you claim to support. That is what we so stridently oppose.

3) a) we have a broken immigration system that requires people to pay hundreds of dollars worth of fees to immigrate legally. As with drug trafficking, the smuggling and illegal entry into our nation of these immigrants is driven by an economic demand- in other words, employers here looking to get work done on the cheap. I would propose lowering those fees so people can better afford to immigrate the right way. b)the proportion of those who commit crime to those that don’t show that your third premise is unsound. That’s your xenophobia, not reality talking. c) the sooner we can create a path to citizenship for those that years of bad policy have allowed in and kept in, the sooner we can clear the decks of the wreckage of bad policy, and focus on the fresher immigrants, which I would advocate we do more strongly. So,

d) on the balance, I want to make legal immigration easier and cheaper, deliver a conditional amnesty of sorts to those who make our lives easier by ending their undocumented status and getting to the back of the line of the process of becoming citizens, and then heading forward focus on those few who are left. Reduce the incentive to immigrate illegally, remove those who have basically settled here and are willing to follow the law to redeem their status, and focus more intensely on those who are left.

4) The evidence demonstrates much stronger biases out there than you would claim exist. Many, many women end up getting sexually harrassed and sexually assaulted in the course of their lives. We should not turn a blind eye to that, even if it’s one percent, because that’s easily millions of women.

5) Don’t frigging assume that I am as partisan as those who push their Islamophobia. I don’t seem to recall proposing any immigration restrictions on any particular religion. I wouldn’t suggest them because I believe in the separation of church and state. Also, I’ve known a few Muslims in my time, and they weren’t the ultraconservatives you fear them to be. Unfortunately, too many Christians in Conservative politics are much pushier, despite the principles of our government, the separation present from its founding.

Blaine-
If my comments are not based on facts, if the arguments are bad, you are free to rebut them with the real facts, free to analyze the failings of my arguments rather than bloviate about their low quality in the abstract, without supporting premises to justify your conclusion. If that’s all you got then I got little reason to say much more.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2017 1:47 PM
Comment #414014

Blaine,
It’s pretty clear you have no refutation for Stephen’s claims. This is why you write a seven sentence polemic slandering him instead of addressing the issues and concerns he has raised.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 1:53 PM
Comment #414015

We all wish that Stephen would tell us what he really feels about President Trump. Why is he so bashful?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2017 2:36 PM
Comment #414017

Royal Flush,

Why don’t you comment on what Stephen has actually written instead of baiting him with strawmen?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 2:51 PM
Comment #414019

AW…Warren is on his pity-pot today. He is so constipated with hate that he no longer recognizes humor.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2017 3:10 PM
Comment #414026

Stephen, when you or anyone else on the left quote fake news articles from liberal news outlets, how am I or anyone else supposed to refute your comments? It would be a never ending job of putting out liberal fires. This is exactly what the democrats and their faithful allies, the liberal fake news outlets, have done. The goal is to tie up the Trump administration and the Republican controlled congress with accusations and innuendos.

The democrats have accused Sessions of conspiring with the Russians to destroy the Hillary Clinton presidential run. This is fake news, it’s meant to disrupt the Trump presidency. You quote news outlets, and I have yet to see evidence of claims you or your side make. Obama said once in November and once in December that there was no evidence that the Russians hacked into or affected the outcome of the presidential election; but that doesn’t stop your side from accusations. When Obama said the Russians had not hacked the system, he was protecting his presidency.

Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 3:48 PM
Comment #414037

Blaine,

Much to your consternation, the mainstream press does not report “fake news”. They do their diligence and their homework to corroborate everything they report. Yes, this sometimes means using anonymous sources and it also means relying on leaks which are not properly authorized. But the truth is the truth, no matter its source.

how am I or anyone else supposed to refute your comments? It would be a never ending job of putting out liberal fires

Does Blaine need a tissue? 😢
Please spare us your whines and complaints for another day.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 5:47 PM
Comment #414040

Stephen,
1 - I’m not assuming anything like that, I am acknowledging the reality that it is 2017 and not “the sixties.” We have come a very long ways on the issue and it is very dishonest to pretend those injustices are the rule rather than the exception.

2 - It has been long-established now that marriage was between one man and one woman. Those court decisions and laws that codified those attitudes have been around for a very long time.
Now, same s*x marriage advocates are using the courts to change that definition of marriage and they are being resisted. That does not make them full of hate.
That is the price we pay for giving government such control. The ‘freedom I claim to support’ would have NEVER given government the power to control us in such a way.

3 - I stated 3 basic FACTS about our immigration problem:
We have an immigration process. Pretending that it doesn’t exist, does nothing about the problem.
It is illegal to ignore that process. Pretending that it isn’t, only encourages more such violations.
Very dangerous illegal aliens enter our country on a daily basis. Pretending that’s no big deal because you pity those who are not, doesn’t stop the crimes that would have otherwise been preventable. Tell me, why are you so willing to turn a blind eye to such crimes, but not to the crimes committed on women, that you mention?
That’s not xenophobia, that’s common sense.

4 - Nobody supports turning a blind eye to sexual harassment or assault.

5 - Don’t frigging assume that I have not met or known any muslims. In fact, I have know many many more than just a “few” American muslims. If you don’t think we need stricter immigration procedures for certain areas, you need to do some traveling.

Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2017 5:59 PM
Comment #414041

“Yes, this sometimes means using anonymous sources and it also means relying on leaks which are not properly authorized. But the truth is the truth, no matter its source.”

LOL…are you sure you meant what you wrote Warren? Anonymous sources and leaks are always true? If the “source” lies, is it the truth?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2017 6:05 PM
Comment #414042

No, he only meant it if the source is slamming a conservative, not a democrat.

Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 6:51 PM
Comment #414047
Anonymous sources and leaks are always true?
This is not an accurate summary of my comment. Posted by: Warren Porter at March 3, 2017 12:41 AM
Comment #414072

1) What you’re assuming is that the momentum and political force of the Civil Right movement has made it inevitable. What happened in North Carolina tells us this isn’t so. They specifically tailored their voting laws and policies to deliberately create the highest disadvantage for minority voters. Simple truth is, people and societies can backslide.

2) It’s not an abstract matter of law. These so-called “traditional marriage advocates” aren’t abstractly interested in the legal tradition. They’re typically people who believe that homosexuality is itself fundamentally wrong. The trick is, once homosexuality became perfectly legal, and not a sign of mental illness, the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of rights came into play. There aren’t and shouldn’t be religious restrictions on that, or restrictions based on a person’s own homosexuality.

It’s a pretense, and I gladly shove aside that pretense in favor of a more perfect fulfillment of the promise that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. Adults who can give consent should be able to marry one another. If that makes some people uncomfortable, tough. Some people’s religious and political attitudes make me uncomfortable, and I’ve conceded the need to let them be. So, if they don’t like a wedding with two brides or two grooms, they can just find whatever excuses they can not to attend.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 3, 2017 2:20 PM
Comment #414073

3) Our system is dysfunctional, in part, because business interests were allowed to run amok for the longest time, and enforcement was focused on the larger, more diffuse problem. The truth is, we have millions of people in communities across the nation, and if you think that’s going to be painless or without cost, then you’re kidding yourself.

My observation is that many times when a policy is tougher than the means to carry out that policy, more expensive than it is valuable, the policy will tend to grind to a halt and nominal victories will be declared as the problem returns to the status quo.

I really don’t want to replay that kind of farce, over and over again. Okay, so here’s the trick: we economically incentivize illegal immigration, both officially by raising fees for legal immigration high, and unofficially with employers deliberately seeking out undocumented immigrant labor. We’re fighting the pull of those economic. I’d say short-circuit that. Make it easier to immigrate the right way. Make it easy to come out of the shadows and make yourself known. Clear out the vast majority of your cases, and then focus on your problem as it stands right now.

You configure the system right, it will work for our territorial security, not against it.

4) Nobody but Trump, far too many “Men’s Rights” advocates, and far too many rape-joke making Republicans.

5) Houston, where I work, is a broadly diverse city. I see all kinds of different people. I believe in policing behavior more than I believe in policing stereotypes. People seem a lot easier to deal with than stereotypes. You can reason with them. I believe that if you let people into your society, some will be ungrateful louts, but most will come to see your society as theirs, and will protect it accordingly. You exclude people, inflict bitter humiliations, they’ll keep to themselves and won’t so easily or quickly assimilate. France and Germany have tried the isolation game for decades, and it’s gotten them these intense enclaves of nationals of foreign decent who are nowhere near as well integrated as our communities are. Ya’ll worry so much about people not assimilating, but the truth is, ties to the community, to the rest of society have a tendency to self-assemble, the way certain modern materials do. Folks are social by nature, and social pressures, over the generations, generally win out over remaining like one’s forebears.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 3, 2017 2:37 PM
Post a comment