Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Sunday, April 21, 2017
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Dick Morris: Bye Bye Biden
Former US Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the First State Democratic Dinner in Dover, Delaware, on March 16, 2019. (Saul Loeb / Getty Images)
Joe Biden has the misfortune to be vanilla in the Baskin Robbins/Democratic Primary field, facing almost 20 specialty flavors. Vanilla always begins with a sizable market share because of its familiarity, but its edge usually fades as ice cream lovers indulge their more exotic tastes.
Biden might be liberal enough, but if you want a real leftist, there’s socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Want a populist edge to your ideology? There’s Elizabeth Warren.
Determined to strike a blow against sexism? There’s Kirsten Gillibrand.
A black candidate? There’s Cory Booker. A black woman? Try Kamala Harris. A Latino? There’s Julián Castro. For the LGBT crowd? Pete Buttigieg.
TRENDING: Former DOJ Attorney Predicts Democrats Will Leak Classified Information from Mueller Report
An ingenue? Check out Beto O’Rourke.
There’s something for everyone in the current Democratic field. Sure we all like vanilla, but wait till we meet those other flavors!
Biden seems to have decided to run saying he will continueObama’s programs — Barack’s third term. But for an insurgent, who has to run on change, basing his candidacy on the remembrance of things past is a bad idea. Nostalgia won’t get you the nomination. Not with the current leftist, restless, angry, dissatisfied young Democratic electorate.
Hillary Clinton tried to run as Obama’s third term and the fell between a rock and a hard place. She wasn’t up to proving herself Obama’s equal — or sequel — and she needed to embrace change to outdistance Sanders in the primaries.
Besides, Obama never succeeded in running on his actual record of achievements. So why should Biden?
Does he want to run on Obama’s economic record? A stat sheet that alternated between mediocre and disaster for eight years. And how to explain how the economy snapped out of its doldrums even as Donald Trump took his hand off the inaugural Bible?
Or on health care? Very possibly, Obamacare is about to be thrown out by the courts and it has attracted only 11 million signups, despite heavy federal subsidies. That leaves 181 million who have chosen to stay with their employer-based private health insurance, 56 million on Medicare, 63 million on Medicaid, 51 million with direct purchase private insurance and 5 million covered through the military. Obamacare, a drop in the bucket, remains undersubscribed because it is such a bad deal.
Or on his foreign policy? As we watch Trump’s reimposition of economic sanctions bring Iran to its knees and erode the basis of Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuelan dictatorship, we see Trump win where Obama lost.
Or trade? Trump’s tough negotiating stance wins concessions from Europe, Mexico, and, increasingly, China that Obama could only dream about.
Immigration? Obama’s policy was, effectively après nous le déluge as Central America tries to move, en masse, to the U.S.
Biden is the pace horse early in the race. Running comfortably in first — or is it second to Sanders? But not moving so fast as to exhaust the rest of the field as they wait for the final laps to turn it on.
While the allegations of hugging, touching and everything else women have leveled against him have not knocked him out of contention, they did lower his “very favorable” rating from 45 percent to 35 percent, a drop that illustrates his vulnerability.
I doubt that Biden will even make it to the final duo that will square off once the field clarifies.
Harris and O’Rourke enjoy a huge advantage because of the addition of their native California and Texas to the list of early primaries. In these huge states, Harris’ and Beto’s pre-existing bases of support should provide them with lopsided margins early in the process. The mountain of money needed to compete in those two key states is too tall for outside candidates to scale it so early in the process, before victories in the early primaries can add to their momentum.
The odds are that Sanders will make it to the top two. He has been very successful in retaining his base of support and is distinctly ahead of the rest of the crowded field.
Sanders is what he is and everybody knows it. An unabashed socialist, he runs to the left of everybody. Those who support him know what he stands for and like it. There are no surprises in store for them. And nobody is about to flank Sanders on the left. So his runoff berth is all but assured.
They say Sanders lacks charisma. But he can easily sell himself as Uncle Bernie, whose kindly visage makes it easier to morph our country into socialism. No Lenin or Trotsky is he.
Sanders’ runoff opponent could be either Harris, O’Rourke, Warren, or, perhaps Booker. The new phenom, Buttigieg, won’t make the final cut. Supported and promoted by a sycophantic media, he will fade. It does take some qualifications to be president. It’s a tough job. Two terms as mayor of a small town of 100,000 people won’t cut it.
We don’t know who will battle with Bernie in the final round, but bye bye Biden.
Why did Mueller wait to answer collusion question, Bush AG Michael Mukasey asks
By Liam Quinn
Ari Fleischer: Important for Americans to hear from Robert Mueller
We know what Special Counsel Robert Mueller knew when it comes to the question of Trump-Russia collusion, but the great unknown is when he knew it -- and why he kept his knowledge secret.
That’s according to Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge, and President George W. Bush’s attorney general.
Speaking to Fox News host Bill Hemmer on the latest episode of the “Hemmer Time” podcast, Mukasey asked why Mueller did not reveal the most important piece of information he uncovered until submitting his report to Attorney General William Barr.
“When did Bob Mueller know, or when did the people who worked with him know, that there was no coordination, which is what they were looking for?” the ex-AG said to Hemmer.
“When did they realize that and whenever they realized that shouldn't they have told the rest of us?”
After two years of suspense, Mueller’s report was released Thursday showing investigators did not find evidence of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia – as Attorney General Bill Barr declared last month – but revealing an array of controversial actions by the president that were examined as part of the investigation’s obstruction inquiry.
Hemmer asked Mukasey if he felt Mueller coming forward with that information would’ve been beneficial, and if he should have pre-empted the official announcement to do so.
“I don’t know about preempted the announcement but certainly should have told us about it beforehand. It would have taken the speculation the edge and the speculation off,” he said, Mukasey said, before critiquing the media’s coverage of the investigation.
“You remember the exercise that was engaged in… The number of television broadcasts that would have involved people sitting around conference tables inhaling their own and other people's exhaust and getting high on it?
TRUMP DECLARES VICTORY AS MUELLER REPORT DROPS: 'NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION'
“People talking about this indictment having this significance or that indictment signaling that the walls were closing in on the White House may have. If that was not true and known to be not true at the time then somebody should have said something.”
During the rest of the podcast, which can be downloaded here, the former attorney general continued to discuss Russian meddling, stating it is a long-established goal for the country.
“Look, the Russians have been messing with the West generally and with the United States specifically since the Communist Revolution,” Mukasey told Hemmer.
This is of a piece with that. It's more advanced obviously, they didn't have the internet in 1917, and they're going to have it in the next election. That’s not to minimize the seriousness of it in the sense that it's something we ought to combat.
“But let's have a sense of proportion here. It's of a piece with what's gone on before. It's not something brand new nor was it something that appears to have been particularly effective.”
Listen to the full interview on the latest episode of "Hemmer Time" here, and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes.
Liam Quinn is a Senior Editor at Fox News. He can be found on Twitter at @liampatquinn
Noam Chomsky Calls Dem Focus on Russia a ‘Huge Gift’ to Trump: ‘They May Have Handed Him the Next Election’
By Joe DePaolo
Noam Chomsky, the noted progressive scholar, believes Democrats have focused far too much on Russia. And he thinks it might earn them four more years of President Donald Trump.
Speaking at a forum in Boston with Amy Goodman, Chomsky stated his view that he always believed there was going to be little to no proof of collusion in the Mueller Report.
“[T]he Democrats are helping him,” Chomsky said. “They are. Take the focus on Russia-gate. What’s that all about? I mean, it was pretty obvious at the beginning that you’re not going to find anything very serious about Russian interference in elections.”
He added, “As far as Trump collusion with the Russians, that was never going to amount to anything more than minor corruption, maybe building a Trump hotel in Red Square or something like that, but nothing of any significance.”
Chomsky went on to say that he believes focusing too heavily on Russia may cost Democrats dearly next November.
“The Democrats invested everything in this issue,” Chomsky said. “Well, turned out there was nothing much there. They gave Trump a huge gift. In fact, they may have handed him the next election. … That’s a matter of being so unwilling to deal with fundamental issues, that they’re looking for something on the side that will somehow give political success.”
The Mueller Report becomes a tar baby for the Democrats
By Monica Showalter
Now that the Mueller Report is out, Democrats are in a quandary.
Unable to admit they were utterly wrong about sleazy Democratic operative Robbie Mook's original Trump-colluded-with-the-Russians-to-steal-the-election-from-Hillary-Clinton narrative, they're now scanning every nook and cranny of the Mueller report to find something useful to use to impeach the president. A very good analysis from the San Francisco Chronicle's John Wildermuth and Tal Kopan points to how problematic that is, given that the report had far fewer redactions to holler about than they'd hoped:
Democrats have spent weeks demanding access to the full, unredacted Mueller report, anticipating that Attorney General William Barr would heavily censor it. The focus on redactions served as a way of deflecting questions about impeachment.
But what Barr released was largely understandable and minimally redacted, with plenty of details Democrats could seize on to impugn Trump. Now the pressure is on Democrats to decide whether to consider impeachment, something that would please progressives but take attention away from practically anything else the party would like to focus on heading into the 2020 election cycle.
Few redactions means less to speculate about. Yet the Democrats can't stop themselves from focus on impeachment, and the Mueller Report means they have very little fuel for their bonfire. So they are left yelling about nothing and can't stop themselves.
It really is a bad situation for them, a tar baby, as the term goes, a problem situation that is only aggravated by additional involvement in it. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and House speaker Nancy Pelosi are taking their fire to Attorney General Bill Barr as their means of keeping the fires burning.
Meanwhile, the far-left crazytown vanguard among the Democrats (Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the toilet-mouthed Rashida Tlaib) are barreling right ahead with an impeachment resolution, something they got themselves elected on.
Here's the problem: the impeachment thing has always been a non-starter with the broad base of American voters. As Wildermuth and Kapor observe:
No one's going to be swayed: Because the report does not contain a smoking gun, it is unlikely to change many voters' opinion of Trump. In fact, polls suggest that people's views of the president already are baked in and there is little in the Mueller report — or the news in general — that will change people's minds.
Yet as this goes on, Democrats are digging in deeper on impeachment as their signature cause now, minus any ammunition from the Mueller report, plunging their fists into what's in reality a tar baby, all because they can't help themselves.
That's what voters are going to know them for, since it will be their only accomplishment in this term.
Sound like a winner? They think it is. They're about to learn of their own stupidity with that tar baby, the hard way. And Republicans will helpfully serve as their savvier Br'er Rabbit.
Now that the Mueller Report is out, Democrats are in a quandary.
Unable to admit they were utterly wrong about sleazy Democratic operative Robbie Mook's original Trump-colluded-with-the-Russians-to-steal-the-election-from-Hillary-Clinton narrative, they're now scanning every nook and cranny of the Mueller report to find something useful to use to impeach the president. A very good analysis from the San Francisco Chronicle's John Wildermuth and Tal Kopan points to how problematic that is, given that the report had far fewer redactions to holler about than they'd hoped:
Democrats have spent weeks demanding access to the full, unredacted Mueller report, anticipating that Attorney General William Barr would heavily censor it. The focus on redactions served as a way of deflecting questions about impeachment.
But what Barr released was largely understandable and minimally redacted, with plenty of details Democrats could seize on to impugn Trump. Now the pressure is on Democrats to decide whether to consider impeachment, something that would please progressives but take attention away from practically anything else the party would like to focus on heading into the 2020 election cycle.
Few redactions means less to speculate about. Yet the Democrats can't stop themselves from focus on impeachment, and the Mueller Report means they have very little fuel for their bonfire. So they are left yelling about nothing and can't stop themselves.
It really is a bad situation for them, a tar baby, as the term goes, a problem situation that is only aggravated by additional involvement in it. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and House speaker Nancy Pelosi are taking their fire to Attorney General Bill Barr as their means of keeping the fires burning.
Meanwhile, the far-left crazytown vanguard among the Democrats (Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the toilet-mouthed Rashida Tlaib) are barreling right ahead with an impeachment resolution, something they got themselves elected on.
Here's the problem: the impeachment thing has always been a non-starter with the broad base of American voters. As Wildermuth and Kapor observe:
No one's going to be swayed: Because the report does not contain a smoking gun, it is unlikely to change many voters' opinion of Trump. In fact, polls suggest that people's views of the president already are baked in and there is little in the Mueller report — or the news in general — that will change people's minds.
Yet as this goes on, Democrats are digging in deeper on impeachment as their signature cause now, minus any ammunition from the Mueller report, plunging their fists into what's in reality a tar baby, all because they can't help themselves.
That's what voters are going to know them for, since it will be their only accomplishment in this term.
Sound like a winner? They think it is. They're about to learn of their own stupidity with that tar baby, the hard way. And Republicans will helpfully serve as their savvier Br'er Rabbit.
It's time for Schiff to put or shut up
The Mueller Report, redactions and all, is out. The conclusion is no collusion or something like that.
Nevertheless, there is a still a man out there who claims that collusion did happen. His name is Representative Adam Schiff or "The Media's Pin-Up Doll," as Julie Kidd calls him:
An original architect of the Trump-Russia collusion fable since the summer of 2016, Schiff shamelessly continues to lie to the American public with claims that the president and his team conspired with the Kremlin to win the presidential election.
He is the Jussie Smollett of the collusion hoax, insisting a crime really occurred even when every piece of evidence not only refutes that it ever happened but shows he was one of the original perpetrators.
It's time for Schiff to tell us what he knows.
How many times has Schiff assured us that he knows or has information about this or that?
The time is up. We must demand transparency and force Schiff to do a press conference and present the evidence that Mueller missed in his report.
Schiff has also said President Trump is guilty of campaign finance violations. Like which one, Congressman Schiff?
If he won't come clean, then the serious media should stop giving him a platform for more conspiracy theories.
The Mueller Report, redactions and all, is out. The conclusion is no collusion or something like that.
Nevertheless, there is a still a man out there who claims that collusion did happen. His name is Representative Adam Schiff or "The Media's Pin-Up Doll," as Julie Kidd calls him:
An original architect of the Trump-Russia collusion fable since the summer of 2016, Schiff shamelessly continues to lie to the American public with claims that the president and his team conspired with the Kremlin to win the presidential election.
He is the Jussie Smollett of the collusion hoax, insisting a crime really occurred even when every piece of evidence not only refutes that it ever happened but shows he was one of the original perpetrators.
It's time for Schiff to tell us what he knows.
How many times has Schiff assured us that he knows or has information about this or that?
The time is up. We must demand transparency and force Schiff to do a press conference and present the evidence that Mueller missed in his report.
Schiff has also said President Trump is guilty of campaign finance violations. Like which one, Congressman Schiff?
If he won't come clean, then the serious media should stop giving him a platform for more conspiracy theories.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2019/04/www_20.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment