Tag: Martin O’Malley

Iowa Caucus Analysis: Winners, Losers, and Unbelievable Spin

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

ss-120102-iowa-01.660;660;7;70;0Alright. As Maureen McGovern sang, “There’s Got to Be a Morning After”.

Now that the dust has settled, what can we learn from the results of the First Event of the Primary Season, the Iowa Caucus, or, as it is called, the “Hawkeye Caucai”?

Edward J. Rollins is a former assistant to President Ronald Reagan, who managed Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign. He is presently a senior presidential fellow at Hofstra University and a member of the Political Consultants Hall of Fame. He is Senior Advisor for Teneo Strategy.

Rollins, a Fox News Contributor, has submitted the following op ed, analyzing the results of yesterday’s Iowa Caucus on the Republican Side of the Aisle…

It is always interesting to watch democracy in action and Iowa is ground zero.

Many political pundits and media analysts complain about the attention Iowa receives from candidates and the media because it goes first. But it also is a state filled with people who are willing to pay attention, to go to small events and forums (more than 1,500 have been held) and to show up at a caucus on a cold, often snowy night to participate in a ritual few states duplicate.

Millions of dollars are spent on TV commercials (over 60,000) and organization that Monday night produced a record turnout.

Iowa doesn’t always produce the eventual winners but it does eliminate the losers. With 17 Republican candidates starting this process, there are really only three or four real candidates now with voter support and sufficient monies to go on to the remaining contests.

With a record voter turnout in Iowa, the winner, Ted Cruz goes on with his extraordinary organization and conservative supporters with a big upset.

Marco Rubio, the best debater, came on strong and gained real momentum. He came very close to coming in second. Certainly he has to be viewed as a very serious candidate and the best bet to become the establishment candidate.

Trump is Trump and his special appeal to new voters and the angry anti-Washington element will go on, too, but with unpredictable results. He also paid a price for missing the last debate and fighting Fox News.

Ben Carson held his 10 percent base, but his candidacy is short lived and beyond Iowa has minimal support.

The biggest losers are Bush, Christie and Huckabee. Bush spent the most money and dropped like a rock.

Christie’s bluster, unlike Trump’s, didn’t sell. He has no money and no future in this race.

And Huckabee, who won this race eight years, and thought he could be a serious challenger against Romney in 2012, was a bottom dweller getting less than 2 percent of the vote. He raised no money and has no appeal and barely has enough money left to buy a bus ticket back to Arkansas. He quickly waved the flag of surrender and wisely quit the race.

One more may make the cut after Iowa, but this is the field now and it will be fascinating to watch.

Monday night’s win is a giant victory for Cruz and his team. He won in spite of a greater turnout than in years past and benefited from the dramatic increase in new voters. And now on to New Hampshire!

So, the Grand Old Party’s cup runneth over, They are seemingly blessed with 3 strong contenders for this Presidential Candidate Nomination.

The problem, as history has shown, is the fact that the Iowa Caucus is not exactly a bellweather by which to determine what will happen in November.

The other problem for the Republican Establishment, is the fact that they absolutely cannot stand the candidates that came in first and second.

Rubio, in the past, has proven to be a useful ally.

Things promise to be interesting in the months leading up to the convention.

Meanwhile, over at Propaganda Central for the Democrat Party and the Clinton Machine, otherwise known as the New York Times, Nate Cohn tried to declare the Queen of Mean, the winner of a VIRTUAL TIE.

Bernie Sanders is right: The Iowa Democratic caucuses were a “virtual tie,” especially after you consider that the results aren’t even actual vote tallies, but state delegate equivalents subject to all kinds of messy rounding rules and potential geographic biases.

The official tally, for now, is Hillary Clinton at 49.9 percent, and Mr. Sanders at 49.6 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday morning.

But in the end, a virtual tie in Iowa is an acceptable, if not ideal, result for Mrs. Clinton and an ominous one for Mr. Sanders. He failed to win a state tailor made to his strengths.

He fares best among white voters. The electorate was 91 percent white, per the entrance polls. He does well with less affluent voters. The caucus electorate was far less affluent than the national primary electorate in 2008. He’s heavily dependent on turnout from young voters, and he had months to build a robust field operation. As the primaries quickly unfold, he won’t have that luxury.

Iowa is not just a white state, but also a relatively liberal one — one of only a few of states where Barack Obama won white voters in the 2008 primary and in both general elections. It is also a caucus state, which tends to attract committed activists.

In the end, Mr. Sanders made good on all of those strengths. He excelled in college towns. He won an astonishing 84 percent of those aged 17 to 29 — even better than Mr. Obama in the 2008 caucus. He won voters making less than $50,000 a year, again outperforming Mr. Obama by a wide margin. He won “very liberal” voters comfortably, 58 to 39 percent.

But these strengths were neatly canceled by Mrs. Clinton’s strengths. She won older voters, more affluent voters, along with “somewhat liberal” and “moderate” Democrats.

This raises a straightforward challenge for Mr. Sanders. He has nearly no chance to do as well among nonwhite voters as Mr. Obama did in 2008. To win, Mr. Sanders will need to secure white voters by at least a modest margin and probably a large one. In the end, Mr. Sanders failed to score a clear win in a state where Mr. Obama easily defeated Mrs. Clinton among white voters.

Mr. Sanders’s strength wasn’t so great as to suggest that he’s positioned to improve upon national polls once the campaign heats up. National polls show him roughly tied with Mrs. Clinton among white voters, and it was the case here as well. It suggests that additional gains for Mr. Sanders in national polls will require him to do better than he did in Iowa, not that the close race in Iowa augurs a close one nationally.

Mr. Sanders will have another opportunity to gain momentum after the New Hampshire primary. He might not get as much credit for a victory there as he would have in Iowa, since New Hampshire borders his home state of Vermont. But it could nonetheless give him another opportunity to overcome his weaknesses among nonwhite voters.

As a general rule, though, momentum is overrated in primary politics. In 2008, for instance, momentum never really changed the contours of the race. Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa allowed him to make huge gains among black voters, but not much more — the sort of exception that would seem to prove the rule. Mr. Obama couldn’t even put Mrs. Clinton away after winning a string of states in early February.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment There’s an even longer list of candidates with fairly limited appeal, particularly Republicans like Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee, who failed to turn early-state victories into broader coalitions.

The polls this year offer additional reasons to doubt it. Mrs. Clinton holds more than 50 percent of the vote in national surveys; her share of the vote never declined in 2008. The polls say that her supporters are more likely to be firmly decided than Mr. Sanders’s voters.

Back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire by Mr. Sanders might have been enough to overcome that history. The no-decision in Iowa ensures we won’t find out.

Wow.

I haven’t seen a job of spinning like that since Rumpelstiltskin spun straw into gold. (look him up, kids.)

Mr. Cohn, as we say down here in Dixie,

That dog don’t hunt.

  1. While Sanders’ strength does rely with white voters ( which is funny, because you Democrats are supposed to cherish DIVERSITY, but, I digress…), his base of power lies in the New England States, home of his Millennial Minions and a bunch of those college towns, which you referred to.  And the last time I checked, New Hampshire is located in New England.
  2. Mrs. Clinton’s Voter Base have begun to distance themselves, en masse, from her. She carries more baggage than the image of the late Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear) and his buddy (Willem Dafoe), rolling through the airport, in the Biographical movie, “Auto Focus” …And, she’s just as sleazy.
  3. Momentum “never really changed the contours of the race in 2008”, because it was all on Obama’s side, from the get-go. When you have the ground troops of SEIU and their partner-in-crime, ACORN, going door-to-door for you around the nation, it provides you with an insurmountable lead in “the community”. Hillary does not have access to those ground troops.
  4. BIG QUESTION: What happens if Obama and the Democrat Elites decide that they don’t like what they are seeing, so Obama orders the DOJ to indict Hillary and Crazy Uncle Joe enters the Primaries to “save the day”?

Clinton, no matter what those “smarter than the rest of the country” in the Northeast Corridor may choose to believe, is neither trustworthy nor likable as the polls have shown, time and again. Her Political Accomplishments are all negative, bordering on the nonexistent.

Bill’s coattails can cover up only so much political stain (Ask Monica).

Somebody had better hide all of the sharp instruments at the New York Times. This could get ugly.

Get your popcorn ready.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

Little White Lies, Bald-Faced Lies, and Hillary: “I’m For Huge Campaign-Finance Reform”…Except in the Clinton Foundation

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

untitled (19)There is a very logical reason that the Main Stream Media, in cooperation with the Democrat Party, is scheduling the Democrat President Primary Candidate Debates late on Weekend Nights:

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Late last night, hidden in the abyss of Sunday Television Programming at 9:00 p.m. Center, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders, And Martin O’Malley (Who!), , took the stage in South Carolina for another Democrat Presidential Democrat Candidate Debate.

…which, once again, ended early.

Even politicians can blatantly lie for just so long, I suppose.

For example…

SANDERS: “We need someone with the guts to stand up the private insurance companies and all of their money, and the pharmaceutical industry. That’s what this debate should be about.” 

CLINTON: “Well, as someone who, as someone who has a little bit of experience standing up to the health-insurance industry, that spent — you know, many, many millions of dollars attacking me and probably will so again because of what I believe we can do, building on the Affordable Care Act — I think it’s important to point out that there are a lot of reasons we have the health-care system we have today. I know how much money influences the political decision-making. That’s why I’m for huge campaign-finance reform. However, we started a system that had private health insurance. And even during the Affordable Care Act debate, there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy-in to Medicare, and when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that. So, what I’m saying is really simple, this has been the fight of the Democratic Party for decades. We have the Affordable Care Act. Let’s make it work. Let’s take the models that states are doing. We now have driven costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years. Now we’ve got to get individual costs down. That’s what I’m planning to do.”

Liar, liar…pantsuit on fire!

On April 18, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that

The board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has decided to continue accepting donations from foreign governments, primarily from six countries, even though Hillary Clinton is running for president, a summary of the new policy to be released Thursday shows.

The rules would permit donations from Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the U.K.—countries that support or have supported Clinton Foundation programs on health, poverty and climate change, according to the summary.

That means other nations would be prohibited from making large donations to the foundation. But those governments would be allowed to participate in the Clinton Global Initiative, a subsidiary of the foundation where companies, nonprofit groups and government officials work on solutions to global problems.

Ministers from any government would be allowed to attend meetings and appear on panels at the group’s meetings and their governments would be allowed to pay attendance fees of $20,000.

The new policy, which was designed to address growing concern that the donations would present a conflict of interest for a Hillary Clinton presidency, all but ensures that Mrs. Clinton’s links to the charity will be a feature of the emerging presidential campaign.

Just how dishonest is Hillary Rodham Clinton? She wouldn’t lie about her own family would she?

…I mean, besides Bubba.

Is Michael Moore barred from all buffets in the Continental United States?

On April 23, 2015, I wrote a blog titled, “Foundationgate: There’s Little White Liars, Bold-Faced Lars, Statistical Liars, and Then, There’s the Clintons”.

Here is some pertinent information contained in that blog…

NYMag.com reports that

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.

And yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem. Nicholas Confessore described their operation as “a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” Indeed, as Ryan Lizzareported in 2012, Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative:

Regardless of Bill Clinton’s personal feelings about Obama, it didn’t take him long to see the advantages of an Obama Presidency. More than anyone, he pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.” For one thing, having his spouse in that position didn’t hurt his work at the Clinton Global Initiative. He invites foreign leaders to the initiative’s annual meeting, and her prominence in the Administration can be an asset in attracting foreign donors. “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,” the Clinton associate continued. “It worked out very well for him. That may be a very cynical way to look at it, but that’s a fact. A lot of the stuff he’s doing internationally is aided by his level of access.”

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration alsodemanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.

The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.

On Jan. 8, 1996, in a still-relevant commentary titled “Blizzard of Lies,” New York Times columnist William Safire described Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar. Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.

2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton’s cronies.

Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be “hell to pay” if the furious First Lady’s desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary’s lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.

3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man’s office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary’s lie with jail terms.

Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster’s White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years — in Hillary’s closet, in Web Hubbell’s basement before his felony conviction, in the President’s secretary’s personal files — before some were forced out last week.

Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell’s father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.

Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not “Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?” She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.

No wonder the President is fearful of holding a prime-time press conference. Having been separately deposed by the independent counsel at least twice, the President and First Lady would be well advised to retain separate defense counsel.

The late, great William Safire was a prophet.

The revelation contained in today’s blog should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

Lying comes as naturally to The Former First Lady as breathing in and out.

As I have written, from the time she was fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee to wiping her private e-mail server, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.

Machiavellian in political ambition and armed with a vocabulary that would make the legendary Gong Show Judge, Jaye P. Morgan, blush (look her up, kids), “the Hildebeast” has cut a wide swatch in her path to Political Power.

It should be obvious to Americans by now, that she believes that morality and ethics are for “the little people” (i.e., you and me).

We already have a congenital liar in the White House.

We certainly do not need another one.

Oh…and Ambassador Christopher Stevens remains unavailable for comment.

Until He Comes,

KJ
 

 

 

Send in the Clowns: The First 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Clown-CarPer gallup.com, Liberalism is America’s least popular political ideology, with only 23% of Americans admitting that they follow its tenets.

Last night’s First Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate of this election season demonstrated very clearly the reasons why.

While over 94 million Americans are absent from our workforce and our Enemies are gathering their armies in a prelude to Armageddon in the Middle East, with the destruction of God’s Chosen People, the nation of Israel, as the appetizer, and the nuclear annihilation of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave as the main course, a Far Left Confab, featuring a bunch of old white folks from the Northeast, proved that “diversity” is only a word to 2015’s Democratic Party and their Presidential Candidate Hopefuls.

Liberal cause de celebres, such as climate change, gun control, “Black Lives Matter”, “undocumented immigrants” (illegal aliens), and “helping the Middle Class” (straight into poverty) were embraced and repeated ad nauseum by all of the Geritol Gang, firmly entrenched in the shared ignorant bliss of the repetitious mantra of the Liberal Hive-Mind…as their chauffeurs waited for them outside of the venue in their stretch limousines.

To CNN’s credit, they presented the debate in a much better format than Fox News did. And, Anderson Cooper did not allow his previous affiliation with the Clinton Foundation impede his duties as a Moderator.

Of course, the fact that CNN panders to the Left in all of their programming helped the continuity of the broadcast tremendously.

The Democratic Party knows that they are presenting the weakest field of potential Presidential Candidates that America has seen in a very long time.

Inquistr.com summarized this three-ring circus…

The CNN Democratic Presidential Debate, hosted by Anderson Cooper, was held at the luxurious Wynn Las Vegas casino hotel yesterday evening. Topics such as fighting for working class families, gun control, and the economy were addressed by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, from Vermont; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee; former U.S. Senator, from Virginia, Jim Webb; and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley.

During his two minute debate introduction, Bernie Sanders did not mince words.

Sanders described an “unprecedented crisis” in America with a “campaign finance system that is corrupt and is undermining American democracy.” Sanders spoke with conviction and also took issue with Super PACs and the taxation of the top one percent earners. Sanders then cited a “moral responsibility” to take action on climate change and to make a concerted effort to make a move away from a fossil fuel-based economy.

Hillary Clinton’s opening two minutes began with a long-winded introduction. Anderson Cooper seemed to momentarily prod Clinton for something a little more substantive. Clinton then talked about job creation, infrastructure investment, sustainable energy, accepting the challenge posed by climate change to spur the U.S. economy, raising wages, and “finding ways so that companies share profits with the workers who help to make them.” Clinton also expressed a belief that the “wealthy pay too little and the middle class pays too much. ” Clinton further pledged to work toward paid family leave for Americans each year, bringing the U.S. in line with other countries. Clinton also discussed inequality in America.

When asked if she was a progressive or moderate, Hillary Clinton responded “I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”

Bernie Sanders then fielded a question asking about his “democratic socialist” leanings.

Sanders emphatically explained that “it is immoral and wrong that the top tenth of one percent in this country own as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.” Then Sanders spoke of living “in a rigged economy” and “that 57 percent of income is going to the top one percent.” Sanders spoke of Wall Street’s “greed and recklessness.”

“Save capitalism from itself,” Hillary Clinton stated. “So it doesn’t run amok.”

“Of course we have to support small- and medium-sized businesses,” Sanders agrees, “the backbone of our economy.”

Anderson Cooper asked Lincoln Chafee about his different political affiliations over the years. Chafee responded that on the issues, he is a “block of granite.” Chafee cited fiscal responsibility, environmental issues, woman’s choice rights, gay marriage, aversion to overseas “entanglements,” and helping the less fortunate as major issues he has sought change on. 

Martin O’Malley was questioned about his zero tolerance policies and the fact that some point to this causing civil unrest in Baltimore, the city where he was mayor. O’Malley responded that, at the time of the Baltimore riot, arrests in the city had fallen to a “32-year low.” He described a family being “firebombed” after calling the police about drug dealers on a Baltimore street corner.

“We saved lives and we gave our city a better future,” O’Malley stated with regard to Baltimore.

Anderson Cooper spoke of “100,000” arrests and the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union suing the city. O’Malley spoke of bringing “peace” to Baltimore.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton then spoke to gun control. Sanders summarized his position, explaining that if a gun shop owner sold a gun to someone legally, and then the person went and committed a criminal act, he feels that the gun shop should not be held liable. Sanders then noted that, if gun shop owners are selling guns illegally, then, “of course” they should be prosecuted.

Debate moderator Anderson Cooper then asked Hillary Clinton if she agrees with Bernie Sanders. Clinton responded “No.”

Sanders reiterated that he believed in “instant” background checks and mental health checks among other measures to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. O’Malley called for tougher gun controls.

O’Malley and Sanders traded jabs about what Sanders sees as a rural/urban U.S.-divide on gun control. Jim Webb stated that guns should be available for families to protect themselves. Lincoln Chafee described the “gun lobby” fear-mongering the U.S. Congress by stirring panic with talk of “they’re coming to take away your guns,” and attempting to find common ground with them.

Sanders referred to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as the “worst foreign policy” decision of all-time. Lincoln Chafee was then asked what he thinks of Hillary Clinton voting for the U.S. invasion, where he reiterated Sanders’ “worst foreign policy” remarks and that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Clinton spoke about how President Obama, knowing that Clinton had voted for Iraq, still appointed her Secretary of State.

“The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails,” Sanders said, sticking-up for Clinton on her ongoing e-mail scandal, as discussed by the Inquisitr, drawing applause from the debate audience.

“Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?” Bernie Sanders was asked. “Black lives matter,” Bernie Sanders answered. He responded that cases like Sandra Bland’s should never happen. O’Malley echoed Sanders’ thoughts, “we have a lot of work to do.”

“We cannot keep imprisoning” more people than any other country globally, Hillary Clinton stated.

Martin O’Malley spoke about reinstating Glass-Steagall legislation. Clinton and Sanders professed a belief that big banks need to be broken up.

“Fraud is a business model,” Sanders bellowed and cited his opposition to Wall Street deregulation.

“Quit foreclosing on homes, quit engaging in these these kinds of speculative behaviors,” Hillary Clinton stated were her words to Wall Street shortly before the 2008 financial meltdown.

“Break up these banks!” Sanders’ baritone echoed through the Las Vegas debate hall.

Free public college education, current student debt, the middle class paying for the TARP bailout, expanding social security and Medicare, undocumented immigrants, immigration reform, health care for children, differences with Republicans, the treatment of veterans, the Patriot Act and the NSA, Edward Snowden, war, woman’s rights, prescription drug costs, President Obama, political outsiders, and climate change were among many other topics in discussed in substantive debate.

“We are a nation of immigrants,” Martin O’Malley stated.

“The only way we really transform America and do the things that the middle class and working class desperately need is through a political revolution!” Bernie Sanders declared to applause from debate audience members.

Searches for “Bernie Sanders” more than doubled searches for “Hillary Clinton” during the democratic presidential debate.

The members of the Geritol Gang, that are the main players among the potential Democratic Presidential Candidates, are so weak, they make Pee Wee Herman look like Sylvester Stallone.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Leaders of the Democrats is so apparent, that an extra podium was standing by, before the debate, just in case Crazy Uncle Joe Biden, answered their desperate pleas, throwing his hat into the ring, in order to “save” the election for the doomed Democratic Liberals.

Which makes a certain kind of warped sense. Because as divorced from reality as the Far Left Democratic Party of today is, what’s one more clown to stuff in the Circus Clown Car?

Until He Comes,

KJ

O’Malley Hints at Democrat Corruption. “Beware the Ides of September?”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Bathroon-Server-600-LIAll the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages. – William Shakespeare

The New York Times reports that

Martin O’Malley had one clear chance to make waves within the Democratic National Committee, and he seized it, delivering a fiery speech Friday that condemned his party’s leadership for what he called a process “rigged” to help Hillary Rodham Clinton — namely, curtailing the number of presidential primary debates.Accusing party leaders of trying to keep Democratic ideas hidden as the Republican presidential candidates spew “racist hate” from their debate lecterns, Mr. O’Malley, the former Maryland governor and mayor of Baltimore, questioned the decision to hold “four debates and four debates only” before the first four states finish voting.

“This is totally unprecedented in our party’s history,” Mr. O’Malley said. “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before. Whose decree is it exactly? Where did it come from? To what end? For what purpose? What national or party interest does this decree serve? How does this help us tell the story of the last eight years of Democratic progress?”

While Mr. O’Malley never named the party’s chairwoman, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, his remarks about the debates were clearly aimed at her – and she sat looking grim throughout, barely clapping, and appeared angry when she shook his hand once he finished.

He did not name Mrs. Clinton in his speech, either, but Mr. O’Malley was asked afterward if he thought the debate schedule had been arranged for her benefit. “Yes, I think so. Don’t you?” he replied.

While Mr. O’Malley has been deeply critical of the party for weeks over the debate schedule, this was a frontal attack on the party’s leadership from its own stage. Without endorsements or many major donors, Mr. O’Malley has little to lose.

But he was giving voice to a complaint that a growing number of party committee members have been making privately. Those members, mindful that Mrs. Clinton’s standing in some polls has sagged lately, have been concerned about a process that could ultimately do the party a disservice.

But delivering such a raw speech startled Democrats at the party’s summer meeting, although it was met with cheers from the crowd.

Mr. O’Malley, a lifelong Democrat and onetime chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, seemed comfortable playing the insurgent as he took the stage.

He urged Democrats to draw a sharp contrast with the discourse among the Republican presidential candidates. “Silence and complacency in the face of hate is not an honorable option,” he said, alluding to Donald J. Trump’s divisive remarks about immigration and women. “We must stand before the American people and show them we have a better way.”

Mr. O’Malley pointed out that the New Hampshire debate, the only one to be held before that state’s primary, was set for a weekend in December, when many people will be distracted with Christmas shopping and family obligations. (“At home we would call that too cute by half,” he told reporters after his speech.)

First off, does O’Malley stand a snowball’s chance in you-know-where of winning the Democratic Nomination as the Party’s Presidential Candidate?

Of course not.

However, he does bring up some interesting points.

The America Democratic Party, who once and still triumphantly hails themselves as the “Party of Diversity”, have seen their line-up of potential Presidential Candidates reduced to an unknown in O’Malley and two, possibly three candidates, with a lengthy political and personal record of dubious accomplishments and personal peccadillos.

In other words, they’re a bunch of old white folks from the Northeast Corridor.

If you Libs believe that this is “diversity”, then I do not believe that you know what that word means.

O’Malley’s not-so-subtle accusation of Political corruption in the Nomination Process sounds familiar. Wasn’t it just last election that Grass-root Conservative Republicans were losing our minds over the way that a milk-toast Northeastern Moderate named Mitt Romney somehow gained the Republican Nomination as our Presidential Candidate?

Why yes, we were.

Political Corruption harkens back to the days of the Old Testament, when despotic rulers reigned with impunity…until someone even more nefarious than they were, stole their kingdom out from under them.

As regards this political intrigue regarding the Democratic Candidates for their party’s Presidential Candidate Nomination, it is beginning to line up along the lines of a Shakespearean Tragedy, with the presumed nominee, Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, playing the role of Julius Caesar.

At this point in the unfolding of the tragedy,  it appears that the “Roman Senators” are beginning to line up against her.

With O’Malley pointing out the behind-the-scenes machinations and “Crazy Uncle Joe” Biden receiving the blessings of Emperor Barack Hussein Obama to enter the race, if he so wishes, the gravitational pull of all of Hillary’s past transgressions, including her present E-mail Scandal, are beginning to seemingly align the stars against her.

 Has

Has the seemingly-Teflon reputation of the Clintons finally come to an end?

Will this Political Play end with Hillary being symbolically “stabbed” in the back by her former boss, the President of the United States?

…I sure hope so.

Et tu, Barack?

Until He Comes,

KJ