Tag Archives: DNC

media news, national news, political news

Parties suffer/enjoy results of presidential election

Is it me or are the media missing one of the critical backstories of the 2016 presidential election?

It goes like this … I believe.

Right up until Election Day, the media were reporting the pending demise of the once-great Republican Party. The GOP, media types reported, was in need of an extreme makeover. Their presidential candidate was about to get creamed by Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Batten down the hatches! A storm was a brewin’ within the Republican Party ranks, they said.

Then a funny thing happened on Nov. 8. The GOP presidential nominee won. Donald J. Trump collected enough Electoral College votes to be elected president of the United States of America.

What the … ?

Now it’s the Democratic Party that’s in need of that makeover.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/07/what-went-wrong-dem-party-contestants-face-tough-questions/96284286/

The candidates for Democratic National Committee chair are facing searing, probing questions about how they intend to lead a party in near-panic.

Clinton lost the election. Democrats failed to win the U.S. Senate majority they anticipated getting; nor did they make any substantial gains in trimming the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

This remarkable turnaround occurred within a span of, oh, about seven or eight hours the night they were counting the ballots for president.

Polling now suggests that the next Democratic Party presidential nominee should be someone few of us have heard about … another candidate as unknown as, say, Jimmy Carter needs to take the stage.

It well might turn out that Republicans might regret lining up behind a candidate such as Trump, who seems to lack any fundamental core principles that guide him. He once was pro-choice on abortion; now he’s pro-life. He believes gay marriage is now the law of the land; many within the GOP believe quite differently. He thinks free trade is a scam; Republicans embrace free-trade policies. And, oh yes, we have some conflict-of-interest matters to slog through.

I’ll stop there. You get the point.

But, hey. The guy won! Elections have consequences, eh? Oh, brother, do they ever!

media news, national news, political news

There might be another Jimmy Carter out there

A recent poll commissioned by USA Today and Suffolk University delivered a dire warning for Democrats still stung by the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States.

The clear “frontrunner” for the 2020 presidential race is someone new. Anyone new. A fresh face.

A friend of mine wondered on social media who the Democrats could come up with. I didn’t answer him directly, but I’ll do so here: If we could come up with a name, it wouldn’t be a new face.

The political parties historically have fallen back to the tried and true practitioners of the politics. They tend to look for established figures.

Then again, we have one example of a new face rising up from out of nowhere. Jimmy Carter did that in 1976.

He was a former one-term governor of Georgia. He didn’t have a particularly noteworthy term as governor. Indeed, his views evolved over time. He had run for political office before as a segregationist. His term as governor featured a radical departure from his former view.

Carter would introduce himself at political parties by saying, “My name is Jimmy Carter and I’m running for president.” He strode to the podium at the 1976 Democratic National Convention and began his presidential nominating acceptance speech with that signature line.

Is there another Jimmy Carter out there? Hello?

Come out, come out … wherever you are.

political news

Ellison to quit House seat if he wins DNC chair

ellisonkeith_031516hj_lead

I won’t presume for one second, an instant, an eye-blink that U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison read my earlier blog post about his quest to become the next head of the Democratic National Committee.

I was critical of a sitting member of Congress seeking to lead a national party, thus jeopardizing his ability to do the job to which he was elected.

So, what does Ellison do? He pledges to quit his House seat if the party selects him as its next chairman.

He wants to be a full-time Democratic Party chairman, which is a good thing if you’re a Democratic partisan. The party is in trouble, having lost the White House to Donald J. Trump and failing to gain control of the Senate.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/12/democrats-should-reject-congressman-as-party-chair/

It turns out that many Democrats had the same concern. They didn’t want Ellison to split time between serving his Minnesota constituents and tending to fixing a party in deep trouble.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/309192-ellison-ill-resign-from-house-if-i-win-dnc-chair

So he’ll quit the House.

I won’t presume he read the blog. It’s fair, though, to ask whether he maybe, perhaps saw it … or heard about it.

political news

Democrats should reject congressman as party chair

ellison

Keith Ellison has a full-time job that pays him about $174,000 annually. He gets a nice office and a staff of professionals to help him tend to business. Ellison has a lot of other perks associated with his office.

Ellison is a member of Congress, representing a congressional district in Minnesota. The people he represents in Congress need him on the job full time.

Is he satisfied with that important post? Oh, no. He wants to run the Democratic National Committee. He wants to take another full-time job that, by my way of looking at it, removes from the job he was elected to do.

I don’t know much about Ellison, except that Democrats like trotting him out to speak on behalf of party policy … or to criticize Republicans, such as, oh, Donald J. Trump.

My concern about Ellison seeking the Democratic Party chairmanship doesn’t have nearly as much to do with that job as it does the job he already is doing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/keith-ellison-dnc-chair-howard-dean-232154

I believe the DNC needs to look to someone other than a full-time congressman to lead the party. Ellison’s constituents deserve to have their guy on the job full time, not part time while he expends energy trying to shore up the national party.

Congress already suffers from dismal public opinion ratings. Last time I looked at a national average of polls, Congress’s approval rating stood at around 15 percent. Ellison’s role as one of 435 members of the House of Representatives likely doesn’t factor into the body’s abysmal public approval rating.

It ought to matter, though, to the residents of his congressional district. They sent him to Washington to fight for their causes and concerns. They’re paying him pretty good money to do that job. He ought to answer only to his constituents — and leave the effort to rebuild the party to someone who’s got more time on his or her hands.

national news, political news

Voter math is the same, no matter how you spin it

avote

I’m having some fun rattling the cages of my friends on the right by reminding them that Hillary Rodham Clinton has a significant — and growing — lead in the popular vote over Donald J. Trump.

They, of course, remind me — correctly, of course — that Trump won the votes that actually elect the president, the Electoral College.

Now comes a new spin that is born out of an old one. They are reminding me that Trump won many more counties across the country, that Hillary’s votes were gathered in the large urban areas — such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York. They also seem to infer that because her votes are clustered in the larger metro areas that they somehow are less representative, or even less legitimate, than the vast expanse of territory that Trump was able to claim on Election Day.

Hold that thought!

Mitt Romney also won more counties than President Obama in 2012; but the president corralled 5 million more votes than his challenger. Sen. John McCain also won the vast majority of counties in 2008, but Sen. Obama piled up nearly 10 million more votes than McCain.

And yes, we heard much the same refrain from the losers in both those elections: Sure, Obama won, but Romney/McCain each carried more actual real estate than Barack Obama.

Sure thing, but human beings cast votes. More of them voted for Obama than they did for either of his presidential challengers.

I need no reminders that Trump’s victory was forged in Rural America. He turned out the rural vote precisely to counteract the large urban vote that Clinton was sure to get. It turns out that his rural vote outnumbered Clinton’s urban vote — in the states that mattered. I refer to those swing states that voted twice for President Obama.

However, I refuse to accept the notion that Clinton’s popular vote is somehow de-legitimized because of where her massive vote totals are being compiled.

“We are” — as the young state senator from Illinois reminded us during his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston — “the United States of America.” We aren’t divided into political parties, said state Sen. Barack Obama. We are one nation, undivided and united, he said.

So it is that our votes all count the same. Whether they are come from large cities or small farming communities, they all are tabulated together.

Thus, Hillary Clinton’s popular margin — sitting currently at 2.5 million — is the product of a targeted effort to boost turnout in strong Democratic bases within our cities, it remains irrefutably a national total.

Donald Trump has been elected president. I accept Americans’ electoral verdict. I don’t like it, but it’s what we’re going to get.

Accordingly, it would do the other side just as well to accept the notion that while Trump won where it counted the most, Hillary Clinton — and those who voted for her — still command a significant voice of opposition to the policies that the new president is about to drop on the nation’s lap.

national news, political news

Bad idea for congressman to lead a political party

ellison

Keith Ellison is getting a lot of buzz these days as the Democratic National Committee looks for a new party chairman.

He should back off the notion that he’s the best man for the job.

Here’s why.

Ellison is a congressman from Minnesota. He is employed by his constituents to do a full-time job on their behalf. He needs to answer mail from those who are concerned about, oh, Social Security checks, veterans benefits, federal aid of all stripes.

He earns a six-figure salary to do those kinds of things. Yes, he has a staff to deal with “constituent service.” Ellison, though, is the guy his district elected to his public office.

Running a major political party also is a full-time endeavor. It requires the chairman to devote his or her attention to the task at hand, which is ensuring victory for political candidates and to deliver whatever message the party wants delivered.

That job also pays handsomely and those who work in the trenches on behalf of the party deserve a full-time chairman.

Can a member of Congress do both jobs? Can he do them correctly and with all the dedication and energy they both demand?

Unless the congressman is gulping large quantities of Red Bull or espresso, I do not believe he can do either job the justice each of them deserves. Truth be told, I am more interested in whether he could serve his constituents fully than I am in whether he can lead his party.

What’s more, as a federal lawmaker, he makes decisions affecting the rest of us — regardless of our party affiliation.

The DNC has a lot of capable individuals from which it can choose to lead the party. I am sure Ellison has convinced himself he’s the man for the job.

He isn’t Superman.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/14/why_a_member_of_congress_shouldnt_lead_the_dnc_132344.html

national news, political news

And the world thought the GOP was in trouble

hillary

It’s only been a few days since Americans elected a new president.

Consider the distance traveled in just a short span of time. Prior to that election, the political world was wondering: How in the world is the Republican Party going to reshape itself?

Then they counted the ballots and we found out that Donald J. Trump, the Republican, had won the election. It wasn’t Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrat.

Now the tables are turned and it’s the Democratic Party that faces the question: How does it recover?

Let’s start with the obvious: The Democrats’ future does not rest with anyone with the last name of Clinton.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what%e2%80%99s-next-for-democrats-for-starters-a-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-party/ar-AAkd0Qv?li=BBnbcA1

Hillary Clinton had her chance. She was seen on the cusp of making history. Then it came apart, thanks in large measure to an FBI director who decided 11 days away from the election to raise more questions about an issue we all thought had been settled, that the feds didn’t have any grounds to prosecute Clinton over those “damn e-mails.”

She lost. The election is history. Trump is preparing to take the reins of government. The Republican Party had nominated someone with zero public service experience. Now he’s about to embark on the steepest climb in U.S. political history as he seeks to learn something about which he knows nothing: the art of governance.

Meanwhile, Democrats are left to ponder where they go from here.

Those of out us here in the peanut gallery — and that would include yours truly — have no clue at this moment how the party collects itself.

Does the party leadership reflect the changing demographic? Consider this from the Washington Post: “The Democratic establishment had their chance with this election,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “It’s time for new leadership of the Democratic Party — younger, more diverse and more ideological — that is hungry to do things differently, like leading a movement instead of dragging people to the polls.”

Leading a movement? Hmm. Interesting. Trump started calling his effort a “movement” as well. He won without the kind of “ground game” organization that Democrats boasted would carry Clinton across the finish line first.

They say that “elections have consequences.” Boy, howdy, do they ever! What looked like a sure thing for Democrats now has them — not Republicans — searching for answers.

national news, political news

Here is how you concede an election

2 Comments

Donald J. Trump gave a gracious victory speech Tuesday night when it became clear he would be elected as the 45th president of the United States.

The candidate he defeated, Hillary Rodham Clinton, took a few barbs for failing to speak last night to concede the election to Trump.

Then she stepped to the microphone this morning and delivered perhaps the best political speech of her life. It likely was the final political speech of her lengthy career, one that spans more than three decades.

At one level — possibly a vague one — her speech reminded me just a bit of the late Ted Kennedy’s “the dream shall never die” speech at the 1980 Democratic National Convention. Sen. Kennedy lost his party’s nomination fight to President Carter and then spoke to the convention, declaring that the “fight goes on” despite his defeat for the party nomination.

There was an element of that in Clinton’s speech today, although she also spoke to Trump becoming the president for all Americans.

It was a gracious and graceful exit from the national political stage and it speaks well — once again — of how American politicians can set aside their pain for the good of the nation they seek to lead.

 

national news, political news

E-mail controversy rivals Watergate? Hardly

2 Comments

widemodern_watergatecomplex_051513

Donald J. Trump is likely going to lose his bid to become the next president of the United States, so he is bound to say damn near anything.

Thus, the Republican nominee has declared that the Hillary Rodham Clinton e-mail controversy rivals Watergate as among the nation’s worst “political scandals.”

Umm. Let me think. No, it doesn’t even come close.

Let’s review.

Hillary Clinton used her personal e-mail server to communicate with staffers while she was secretary of state. The FBI director determined there was no credible evidence to prosecute her over suspicions that she might have let classified information fall into the wrong hands. Now comes an announcement — 11 days before an election — that he’s reopening the investigation.

What do we know about the new e-mails? Very little, other than they came from a top aide of Clinton and might include communications with her estranged husband, a former congressman who’s been disgraced because of a “sexting” escapade with underage girls. It’s disgusting in the extreme. Scandalous? Give me a break.

Now, about Watergate.

Some goons broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in June 1972. Investigators looked into it. Two newspaper sleuths at the Washington Post began snooping around. They discovered a White House connection.

Then they learned that President Nixon was involved. They found out he ordered the FBI to squash the investigation. Then came news about those infamous Oval Office tape recordings, which then revealed that the president used the power of his office to obstruct justice.

That, folks, is a serious constitutional crisis … not just a political scandal.

Nixon quit the presidency. Others went to prison. President Ford pardoned his predecessor.

I see no symmetry here. One does not match the other.

national news, political news

RNC boss seeks dictator status

1474224625553

I feel the need to revisit briefly an idiotic notion by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

He’s issued a warning to former GOP presidential candidates that they might “face consequences” if they seek the presidency in the future if they continue to refuse to back this year’s nominee, Donald J. Trump.

My question simply is this: Who in the hell does Priebus think he is?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/18/candidates-who-dont-back-trump-may-not-be-allowed-to-run-again-rnc-chairman-says.html

Priebus said potential future candidates such as, say, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz might find some insurmountable obstacles if they seek the party nomination in 2020.

Wait a second! Didn’t former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz face the scorn of her partisans for allegedly rigging the party nomination to favor Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Priebus now insists that the former GOP presidential candidates line up behind Trump … or else face the consequences.

That is a ridiculous and gratuitously ham-handed approach to pre-determining who the party’s next nominee ought to be.

The GOP presidential field signed a pledge to support whoever the party nominated for president. The pledge, though, isn’t legally binding. It’s not even politically binding, given that neither major party has a rule requiring blind loyalty.

Chairman Priebus is exhibiting delusions of grandeur if he thinks he can hand out “consequences” for future candidates who don’t abide by his wishes.