Mediaboss Marketing

5475076

Kellyanne Conway broke the law on live TV. Punish her. Do it now. No, I didnt say that and neither did anyone in the Trump administration in regards to White House Counsel Conways plaintive plea on behalf of Ivanka Trumps fashion line. Thats from Slate; and if you ever find a need to assess the state of psychic inertia and muddled ideology that plagues the Left, you need look no further than the equally muddled, dogs breakfast of a lay-out homepage that passes for an internet periodical.

Where was the Lefts solicitude for the sanctity of the law when favorite presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was recklessly using a private email server to send and receive classified documents. How did we not see liberals demanding punishment for the Benghazi debacle where we were talking about people actually dying and not catwalk politics.

And as for doing any thing now, Democrat apologists just couldnt get their ideological heads around the severity of Hillarys misdeeds as secretary of state and that these were not isolated and obtruded events but chronic and habitual to the core of Clintons political being.

In addition to the casual hypocrisy that usually characterizes left-wing politics, there is a new phenomenon haunting Democratic politics in the three weeks since Trumps inauguration. It is the specter of a desultory, rambling, uncertain political force that appears absolutely rudderless and bereft of leadership. This is probably a direct factor of the party lacking control of the presidency, House and Senate; but it is also a consequence of having personalities like Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi in minority leadership positions that are evidently far beyond their intellectual and emotional reach.

I knew there was something horribly wrong with Schumer on inauguration day when he chose to read the famous letter from Maj. Sullivan Ballou, a Union soldier from the Civil War who wrote an eloquent and poignant letter home to his wife, Sarah, just days before he died in the First Battle of Bull Run. The correspondence was popularized by the Ken Burns documentary that virtually rediscovered the War Between the States for an entire generation and anyone who has ever enjoyed the series, is aware of Ballous legacy.

Wonderful letter. But why would you read it immediately before a new president was about to be sworn into office? Is Schumer anticipating another civil war or could he not think of any other thoughts to offer that day? And the tears that he shed for refugees stranded at the airport was really beyond belief. Was he crying every time travelers had to wait 12 hours to get through security?

As for Pelosi she increasingly resembles a sleepwalker whom everybody is afraid to awaken, lest she hurt herself. Not only is she clearly way past her political prime, Pelosi has become the Norma Desmond of American politics, you almost expect her to announce that Im still big: its the politics that got small, in a rather bizarre approximation of the Billy Wilder line from Sunset Boulevard.

This political power vacuum has provided ample opportunities for the really unhinged fringe of the Dems to emerge in efflorescent moments of banality. Witness Elizabeth Warren this week on the Senate floor: was she having a coronary or just trying-out another political skit for a captive audience when she freaked out over the confirmation of new Attorney-General Jeff Sessions. Well, Sessions at least was used to her antics, having just left the Senate himself, so he didnt call for either the cops or a medic.

The Democrats dont seem to know what to do about the violent protest in streets or on the campuses as if there should be any cause for indecision. Should they condemn this anarchy, be mildly opposed to it or heartily endorse the nonexistent right to break the law and destroy property.

Hard choices.

But these are hard times for Democrats.

Follow David on Twitter

Read more from the original source:
Hard Times For Democrats - Daily Caller

We can argue about whether America has an immigration problem. But it seems pretty clear that Democrats have an immigration problem, one theyll have to fix if they want to oppose Trump effectively, much less regain control of the government.

Josh Barro, a senior editor at Business Insider, laid out at length exactly what that problem is. Briefly: The party has relied on opposing Trumps more outrageously exaggerated claims about the criminality and all-around character flaws of immigrants. Thats fine, as far as it goes but as November showed, it doesnt go far enough.

The core problem is that Democrats didnt really make an affirmative argument for an overhaul to U.S. immigration policy that might appeal to voters. Instead, they talked a lot about what great people immigrants are, and how much they benefit from migration. Unfortunately, the clearest group of beneficiaries people who want to migrate, but havent yet gotten a green card cant vote.

Its easy to explain how immigrants benefit from an open door. Explanations of how the rest of us benefit tend to rely on the trivial or on abstract economic arguments that most people dont find particularly intuitive or convincing. Those arguments look even more suspicious because they are generally made by the one group that visibly does benefit from a lot of low-skilled immigration, which provides the nannies, lawn care and food services that high-skilled professionals rely on to allow them to work longer hours.

There is one other group of people who strongly benefit, of course: recent migrants who have relatives they would like to join them. The most recent U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that thats perhaps 6 percent of eligible voters. More importantly, we have to account for the fact that naturalized citizens vote at significantly lower rates than the native-born.

Democrats may have large numbers of people polling vaguely in favor of high immigration levels, but relatively low levels of voter intensity for their position. You can see how these gaps work when you consider what happened on gun control in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre: nothing. Strong majorities polled in favor of tighter restrictions. This support was broad but shallow: When it came to the ballot box, most people were more likely to vote on other issues. Gun owners, on the other hand, were apt to make this one of their top issues and vote accordingly.

Immigration may have a similar asymmetry. Distrust of strangers is a universal human phenomenon, tapping into some pretty deep evolutionary instincts. Once those instincts are aroused, you need very powerful emotional arguments as to why its worth taking the risk.

Democrats seem to appreciate that this is a problem, but instead of solving it, they mostly speak in vague generalities and to avoid concrete questions: What percentage of our society should be foreign-born? How should we choose the people we allow to migrate? Instead of formulating a clear policy, they relied on institutional inertia and lax enforcement to swell the foreign-born population to nearly 15 percent of the country. And Republicans, whose donor class likes generous immigration rules, were happy to go along.

That was fine as long as those groups were in charge of the status quo. Once Trump took over, however, that became infeasible. Trump, and anti-immigration Republicans in Congress, are going to be pushing specific policies to step up enforcement against people who are here illegally, and otherwise curtail legal immigration.

Successfully opposing these moves will require more than saying He called Mexicans rapists! Democrats are going to have to put forward a specific vision of their own for how many people should be allowed into this country, and what kind. And they will need to back up that vision with emotionally salient arguments that convince American voters immigration is as good for them as it is for the newcomers to our shore.

Megan McArdle is a columnist for Bloomberg View.

Published Feb. 11, 2017, midnight in: Democrats, Donald Trump, enforcement, Immigration

See the original post here:
Megan McArdle: Democrats have own immigration problems - The Spokesman-Review

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

If the Democratic Party is truly interested in expanding their base, they need to change their rhetoric.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Dennis L. Wegner, Ottumwa, Letter to the Editor 6:20 p.m. CT Feb. 10, 2017

On Jan. 21, 2015, anti-abortion rights activists are connected with a red piece of cloth as they stage a "die-in" in front of the White House in Washington.(Photo: AP)

I agree with most ofthe analyses of the media, punditsand the Democratic leaders as to why the GOP won heavily in the November election. However, it's often overlookedthat by constantly emphasizingabortion rights, the Democratic Party scares off many people of faith. While many people of faithendorse the Democrats' social agenda, they are led to believethat Democrats thinkabortion is the only way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.Therefore,as a matter of conscience, such people who would otherwise vote Democratic organizeand vote for the GOP because they believe that the Democrats are "baby killers."

The Democratic anti-baby image is enhanced because they fail to talk about either closed or open adoption as an option. Many women opt for abortion because they fear having their baby adopted by abusive or unfit parents,not realizing that in open adoption,they would have the right to interview and vet prospective adoptive parents and arrange for visitations. Other pregnant women, who might consider adoption,choose abortion because they lack the money and otherresources to carry their babies to term.

If the Democratic Party is truly interested in expanding their base, they must announce loudly in their campaign rhetoricand party platformsthat theyare truly pro-choice. Pro-choice in thatif a woman decides to carry her baby to term, financial and other resources will be made available for her to do so. I am verydepressed becauseDemocratic Party leaders, to whom I have spoken, have been totally unresponsive to me on this "think outside the box"modification of the party platform.

Dennis L. Wegner, Ottumwa

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2kvoDnb

3:38

2:31

3:45

1:56

1:47

3:24

3:03

1:24

14:52

3:39

0) { %>

0) { %>

Continued here:
Democrats should think outside the box - DesMoinesRegister.com

The Hill (blog)

Massachusetts Democrats waging resistance to President Trump Fort Worth Star Telegram Beacon Hill is replete with images of Massachusetts' revolutionary past a past that is feeling much closer to Democrats waging their own resistance to Republican President Donald Trump. Since the election, state Democrats have passed through several ... Trump unfairly critiqued as Democrats' behavior goes unpunishedThe Hill (blog) Democrats have a focus and a strategy, but do Republicans?Washington Times all 53 news articles »

View original post here:
Massachusetts Democrats waging resistance to President Trump - Fort Worth Star Telegram

As some Illinois Democrats look to extend protections to immigrants in response to President Donald Trump, Gov. Bruce Rauner declined to take a position on the idea Friday.

Asked if he would support legislation to make it harder for federal authorities to access information about immigrants living in Illinois, Rauner didn't say yes or no, just that he is "very pro comprehensive immigration reform" and wants the state "to continue to be welcoming and diverse."

Legislation under consideration at the state Capitol would allow schools, medical facilities and places of worship to decline access to federal immigration authorities, and it would limit cooperation and communication between local police and immigration officials. The plans were introduced as part of a broader "sanctuary state" effort to extend statewide some protections like those in Chicago and Cook County, where local laws prohibit government workers and police officers from asking about residents' immigration status.

The legislation is sponsored by Democrats, and their party controls the General Assembly. Pressed to provide his position on the sanctuary state idea Friday, Rauner declined. "I've answered it," he said. "I've said what I'm going to say."

Previously, Rauner avoided directly discussing Chicago and other locations that have declared "sanctuary" status from immigration authorities in a meeting with the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, but he made it clear he opposed it in the absence of comprehensive immigration changes.

"Emotion is guiding too much of the conversation," he said then. "The system is not working, and we shouldn't try to deal with it on a piecemeal basis."

The question-and-answer session with reporters came a day after a federal appeals court declined to reinstate Trump's executive order barring travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S.

The travel ban, and the sanctuary state effort, could be tricky political issues for the Republican governor, who is looking ahead to a 2018 re-election campaign and some Democrats are have tried linking Rauner to Trump. Trump won the November election after saying he would crack down on illegal immigration.

Rauner was critical of Trump's travel ban, calling it "rash" and "overly broad" but has said the issue should be resolved by the courts.

"I hope that Congress and the federal government can come together and get comprehensive immigration reform," Rauner said Friday. "Our immigration system is broken, it's not working. And to deal with it piecemeal or small scale isn't the right way to do it. We should have comprehensive immigration reform."

Trump has threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary governments, including cities, and the Illinois proposal joins efforts in California and New York trying to resist Trump's immigration policies by granting new protections to immigrants.

That's led Mayor Rahm Emanuel's to repeatedly reassure the city's Latinos that Chicago should remain a sanctuary city, particularly young Dreamers who benefited from former President Barack Obama's executive actions that offered legal protection to about 742,000 people nationwide who were brought to the U.S. as children and stayed here illegally.

Emanuel drew attention to the issue again Friday when he hosted the mayors of three major Mexican cities at City Hall Mexico City Mayor Miguel ngel Mancera, Guadalajara Mayor Enrique Alfaro and Juarez City Mayor Hctor Armando Cabada Alvdrez. The event presented Emanuel an opportunity to try to boost his bona fides with the city's Latinos as his three Mexican counterparts each called the mayor "courageous" in standing up for immigrants.

Collectively, Emanuel noted, the four mayors represent 15 million constituents who need to be served regardless of current international relations.

"As the politics of our national governments become more choppy, those relationships of what we refer to as building bridges, not walls, are even more important than ever before," said Emanuel, who did not refer to Trump by name during the 30-minute news conference. "We can't wait, respectfully, for our national governments. We can't determine our futures based on how the wind is blowing at any one given time on national politics, which is why we're here to reassert our friendship and the depth of that friendship."

Emanuel repeatedly said he's had a friendship with Mancera that "pre-dates this moment in time in politics," and that the Mexico City mayor requested Friday's meeting which was focused on building business and cultural partnerships. Mancera has indicated he would like to run for president of Mexico in 2018, and he used Friday's news conference to voice his opposition to Trump's plan to build a wall along the Mexican border.

"We have a great amount of communication bridges that have been built between Mexico and the United States ... what the federal government would be doing is not building a wall, but rather destroying bridges that already exist," Mancera told reporters through a translator. "Today, we're making sure people who live here from Mexico and Mexico City understand that local governments are going to work together to make a difference, and that as long as understanding is not reached at the federal level, we can build very important agreements and understandings at the local level."

kgeiger@chicagotribune.com

bruthhart@chicagotribune.com

Visit link:
Rauner dodges on sanctuary state issue, Emanuel hosts Mexican mayors - Chicago Tribune