Mediaboss Marketing

Rich Lowry Police Advice Stirs Up Panel of Democrats
Meet the Press, November 30 2014.

By: National Review

See the rest here:
Rich Lowry Police Advice Stirs Up Panel of Democrats - Video

Update: The original version of this post misstated the number of times Democrats have won Floridas electoral votes. Democrats have won the state in three of the last six presidential elections, not four.

In 1960, when Richard Nixon carried Floridas 10 electoral votes, an unknown Republican gubernatorial candidate named George Petersen won just over 40 percent of the vote against Democrat Farris Bryant.

Democrats who controlled the state legislature were worried that holding their gubernatorial elections in presidential years, when more Republican voters showed up at the polls, threatened their solid grip on state politics.

So a group of rural segregationist Democrats called a special statewide election to change the year in which Florida elected its governors. Voters approved the change, shifting gubernatorial elections to midterm years, rather than presidential years.

Fast forward half a century, and the political calculus has changed: Now its Democratic voters who are more likely to turn up in a presidential year. Democrats have won Floridas electoral votes in three of the last six presidential elections, but they find themselves in the midst of an historic gubernatorial losing streak.

Republicans have won five straight elections; Lawton Chiles was the last Democrat to win the governorship, in 1994.

Now, Democrats want to return to the old system. Party strategists are planning to collect signatures for a ballot initiative in 2016 that would shift governors races back to presidential election years.

Our state leaders should be elected by the greatest number of people, Ben Pollara, a Democratic strategist involved in the effort told the Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times, which first reported the campaign. How can you argue that having fewer people participate in the political process is good for the state?

Kevin Cate, the longtime Florida Democratic strategist, initially floated the idea of moving the election in an op-ed published a few weeks after Gov. Rick Scott (R) beat his candidate, Charlie Crist (D), in November.

Turnout in midterm elections routinely clocks in more than 10 points lower than presidential elections. Since 1996, presidential election turnout has topped 60 percent every year, while midterm turnout has hovered between 47 percent and 55 percent. Minorities and younger voters, two key pillars of the modern Democratic coalition, are far less likely to show up in midterm years.

Original post:
GovBeat: Florida Democrats want to change an election law they created to help them win again

WASHINGTON Colorados three Democrats in the U.S. House today asked the administration to spare from deportation a Mexican-born man who has sought sanctuary at the First Unitarian Society of Denver.

Arturo Hernandez Garcia has been living in the U.S. illegally for years, but his family situation, coupled with President Barack Obamas recent executive order on immigration, prompted the lawmakers to seek a stay of removal on his behalf.

The presidents announcement included a number of changes, including the creation of a Deferred Action for Parents (DAP) program to allow parents of U.S. citizens to apply for deferred action, wrote Democratic U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette, Ed Perlmutter and Jared Polis of Colorado.

Given Hernandez Garcia is the parent of a U.S. citizen and it will take some time to promulgate final regulations on who will be eligible for the program and application requirements, we believe a stay of removal is warranted in this case.

The letter was addressed to John Longshore, the field office director for enforcement and removal operations at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Centennial, Colo.

A message left on his voicemail was not immediately returned.

Read the original here:
Democrats want amnesty for man seeking sanctuary in church

President Obama issued a veto threat last week against a corporate tax-cutting orgy that promised the world to many powerful interests but did little for the middle class and nothing for low-income Americans. The presidents move was singularly useful. It should be a sign of things to come.

The widespread pessimism about the next two years in Washington is premised on the view that divided government can work only if both sides are reasonable and engage in amiable bargaining. Obviously, given how profoundly conservative Republicans have become and how deeply many of them loathe Obama, thats not about to happen.

But the coming period could be useful in an entirely different way. There will be a new clarity in the nations political argument. No longer will issues be muddled by a divided Congress in which a Republican House could block a Democratic Senates initiatives, and vice versa. Now, it will be a Republican Congress vs. a Democratic president. Voters will have a much easier time seeing who stands for what.

Moreover, the president still has a great deal of power. There is the negative power to veto bills, and he needs only one-third of the membership of one house to sustain him. In this configuration, Democrats in the House, far weaker in theory than Democrats in the Senate, become more powerful, given their cohesiveness. If Obama and House Democrats find ways of sticking together, they can prevent the next two years from becoming a festival of reaction.

Something like this happened on the corporate tax deal that was being cooked up between House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The agreement that was in the works would have made a variety of corporate tax breaks permanent while extending others, at an estimated 10-year cost of around $400 billion. Missing from the agreement was any permanence to improvements passed in 2009 to two tax provisions valued by progressives, the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit. Its also strange that some who claim to care passionately about deficit reduction abandon their inhibitions when corporate tax breaks are on the table.

The emerging accord had already provoked a Democratic revolt led by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass). Some of these congressional foes of the package told the White House that a veto threat would make it easier to rally opposition to it. The administration was reluctant to issue one unless it knew its veto could be sustained, but ultimately resolved the chicken-and-egg dilemma by going ahead with the warning. This appears, for now, to have headed off the great tax giveaway.

But if Obama and progressives can cooperate to keep the worst from happening, they and particularly the president can also get things done. Obamas executive actions on immigration squarely challenge congressional Republicans to put up or shut up on their claims that they actually want reform.

Obama could act in other areas as well and in the process send a signal that he wants to do something about stagnating wages. One example: Labor Department regulations could restore overtime pay to most salaried workers by adjusting current limits to account for inflation. This would curb a common practice of reclassifying employees as managers to get out of wage-and-hour rules. Would Congress want to block a pay raise for people who work 60 hours a week?

The Obama administration moved on another front last week to curb ozone emissions linked to asthma and heart disease. Republicans said they would try to block the new anti-pollution regulations. Okay, lets fight it out. Again, conservatives will have to explain why they want to reverse an initiative rather than obstruct action altogether and then blame Obama for being ineffectual.

Yes, such steps will call forth enraged rhetoric about the imperial president. But guess what? Starting in the Reagan era, when Democrats controlled Congress, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups put out studies and books attacking the imperial Congress because they didnt like any interference with a president from their own side. It seems that altered political circumstances can lead to neck-snapping changes in convictions that are allegedly rooted in constitutional principle.

See more here:
Dionne: How Obama and the Democrats can save their agenda

ARTICLE LINK: Democrats Warning: Obama could go to Prison
ARTICLE: Democrats Warning: Obama could go to Prison CREDIT: Dave Hodges LINK: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/11/25/democrats-warning-obama-could-go-...

By: Pinksapphiret2

Here is the original post:
ARTICLE LINK: Democrats Warning: Obama could go to Prison - Video