HILLARY BLAMES LOSS ON LOW DEAD VOTER TURNOUT!
 |
| Tom Hanks Breaks from Hollywood Pack and Says He Hopes Trump Does Well
BY STEPHEN KRUISER
Forrest Gump goes for trump!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Obama spoke at a press conference today in Germany and continued to offer advice to Trump. He also extended self-congratulatory praise for his own presidency. He lost no time in noting how popular he was and how serious he approached his job : when he wasn't playing golf etc. He obviously was sending a message to Trump that he must get serious.
When Obama was asked about the "serious" rioters protesting the unserious Trump, our president had little to offer about them stopping.
|
One response went on so long he actually forgot what the question was.
By the time he finished responding, the listener had to be shaking his head and asking what did he say. Obama drowns his audience with words and pauses.
Merkel might well lose her upcoming election and she can blame her association with Obama if that happens.
+++
Chuck Schumer is a deal maker type politician and , unlike Reid, will be willing to negotiate with Trump. Whether the socialists, who have captured his party, are willing to do so remains the big question.
Schumer was wise to elevate West Virginia Sen. Manchin to prevent him from jumping ship for the time being.
It is a good thing Pence is probably the one, along with Ryan, who will be directly negotiating with Pelosi on the other side of the aisle because I doubt Trump is as willing and/or patient when it comes to suffering fools.
Obama completely ignored Congress, never took the time to build relationships and really did not need to because Harry Reid, accommodatingly, shut the Senate down leaving Obama with his pen and phone. (See 1and 1a below.)
===
Just a few personal thoughts.
During the campaign Trump made some comments and used some expressions that he needed to walk back and in some instances he did just that. On the other hand, there were things that he said which the mass media purposely magnified and/or took out of context so they could paint him in a negative manner/corner on behalf of their favored candidate - Hillary.
Now that Donald won, bested his adversaries and left the Democrats licking their wounds some in the mass media continue to use their extreme interpretations as the basis for further criticism. Since Trump has had few announcements to make the mass media are struggling to find something to report so they have questioned the pace of appointments and suggest Trump's transition effort is falling apart etc.
Objectively, Trump ran a campaign with a lean staff and certainly that is the case compared to Hillary's legions. At the end of the campaign, Trump needed them in the field instead of working on the transition so I understand he and his team might be a bit behind. Second, Trump has absolutely no experience in what he now is confronted by so that too can add to delay and uncertainty.
That said, appointments will be made, the enormous task of staffing will be accomplished and Trump will move forward despite the carping of the likes of the biased. Also, in time, Trump will sort out an appropriate relationship with the mass media who, up to a point, if only for national security, need to be in touch.
We have been involved in five weddings and lived through the experience and the kids are still married. We have advised from the sidelines on two weddings of grandchildren. I am not equating our experiences with staffing The White House but neither did we have the myriad of assistance.
I am sure when Trump is inaugurated the new president will be up to the task and the mass media will never willingly give Trump the benefit of doubt no matter what he does because Chris Matthew's leg tingles are just not somethings creeps feel for Republicans.
+++
I was sorry to see Allen West lost his fight to hold onto his House Seat several years ago but I believe it most appropriate that Brian Mass, a veteran who lost both legs, is his successor. Brian's story stands in sharp contrast to the cry baby students who are an embarrassment to their generation and to our nation.
+++
The ADL backs away from Bannon accusations. ( See 2 below.)
===
Below is the Washington Post exit poll broken down by gender, race, age, income, education, religion, party, military, etc. The data can show if your vote matches your socio/economic status.
+++
Personally, I would love for Keith Ellison to head the DNC. Why should the DNC keep hiding their true feelings. After all Obama told us he would have the most open Administration ever. Why should not a Socialist Party be headed by a radical Muslim? (See 3 below.)
+++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) The New Trump Democrats
Trump voters have become journalism’s biggest archaeological excavation site.
By Daniel Henninger
Will the donkey lie down with the elephant?
Two days after the election, Sen. Elizabeth Warren told the AFL-CIO executive council, “I will work with” Donald Trump.
Bernie Sanders: “I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.”
The Washington Post: “Pelosi says Democrats are willing to work with Trump.”
That was easy. Someone should tweet the news to the Occupy Trump Tower mobs on Fifth Avenue.
Of course this burst of Trumpian bonhomie comes with the word “if” attached: They’ll work with Donald Trump . . . if he becomes one of them. Which is to say, if he adopts the progressive policies and attitudes that just got the Democratic Party wiped out, from the presidency down to dogcatcher.
“If Republicans want to force through massive tax cuts,” thundered Sen. Warren, “we will fight them every step of the way.”
Even by the normal standards of postelection schadenfreude, it is hard not to be agog at the spectacle of Democrats trying to figure out what hit them and what to do about it.
A personal favorite is that Democrats must now distance themselves from “wealthy donors.” Party check-writers from Barbra Streisand to Jay Z put it all out there for Hillary, and this is the thanks they get—Bernie Sanders denouncing them to Stephen Colbert as “the liberal elite.”
A conclusion has emerged that the party forgot the forgotten man. In the past week, Trump voters have become the biggest archaeological dig in journalism, with the New York Times last weekend outputting three reports on lost tribes in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
President Obama paused during his trip to Greece to admit Mr. Trump won because of voter “anxiety” over the economy. That is the emerging Democratic consensus: The party needs to rediscover the economic well-being of the kind of people who voted Democratic from FDR to Bill Clinton. It is a good question how a party could forget an 80-year constituency.
Nancy Pelosi’s leadership of House Democrats is now under challenge, we are supposed to believe, from members who seethed in silence for years as the party became defined by the Streisandian elites on the East and West Coasts.
Ohio’s Rep. Marcy Kaptur and fellow Ohioan Tim Ryan are both considering an attempt to overthrow the party’s most-famous San Francisco Democrat after Thanksgiving.
Will the progressive websites publish their annual advice column, “How to talk to your uncle at Thanksgiving dinner”? Maybe this year they should just listen.
Somewhere inside this Democratic mess may be the beginning of wisdom. But for all the commitment to rediscovering the lives of blue-collar Americans, Tiger Woods is more likely to figure out his golf swing before the party relearns the realities of the American economy.
This generation of Democrats doesn’t even know what the economy is anymore.
For the Democrats, America’s daily life of work, profit and loss across 50 states is essentially an alien phenomenon that sends them revenue, the way a pipeline transmits natural gas. This pipeline fuels their “economy,” which is the thousands and thousands of spending and line items in the $4 trillion federal budget.
Some would call this redistribution. The Democrats would call it their life’s work. Truth is, it isn’t working for them anymore.
There is no possibility that the Democrats are going to gain back enough of these Trump voters unless someone in their party stands up and shouts that these emperors of “economic fairness” aren’t wearing any clothes.
Other than the direct injection of infrastructure spending, you will look in vain through the party’s postmortems for a policy idea that would lift the economic prospects of people in places like Wilkes-Barre, Pa., who went over to Donald Trump.
In 1962 John F. Kennedy, whose campaign pledge was “get America moving again,” proposed a tax cut at the urging of his Republican Treasury Secretary, and Wall Street grandee, Douglas Dillon.
In a speech, Kennedy called for “an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes” to reform a system that “reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.” The economy grew strongly for years.
We’re there again, in a system that is risk averse and suppresses effort and investment. But the Democrats saying this week that they need to rediscover the economic life of America’s voters would rather drink arsenic than cut taxes on capital, lest some employer on one of the distant stars, say Wisconsin, might, ugh, make more money.
Possibly this assessment of the Democrats’ economic obtuseness is too harsh. If proven wrong, it will be withdrawn.
New Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer has brought West Virginia centrist Joe Manchin onto his leadership team. In 2018, Democrats must defend 10 Senate seats in states Donald Trump won. If I were one of these 10, I’d give the Democrats 2017 to reboot their persona. If not, I’d go over to the other side.
1a) Trump's bizarre winning formula
By Victor Davis Hanson
First, the Democrats gave Trump a great gift by completing the ongoing radicalization of their party under President Obama. After 2008, it was no longer a party of the working and middle classes, but a lopsided political pyramid.
On top were the cynical elites who turned up in the WikiLeaks John Podesta email trove: self-important media members, Ivy League grandees, Silicon Valley billionaires, Wall Street plutocrats and coastal corridor snobs. They talk left-wing but live royally. They court minorities to vote in lockstep, then deride them in private. The vast lower tier of the party comprises government employees, the poor, minorities, and the millions dependent on state and federal assistance. The Democrats in between were ignored, and so they kept fleeing the party. Look at the red/blue map of the election. Democratic strength retreated to the inner cities and the rich coastal suburbs.
The Democrats also, in suicidal fashion, stoked racial chauvinism, or the notion that one's tribe should transcend all other affiliations. After pandering to various minority groups, Hillary Clinton apparently believed that they suddenly would forget her emphasis on race and ethnicity to vote for her, a 69-year-old white multimillionaire.
But the Democrats learned a bitter lesson in 2016: Obama's left-wing, rich/poor ideological agendas do not appeal to most of the country. Despite a hard progressive agenda, Obama was able to win two terms by relying on racial and ethnic solidarity, earning record numbers of Latino and black votes.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/hanson111716.php3#AASxuE42pab1LUko.99
The logic of such a formula could not be easily transferred to a non-minority Democratic candidate. So Clinton lost key blue states of Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin because minority turnout in cities such as Detroit , Philadelphia and Milwaukee fell off from 2008 and 2012.
Worse for Democrats, by pandering to tribal solidarity, they polarized the white working classes. When physical similarity is touted as the best argument to vote for someone, it green-lights everybody to do the same -- including huge numbers of less affluent whites who voted for Trump.
Trump took advantage of these openings. By reformulating the old Republican messages to include so-called fair (rather than free) trade, by leaving Social Security alone and by promising to create more jobs, Trump plucked millions of lower- and middle-class voters from the Democratic Party .
Republican elites may have been appalled that Trump blasted global trade agreements and promised to punish corporations that outsourced jobs overseas. But those who have been left out of the globalized economy flocked to that message after not warming up to John McCain and Mitt Romney in earlier presidential elections.
Trump's populism also appealed to a surprising number of blacks and Latinos. Although Trump was even richer than some multimillionaire Republican nominees of the recent past, he posed as a man of the people, eating fast food and speaking in a Queens accent.
For many non-whites, Trump's message was more about class than race. Inner-city dwellers share many of the same worries as the poor whites of the Ohio Valley and southern Michigan . Some blacks have more in common with poor whites than with Colin Kaepernick or Van Jones . And many whites have more in common with less affluent blacks and Latinos than with Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush
.
These populist economic interests had been ignored by Democrats and Republicans, as coastal-corridor economies made 30-somethings in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street multimillionaires -- with only crumbs left for those who work with their hands
In other words, Trump miraculously won the Electoral College despite adversarial media and hostile Democratic and Republican establishments. He ran with relatively little campaign spending, virtually no ground game, few political handlers, little celebrity backing and few establishment endorsements. And he won because he rewrote the traditional rules of red/blue presidential politics.
The strangest irony of all?
Establishment Republicans who hated Trump sounded a lot like establishment Democrats.
In sum, the billionaire Trump thinks he can forge a new kind of "Republican" majority, to the chagrin of elite Democrats and elite Republicans alike.
And he could be right.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) ADL's Greenblatt Retracts His Lie that Trump Chief Strategist Bannon is Anti-Semitic
2) ADL's Greenblatt Retracts His Lie that Trump Chief Strategist Bannon is Anti-Semitic
By Joel Pollak
|
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has backed away from its earlier accusations against Stephen K. Bannon, stating on its website: “We are not aware of any anti-Semitic statements from Bannon.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Jewish opposition grows to Keith Ellison’s bid to head Democratic National Committee
By Rafael Medoff
WASHINGTON—A growing number of pro-Israel activists and Jewish community figures are expressing concern that Minnesota’s U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison will turn the Democratic Party away from Israel if he is elected party chairman.
The election of Ellison "would bode badly for Jews," longtime Democratic consultant Dr. Hank Sheinkopf told JNS.org. "His positions on Israel fit the pattern, noted by recent research, of identified liberal anti-Israel bias and the movement of Democrats away from Israel."
Defending Farrakhan
Ellison's controversial statements and actions date back to the 1990s, when he served as a local spokesman in Minnesota for Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam movement. Ellison raised eyebrows when he publicly claimed in 1995 that Farrakhan "is not an anti-Semite."
Since his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007, Ellison has emerged as one of the most vocal congressional supporters of the Palestinian cause. He has organized letters urging more U.S. pressure on Israel, voted against funding Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system, and spoken at fundraising events for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a hardline anti-Israel group. While visiting Hebron this past summer, Ellison tweeted a photograph of a placard accusing Israel of "apartheid."
Rabbi Menachem Genack of Englewood, New Jersey, a prominent Jewish supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, said he would be "disappointed" if Ellison is chosen as chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) because that would "accelerate the process" of pulling the Democratic Party away from its traditional pro-Israel positions. Genack told JNS.org that he will be speaking to his colleagues in the party to explain his "concerns about Ellison's views on Israel."
New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat who represents a heavily Jewish district in Brooklyn, strongly criticized the decision by New York’s U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer to endorse Ellison. In an interview with JNS.org, Hikind, asked, "Does Senator Schumer actually believe that there is literally not a single other person in the Democratic Party, anywhere in the country, who would be a better choice than Ellison? Why is Schumer in such a rush to support a candidate who is so unfriendly to Israel?"
Hikind said Ellison "is the most radical candidate imaginable, someone who represents the extreme left wing of the party, which is why he's being promoted by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and J Street—in other words, Ellison is being backed by all the wrong people if you care about Israel." The assemblyman noted that Ellison has occasionally claimed to be a friend of Israel, "but if Israel has to depend on support from the Ellisons of the world, it would be in serious trouble."
Possible defections
Some pro-Israel activists recall, with dismay, Ellison's efforts to unseat a pro-Israel New Jersey congressman, Steve Rothman, in 2012. Dr. Ben Chouake, president of NORPAC, a Jewish political action committee in northern New Jersey, said it was "extremely unusual" for Ellison to target Rothman, "since Rothman was a fellow Democrat, in a district halfway across the country—what could motivate him to go to such great lengths?" Ellison spoke at mosques in New Jersey, urging Arab-Americans to vote against Rothman.
Chouake told JNS.org he fears that if Ellison is elected chair of the DNC, "one of his priorities will be to pull the party away from Israel." Ellison represents "the fringe of the Democratic Party, not the center, and would it make even harder for the party to have broad appeal."
The rise of Ellison could drive Jews out of the Democratic Party, according to Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a private wealth manager who worked in the administrations of New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, and New York Governor George Pataki, a Republican. "There are many longtime Jewish Democrats who are on the fence about whether to stay in a party that has been tilting away from Israel—and if Ellison is elected, I believe a good percentage of them will leave the party," Wiesenfeld told JNS.org.
Wiesenfeld criticized Schumer's endorsement of Ellison as "a crass political calculation—he sees the party succumbing to the far left, and he wants to go with the flow so he can retain his position." He said that "Schumer's phone should be ringing off the hook with calls from members of the Jewish community, asking 'What happened to your promise to be a 'shomer' (guardian) of Israel?"
Ellison’s office did not return a request for comment from JNS.org.
The only other declared candidate so far for the chairmanship of the DNC is former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. A date for the election has not yet been set. According to party rules, it must take place prior to March 31, 2017. To win, a candidate needs the votes of a majority of the 447 members of the DNC. About one-fourth of the members are the chairs or vice chairs, of state branches of the Democratic Party.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
