Interestingly, for all the talk of the Republican Party’s impending demise at the hands of Donald Trump – and that talk is more than just idle speculation; this election cycle could well split the party up – it might be that the real story is how fractured and wounded the Democrats are.
Fury against Bernie Sanders is growing in Clinton World.
In public, Hillary Clinton‘s aides and allies have kept their anger checked, decrying the rowdy outbursts at Nevada’s state convention last weekend but saying they believe Sanders will ultimately do the right thing by helping to unite the Democratic Party.
Behind the scenes, however, they are seething that statements by the Vermont senator are just making matters worse by further alienating his supporters from Clinton, the front-runner for the party’s presidential nomination.
The continued combat on the left is also complicating Clinton’s efforts to fully turn her attention to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, who is reveling in the Democratic feuding.
“This is the worst-case scenario and the one people feared the most,” said one Clinton ally and former Clinton aide.
“Unfortunately, he’s choosing the path of burning down the house,” the ally said. “He continues with character attacks against Hillary. He continues with calling the Democratic Party corrupt, and he not only risks damaging Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party but he’s currently doing it.”
Clinton allies say Sanders is only piling on by insisting that Clinton join him for a debate ahead of California’s primary on June 7. The debate would be aired on Fox News, a network Clinton supporters see as fanning the flames between Sanders supporters and the former secretary of State.
A second ally said Sanders should stop criticizing the party and the front-runner’s supporters even if he continues to fight for delegates through the six state contests on June 7.
“It’s inappropriate at this point, and I hate to tell him, it’s not helping him in the long run. It’s only hurting her,” the ally said. “The Republican Party has their nominee, and he’s free and clear of his Republican opponents and is taking shots at Hillary. We need to move closer to that process, and he’s not helping.”
Essentially, Hillary Clinton is what would have happened if the GOP establishment had been effective and ruthless enough to steamroll all the insurgent candidates and foist Jeb Bush on the party. The problem is, you just can’t make people accept a boring, out-of-touch candidate of the past – that’s not going to work in this cycle.
But it’s more than just Clinton and Sanders. It’s funny that they’re whining about how Sanders is damaging the Democrat Party – up until he decided to run for the Democrat nomination he’d never even been a member. Exactly what leverage do these people think they have over him?
The thing is, Sanders represents a deep decline in the quality of the Democrats’ voting base. About half of the Democrat Party is actively supporting an unreconstructed communist who was on the wrong side of the Cold War and touts policies exactly like the ones which destroyed Venezuela. That’s a result of a nationwide, generation-long epidemic of terrible American parenting and a thorough failure of America’s public schools to teach anything useful. The result is a whole class of, frankly, morons, who think envy is a political virtue and believe conspiracy theories about global corporations (anybody who’s ever worked for one knows that your typical global corporation is far too bureaucratic and frantic over bad publicity to engage in the kinds of nefarious activities your typical Sanders supporter traffics in) while not evangelizing stupid dietetic choices or bodily mutilations.
The Democrats have encouraged this among their people, and celebrated it. For all the screaming on the Right about how talk radio and conservative organizations created Trump, the institutional Left created Bernie Sanders by trashing our civic culture among the young and the marginalized.
And Sanders could be just as instrumental in blowing up the Democrat Party as Trump is in setting the GOP ablaze.
After all, what would hold Sanders back from jumping out of the party he’s never really even been a member of and running on a socialist third-party ticket? Fear of losing? He never for a second thought he would win – he ran solely to push his leftist agenda. When Democrat voters grew more and more disenchanted with Hillary Clinton, something which seems to be a consistent pattern with virtually everyone who is exposed to her, then it became somewhat plausible Sanders might win. But it was never an active possibility, and the Democrats’ establishment was never going to let him get the nomination.
Nor should they. Make Bernie Sanders your president and you will have Venezuela. Even America isn’t immune to that strain of poison.
Clinton has, with limited success, tried to make her stand by playing the race card in a way that’s actually the opposite of how Trump has played it on the Republican side. While Trump plays footsie with David Duke and pushes a soft white nationalist stance, Hillary goes out of her way to screech about racism and to pander to the worst elements in the black and Hispanic communities. In doing so she’s alienated the white socialists within her party and might well be driving many of them out as the Sanders campaign is closed off from the nomination.
We still think Hillary is going to ultimately win this election, but if Sanders were to walk rather than join hands with her in Philadelphia, and if he were to continue his diatribes about how the Democrat Party is corrupt and its primaries are rigged, things could easily change. If he were to go back to being an independent socialist and run a third-party race he could well carry a number of deep-blue states and make Trump the president. Or, in the alternative, he could open the door to a third-party conservative run. Either way, you’re likely to have the House decide the presidential election if the Clinton people can’t ultimately pacify the Sanders folks and shut them up.
Four years from now both parties are going to look a good bit different than they do now, and they won’t likely be the only ones anybody pays attention to.
The Constitution Party, founded in New Orleans in 1992, is painfully small and only on the ballot in about 20 states. But for conservatives who see themselves being driven out of the GOP by Trumpism, it’s beginning to get a look. The Blaze just did a piece this week on the little conservative party and its nominee Darrell Castle, a bankruptcy attorney from Memphis, that was worth a read…
Darrell Castle was there the day the Constitution Party was founded in 1992 in New Orleans. It would be another four years before the Federal Elections Commission would officially recognize the party, but Castle, who is the one of the only — if not the only — original founders still alive, had a vision: restore constitutional government.
“A return to the rule of law is no small thing,” Castle, the Constitution Party’s 2016 presidential nominee, told TheBlaze in an interview. “The Constitution is what it says it is — the supreme law of the land.”
That law, as Castle and members of his party see it, delegates only 17 powers to the federal government, leaving the rest to the states.
“Our mission is to return the federal government to constitutional government, which means to restrict it to those 17 powers only,” he said. “If that was done, it would obviously be a completely different world.”
“In addition to that, the concept of the rule of law includes the idea that no one is above the law’s sanction, and no one is beneath the law’s protection,” Castle said. “There is a general feeling in the population now that the law is for little people like us, not for big people like Hillary Clinton and others.”
It can be discouraging to be a third party that doesn’t get much recognition or national media attention, but establishing the party was essential because those who started it “didn’t believe that the Republican Party or the Democratic Party would ever offer us an acceptable choice,” Castle explained.
One thing the Constitution Party has that could be attractive to potential new members is a hard list of seven principles it adheres to, most of which conservatives can get on board with. The principles are: sanctity of life, religious freedom and personal liberty, traditional marriage, protection of private property, a strict originalist view of the constitution, state sovereignty and a more insular foreign policy that includes getting America out of the U.N. Some of those are not sellable to a majority of Americans and others are; on the whole it’s a party with a framework that could be built upon were it to have an influx of people and cash.
But nobody you’ve heard of is a member of the Constitution Party, and that’s a problem. Until something were to change on that front getting more than a percent or so of the vote would be impossible, even in a cycle like this one where it looks like a third party might even win.
– Nobody bothered to poll the Castle supporters, or the Gary Johnson supporters for that matter, to find out how obnoxious they are on the internet. But one survey went through the major candidates and found something which isn’t overly surprising…
What’s interesting is that it’s the Hillary people who are next-most unpleasant. You’d figure the Sanders crybully style would get a worse reaction, but maybe most people just think Sanders supporters are stoned.
The brickbats come from a stupid amendment the House passed which banned the descendants of confederate soldiers from putting commemorative confederate flags on their graves at national historical sites. Steve Scalise, the House whip, actually voted for that measure and he’s getting tarred and feathered for it on social media. One imagines Scalise figured that since he got slimed with nonexistent connections to David Duke last year he probably had to take that vote.
But there is nothing positive to be gained by banning confederate flags in such venues. Those soldiers fought for the confederacy, so if someone is to mark their graves with something commemorating how they died it ought to be the confederate flag. And the time to make the decision whether that was acceptable isn’t 2016, it was 1866. When the people who had actually been fighting the confederacy made the decision they would respect a vanquished opponent by allowing such presentations, that should have been the end of the matter. Idiot social justice warriors attempting to scrub history 150 years later contribute nothing whatsoever to the debate, and it’s a shame Ryan and the leadership even allowed such a dumb vote to take place much less passing it.
Ryan let the vote go forward because it’s the same stunt the Democrats pulled last year to hold up the appropriations process.
But the bouquets come from something else involving military affairs. In the defense authorization bill, an obnoxious openly-gay Democrat, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, attempted to foist an amendment that would have imposed the gay agenda onto people naturally resistant to it, and the House leadership beat it back even despite a cacophony of whining.
GOP leaders held the vote open as they pressured members to change sides. Infuriating Democrats, they let lawmakers switch their votes without walking to the well at the front of the chamber.
“Shame! Shame! Shame!” Democrats chanted as they watched the vote tally go from passage of Maloney’s amendment to narrow failure.
Twenty-nine Republicans voted for Maloney’s amendment to a spending bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects, along with all Democrats in the final roll call.
“This is one of the ugliest episodes I’ve experienced in my three-plus years as a member of this House,” Maloney, who is openly gay, said while offering his amendment.
According to the office of House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), at least seven Republicans changed their votes, including Reps. Jeff Denham (Calif.), Darrell Issa (Calif.), Bruce Poliquin (Maine), David Valadao (Calif.), Greg Walden (Ore.), Mimi Walters (Calif.) and David Young (Iowa).
Denham, Valadao, Poliquin and Young are among the most vulnerable Republicans up for reelection this year. Walden, meanwhile, chairs the House GOP campaign arm.
The failed amendment would have effectively nullified a provision in the defense authorization that the House passed late Wednesday night. The language embedded in the defense bill states that religious corporations, associations and institutions that receive federal contracts can’t be discriminated against on the basis of religion.
>Why those Republicans were going to vote for the amendment in the first place is a question, though this thing has the feel of a setup since the final vote was 212-213. Might have been that you had some sandbaggers in the group.
That amendment needed to be beaten. You have a great number of conservative religious organizations which have contracts to minister to veterans and active-duty military, and the work they do is outstanding and necessary. Their stances on social issues like homosexuality or gay marriage have nothing to do with their work with our military and veterans; forcing them to repudiate those stances or lose their contracts would be a violation of their First Amendment rights and worse, a diminution in the level of service the government provides to our servicemen.
It’s a shame that bill wasn’t more soundly defeated, but the end result is acceptable – and Ryan and his team should get credit for insuring things came out the right way.
Yes, of course. You want to know how to build a machine gun that shoots cheese balls. And we’re right there with you.