Helping Chuck Schumer Commit Political Suicide

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is preparing to offer Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the gift of a lifetime, but I don’t know if McConnell is astute enough to accept it. Mitch McClellan’s career has been defined by a gopher–like reluctance to risk anything that causes him to stray too far from the safety of his den. (To learn how McConnell earned the nickname “Mitch McClellan,” click here.)

Accepting Schumer’s gift will require Mitch to go head–to–head in the arena of public opinion, which he is evidently reluctant to do since, like most of the Republican leadership in Congress, he doesn’t believe enough in conservative principles to make a compelling case in public.

This is why Trump is president and McConnell isn’t, but that’s another column entirely, which can be found here.

So let me explain another missed opportunity for Republicans to show the American public just how far out of the mainstream Democrats are.

AP reports Schumer “has concluded that denying President Trump his wall is perhaps the surest major defeat Democrats can hand the President in his first year.” And he plans to do it by filibustering the wall.

This is the biggest tactical error Schumer has made since he didn’t object to Fauxcahontas being sworn in.

If only McClellan would exploit Schumer’s gift.

So what can the Curator of the Senate do to exploit Schumer’s gift? All the exciting details can be yours by clicking on the link below and being whisked to my Newsmax.com column. Thanks.

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/mitch-mcconnell-chuck-schumer-border-wall-filibuster/2017/03/07/id/777474/

 

Advertisements

TX Democrat Gubernatorial Candidate Wendy Davis’ Slip Is Showing

Wendy Davis memeWendy Davis is not the first Democrat to use a fetus pile as a stepping–stone to higher office. She’s only the latest. But Wendy is in such a hurry to run for governor of Texas that she’s left a lot of inconvenient facts behind.

Davis first came to prominence when she lead a filibuster on the floor of the Texas Senate in favor of allowing women to abort their child as late as three months into the pregnancy. She termed it a “human right.” In contrast to Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX) who read children’s books during his filibuster, Davis essentially read the unborn the riot act.

Although Davis is ruthless when it comes to the unborn, she expects Texas voters to have enough sympathy for her climb up from a hard–scrabble background to make her the first Democrat governor since 1995. She describes herself as a divorced teenage single mom who went from living in a trailer to Harvard Law and the Texas Senate.

Like Massachusetts’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Falseahontas), Davis believes that redneck chic is a real vote getter among women and low information voters. And just as Warren’s tale of adolescent privation and Native American ancestry didn’t hold up to scrutiny, neither does Wendy’s.

The only element of the tale that’s entirely true is she’s a woman, of sorts. As reported by The Dallas Morning News’ Wayne Slater, Davis was 21–years–old when she divorced. After the divorce she remained in the mobile home where she’d been living with her former husband. Although she may not have been too popular with neighbors since she also received three vehicles in the settlement.

Based on those qualifications I could be governor of Texas having lived in a trailer for an entire semester at college.

Davis didn’t stay single for long. Seeing an opportunity she morphed into a dress–wearing John Kerry. Wendy had her father approach a friend of his and ask, “How do you like younger women? My daughter wants to go out with you.” Husband–to–be Jeff Davis said in an interview. “I was flattered so I took her out. We dated two or three years, then got married.”

Jeff paid for Wendy’s last two years at Texas Christian University, although her spin is, “It was community resources. We paid for it together.” Sure, Jeff wrote the check and she cashed it.

Mother–of–the–Year Wendy then applied to Harvard Law School and was accepted. (I would really like to get a look at her application essay. It would no doubt move Charles Dickens to tears.) After her acceptance at Harvard, Jeff dutifully cashed in his 401(k) retirement account to cover the initial years and then took out a loan to pay for his wife’s last year.

In the meantime Wendy was faced with a dilemma regarding the children. Her daughter from her first marriage was 8 and the daughter with Jeff was 2, so it was obviously way too late to abort them. But how would it look for a hot little blonde to be toting children that reminded her of mobile housing?

So she left both girls with Jeff back in Fort Worth while she went to pursue her dream solo.

Wendy graduated in 1993 and returned to Fort Worth where one assumes her daughters asked to see a photo ID and then welcomed her home. In 1998, running as a Republican, Davis won a seat on the city council and began her climb up the political ladder.

Ironically enough, the day after Jeff made the last payment on the loan he took out for Wendy’s Harvard Law degree, she moved out and filed for divorce. Of course Wendy takes umbrage at the thought that poor Jeff was just another stepping–stone. Slater quotes her vehemently denying any exploitation, “I was a vibrant part of contributing to our family finances from the time I graduated to the time we separated in 2003,” she said. “The idea that suddenly there was this instantaneous departure after Jeff had partnered so beautifully with me in putting me through school is just absurd.”

Vibrant? Who talks like that and what does it mean? Wendy oscillated when she got a check? Here’s a rule of thumb from a media consultant: When descriptive words are excessive for the surrounding context it means they’re lying. Like when Obama talks about “robust diplomacy.”

For his part, Jeff wasn’t feeling so beautiful. The divorce filing listed adultery on Wendy’s part and he asked for a restraining order against Ms. Vibrant requesting the court require her to refrain from the use of drugs or alcohol “within 24 hours of contact with her children.”

The divorce allowed Wendy to again demonstrate her deep concern for children as she chose to give sole custody of her 12–year–old daughter to her husband; saying it just wasn’t a good time for her to have a daughter tagging along.

So there you have it. The darling of Texas Democrats and leftist abortion supporters nationwide is a liar who won’t even agree to raise her own daughter if it interferes with her overwhelming ambition. She’s used and discarded her way into Democrat political stardom.

Maybe Wendy Davis is simply the culmination of the decades–long feminist campaign to remake America. Now a woman can be as callous and unscrupulous as male politicians and still run for office.

For her part Davis realizes she’s going to have to do something about that biography. “My language should be tighter,” she said. “I’m learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail.”

Or she could just trying telling the truth for a change.

CPAC 2013 Stands With Rand

Sen. Rand Paul gives hope to the curly–haired.

Sen. Rand Paul gives hope to the curly–haired.

The 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held this week in National Harbor, just across the river from Washington, DC, did not appear to be a depressed gathering of Republicans and conservatives still reeling from last November’s presidential loss. There was friendly rivalry between supporters of Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL), but I saw no evidence of divisive infighting and vicious internal attempts to gain mainstream media publicity at the expense of fellow party members.

But then again an impressive contingent of off–duty police officers was probably more than enough to keep John McCain and Lindsey Graham from attending the conference.

The opening day of CPAC 2013 evolved into a faceoff between two potential Republican presidential candidates: the aforementioned Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Judging by the crowd’s reception, Paul was the winner.

Rubio — America’s foremost spokesman for regular hydration — did not address immigration, the issue he’s been most associated with this year. Instead the bulk of Rubio’s speech, once we got past the H2O jokes, was fairly standard — although he did touch on the call for a remodeled Republican party.

Rubio said the goal of the Republican Party should be to “create an agenda to apply our time–tested principles to the challenges of today” because average Americans are asking, “who is fighting for them?”

Specifically, Rubio believes the US should be the best place in the world to create middle–class jobs and to facilitate that the country must solve the federal government’s debt and spending problem. Republicans should stress pro–growth energy policies that include both oil and gas. On the home front, he wants every parent to have an opportunity to send their children to “the school of their choice.” And we need real heath care reform that empowers Americans so they can buy insurance from any company, regardless of where the company is headquartered.

The young senator also addressed leftist critics and predicted they will downplay his speech and claim that he didn’t offer any new ideas. “We don’t need a new idea. The idea is called America and it still works,” Rubio responded as the audience applauded.

It would have been the best conservative speech of the day, if Rand Paul had not made an appearance.

It was a standing–room only crowd that anticipated Paul’s appearance and it erupted in applause as he brandished the binders he used during his drone filibuster in the Senate and declared, “I was told I only had ten measly minutes, but just in case I brought 13 hours worth of information.”

Paul — who gives hope to the curly–haired since no one will ever call him ‘blow dried’ — began by explaining that the motivation for his filibuster was to question whether presidential power has limits: “We want to know will you or won’t you defend the Constitution?”

As an audience member called out, “Don’t drone me, bro!” Paul explained that the president’s good intentions are not enough. “No one person gets to decide the law,” he said. And that’s his philosophy in a nutshell: leaders must defend and abide by the Constitution even when it’s not convenient.

Paul then moved to compare his conservative philosophy with that of Obama’s, which has proven to be you can have your cake and eat your neighbor’s, too. He quoted Ronald Reagan who said, “As government expands, liberty contracts.”

With that in mind he proposed a five–year plan to balance the budget. Paul’s blueprint cuts the corporate income tax in half, creates a flat personal income tax of 17.5 percent, erases the regulations “strangling American business” and eliminates the Department of Education entirely giving the power and the money back to the states.

Paul observed without mentioning names that the GOP “of old has grown stale and moss–covered.” His new GOP will need a big tent because it will “embrace economic and personal liberty. Liberty needs to be the backbone of the Republican Party and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me.”

And the crowd did, giving him a standing ovation that easily eclipsed the response to Rubio’s earlier speech.

Let Obama Leap Off the Fiscal Cliff Alone

Fiscal Cliff Cartoon Blog VersionThe editorial cartoon on the left perfectly summarizes the political situation surrounding fiscal cliff negotiations. The lesson is Republicans will be blamed regardless.

CNN and Pew Research Center polls show a majority of the public will blame the GOP if the country goes over the cliff, even if Speaker Boehner fetches coffee for Obama during negotiations and compliments Michelle on her triceps.

To avoid this the GOP must start thinking strategically. That and take some very useful advice from two unlikely sources: Grover Norquist and Barack Obama.

Norquist urges Republicans to televise negotiations. This is a good idea that will allow the public to see just how intransigent Democrats are. While Obama warns House Republicans to get out of the way, which is exactly what they should do.

While the TV cameras are humming, Boehner should recognize the President built his campaign around raising taxes and voters supported that agenda. Boehner should explain that although Republicans disagree and believe Obama’s policies will plunge the nation back into a recession, if not depression, the people have spoken and Republicans will not obstruct him in any way.

Then — as Dante wrote about denizens of one level of the Inferno — we let Obama be himself with a vengeance. Republicans simply vote ‘present’ and, following the Obamacare precedent, the President’s socialistic, dangerous policy passes without a single Republican vote.

We lose tactically in the short run, but we win strategically in the long run. Negotiating minor cuts at the margin now not only won’t be a victory, it will allow Obama — and his Hallelujah Chorus in the media — to blame the failure of his fiscal policy on Republicans. That is impossible if Obama gets his way.

What’s more, bickering over petty spending cuts, discredits major cuts as a viable debt reduction strategy in the future. When these rounding–error cuts fail to make a difference, Democrats and the media will claim we tried cutting and it didn’t work.

Keep in mind Republican House leadership has a bad track record when it comes to negotiating cuts anyway. The last time we had a debt confrontation in 2011, Boehner came up with a total of $352 million in cuts. To put that in perspective, the amount represents one–tenth of one percent of the budget.

Whoop–tee–freakin’–doo. It would have made more sense to take the “savings” and buy lottery tickets. Last week’s Powerball jackpot was almost twice as large as the “cuts.”

And the wealthy job creators Obama’s tax increase will harm? I repeat, any Obama compromise means Republicans own the failure, because Obama didn’t get all he knew the nation really needed. And in the unlikely event he succeeds — and remember the media will set the bar remarkably low — Obama gets all the credit.

Some will object that House Republicans have just as strong a mandate as Obama, since they were elected, too. But that’s horse hockey. GOP congressmen were re–elected in gerrymandered districts designed to be impossible for Democrats to win. Obama won the entire nation and he’s right about his mandate, misguided as it is.

If recognizing the results of a democratic election is the proper policy in Egypt, it’s the proper policy here, even if the Socialism Brotherhood was the winner.

Holding out for miniscule spending cuts is simply negotiating the length of the rope Obama will use to hang Congressional Republicans.

There are only two instances where the GOP should fight today. One is opposing giving up Congressional debt ceiling authority in the future. The other is Boehner’s promise that if the Democrat Senate changes filibuster rules, all subsequent Senate bills will be DOA in the House.

Giving the President unilateral debt ceiling authority is like giving the Times Square homeless man a pair of boots and a credit card. No Congressional debt authority, along with rewriting filibuster rules, would cause long–term damage to the country and set a dangerous precedent.

Otherwise, let Obama own the agenda and own the responsibility. It will be impossible to blame Republicans for a result they did not in any way impede.

Our goal should be winning in 2014. It’s the asymmetrical strategy I advocated recently; and it is the kind of strategic thinking Republicans need to start utilizing.

Two years of short term pain will result in House and Senate gains that will allow Republicans to start reversing the course of Obamaism. Besides, I want to watch Democrats try to run in 2014 on a platform of “Osama’s Dead & So Is the Economy.”