web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Kirsten Gillibrand

WaPo: People are ignoring Gillibrand because she’s boring

Westlake Legal Group GillibrandHead WaPo: People are ignoring Gillibrand because she’s boring Washington Post WaPo The Blog Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 Democratic primaries

If you have some time to kill (and this could take a while) you might want to check out this very long profile of New York Senator and flailing 2020 hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand, written by Anna Peele in the Washington Post Magazine. Peele spent some time on the campaign trail with Gillibrand earlier this year and she fondly recalls the time she was coached through a weightlifting and workout session by the senator.

Almost all of the article seems to be a campaign pitch for Gillibrand, pointing out her many wonderful qualities, but it’s equally packed with almost endless speculation on one question. Kirsten Gillibrand seems, in the author’s opinion, to possess the perfect combination of qualities, policies, and experience needed to win the nomination. So why is it that she can’t manage to get above one percent in the polls? Almost nobody is paying attention to her. Peele sorts through a number of predictable possibilities, including the expected accusations of sexism, but finally seems to settle on one problem the candidate is being dogged by. Kirsten Gillibrand isn’t willing to be “entertaining” enough for an audience that’s grown jaded by President Trump’s Twitter feed. In other words, she’s just too boring.

At a time when our national cortisol level is tied to the president’s Twitter feed, and when candidates are live-streaming and clapping back and eating salads with hair equipment, it has become unforgivable to be boring. Taking on attention-gobbling Donald Trump feels like asking people to watch an eight-part PBS series on Reconstruction instead of the episode of “The Bachelor” where the guy is supposed to lose his virginity on TV. Gillibrand’s brand — motherly, responsible, pragmatic, experienced — is going to be a tough sell if what we really want, at some level, is for our politicians to entertain us…

I liked being weight-trained by Gillibrand. I find her policies pragmatic and her response to the people she encounters empathic. I feel comforted that her literal style and purposeful motherliness have not been crowdsourced into something more entertaining. In other words, I like the things about Gillibrand that are probably going to keep her from coming anywhere close to the White House.

If you take the time to read through the entire piece, you’ll find some of the common (and highly misleading) claims about Kirsten Gillibrand’s supposed strengths as a candidate. They bring up the fact that she’s never lost an election. That’s true, but she’s really only run five times. The first two wins were managed because she ran to the right of her GOP opponent in a conservative upstate district and the other three were statewide races where anyone with a D after their name would have won without effort. (It also didn’t hurt to have the state Democratic Party clear the field for her in her first Senate election, strongarming other Democrats considering taking her on in the primary.)

Strangely enough, in making her defense of Gillibrand, Peele actually covers – or at least touches on – almost all of the reasons that the Democratic base would ignore her. Far more than anything else, it’s the fact that Democrats know she may be singing with the liberal choir now, but that’s a relatively recent phenomenon. She was beyond a blue dog when she was in the House and even had a favorable rating with the NRA. But when she was plucked from that seat and placed in the Senate by the New York Governor, in barely a year she completely reversed course on many of her positions. (This process is something Peele describes as a “recalibration.”)

Before she even got into the race officially, her fellow Democrats were sending out poison pen letters reminding everyone of her past positions. She was once referred to by the Daily Beast as a “bizarro version of Sarah Palin.” Not to put too fine of a point on this, but that’s really all it took. Besides, Gillibrand wasn’t offering primary voters anything they couldn’t already get elsewhere. Want a woman to run? There are others with a lot more name recognition to pick from. Looking for someone willing to say bad things about the President? The field is full of hopefuls with far sharper tongues. Pick a policy from her issues page and I can show you more than a dozen others offering the same goodies.

With so many to choose from, why would Democratic primary voters take a chance on someone who is so relatively new to their tribe? Her liberalism is a mile wide and an inch deep. She is, at best, an ideological leaf blowing in the political winds. She’s not polling at zero percent because she’s perceived as boring. So is Elizabeth Warren, but she’s somehow making it work. Gillibrand is resting at the bottom of the barrel because voters in her own party don’t trust her. Nor should they.

The post WaPo: People are ignoring Gillibrand because she’s boring appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group GillibrandHead-300x153 WaPo: People are ignoring Gillibrand because she’s boring Washington Post WaPo The Blog Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 Democratic primaries   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Should candidates forfeit their salary for time spent campaigning?

Westlake Legal Group GillibrandJustice Should candidates forfeit their salary for time spent campaigning? The Blog salary reimbursement Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris Elizabeth Warren Cory Booker Bill de Blasio Bernie Sanders

The title question may sound a bit facetious, but it’s the one being posed by Ken Frydman at the New York Daily News this weekend. There are more than two dozen elected officials – current officeholders – running for President at the moment. They spend a vast amount of time in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and at state Democratic conventions and galas across the nation. So much so in fact that they rarely find time to make it back to their home states, districts, and cities, or even to their full-time jobs in Washington. In a glaring example of this phenomenon, when the vote was held to approve billions of dollars of humanitarian relief for the southern border, not one of the seven Senate Democrats running for the nomination showed up to vote on behalf of their constituents.

With that in mind, Frydman poses the obvious question. How are these people still drawing a full salary?

Bill de Blasio and Kirsten Gillibrand owe me money,

Bernie Sanders owes money to my wife’s cousins in Waitsfield, Vt., Elizabeth Warren owes money to my in-laws on Martha’s Vineyard and Kamala Harris owes a refund to my other in-laws in San Francisco.

In fact, everyone running for president while already holding elective office should be required to reimburse the taxpayers of their cities and states for every day they’ve spent campaigning in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire or debating in Miami, instead of doing the jobs they were elected to do. Not to mention reimbursing their constituents for the cost of taxpayer-funded security and Secret Service details.

Now, this really doesn’t sound like a practical proposition, but for the average worker observing this, Frydman’s point probably rings true. Could you imagine, he asks, going into your boss’ office and telling them that for the next sixteen months you’ll be on the road and only showing up to work occasionally, but you’d like to keep collecting your full salary for the entire time? Think that would fly? Of course not, but then you’re not part of the elite class of elected officials in Washington.

And this seems particularly true of some of the real long-shots in the field. There are probably five… okay let’s be generous and say possibly eight Democrats who appear to have a shot at the nomination. But there are at least a dozen (such as Kirsten Gillibrand) who aren’t attracting enough support to be elected dog catcher in their home counties. They are almost certainly wasting their time and their donors’ dollars while not showing up for work in the offices they actually won.

The author isn’t just pinging Democrats. He includes President Trump in the list of guilty parties because of all the campaign rallies he holds when he’s theoretically supposed to be doing the work of the leader of the free world. (Dinging Trump is a bit off the mark in this case, of course, because he already gives back his entire salary.)

Unfortunately, as I hinted at above, this is a complaint that may get some people hot under the collar, but there’s no practical solution that immediately comes to mind. If we demand that every elected official give back their pay for time spent campaigning, we would be eliminating a lot of people from the talent pool. Only those wealthy enough to forgo most of their salary for a year and a half could manage it. (Or just wealthy people from the private sector.)

And this question doesn’t just touch on candidates for the presidency. If you ask any member from the House of Representatives, the vast majority will tell you that one of the things they hate most about their jobs is the fact that as soon as one election is over they have to start dialing for dollars and building up their war chest for the next one. It isn’t quite as bad for Senators because they have six years between races, but Senate races cost a lot more to run, so they probably only really get about a two-year break between taking office and starting the campaign and fundraising cycle again.

Following Frydman’s theory, we should be docking the members of Congress for all of the time they spend on the phone doing fundraising and every day spent heading out to campaign rallies. Again, we would quickly narrow the pool of candidates to the independently wealthy.

In other words, it’s a valid complaint Frydman is bringing and it will no doubt annoy many people to consider it. But that’s the political system that’s evolved in our country and we appear to be stuck with it.

The post Should candidates forfeit their salary for time spent campaigning? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group GillibrandJustice-300x153 Should candidates forfeit their salary for time spent campaigning? The Blog salary reimbursement Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris Elizabeth Warren Cory Booker Bill de Blasio Bernie Sanders   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

“They’ve lost their minds”: Senate Dems now totally committed to knee-jerk opposition to Trump judicial nominees

Westlake Legal Group graham-feinstein “They’ve lost their minds”: Senate Dems now totally committed to knee-jerk opposition to Trump judicial nominees The Blog Senate Democrats Mitch McConnell Kirsten Gillibrand judiciary John Cornyn donald trump 2020 Elections

If we have not yet reached the nadir of non-partisanship in judicial confirmations, Politico reports that we’re right around the corner from it. In the first six months of this session of Congress, Senate Democrats have voted against far more of Donald Trump’s appointments than in his first two years. And it’s tough to see whether those Democrats are embarrassed by this — or bragging about it.

Actually, that’s not really true. They’re bragging about it pretty openly:

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have rejected every Trump judge since this Congress began. Klobuchar, who drew fire from progressives for previously supporting 64 percent of the Trump nominees, supported only 3 percent, according to data provided exclusively by the liberal judicial group Demand Justice.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California supported 6 percent of judges she voted on this Congress, compared with 51 percent previously; Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey voted for 49 percent of Trump’s nominees last Congress and 11 percent this year.

“You could ask me about each [nominee] and each one has something wrong with their record,” Gillibrand said. “They’re either unqualified or they have views that are so disproportionately outside the norm that I couldn’t support them.”

Of the 2020 candidates, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado voted for Trump judges the most, at 31 percent this Congress, but still down from 67 percent the previous Congress.

It’s not just the 2020 presidential hopefuls, either. According to the data from the progressive pressure group Demand Justice, almost everyone in the Senate Democratic caucus has ramped up their opposition to Trump appointments. The knee-jerk partisanship has gotten so bad that John Cornyn told Politico, “They’ve lost their minds.” Contrary to Gillibrand’s defense that each nominee has had unique defects that prompted nay votes, Cornyn states the obvious:

“It’s just reflexive so I don’t think it’s any reflection on the nominees in particular. They’re just opposed to anything and everything the president is for.”

That was true from the moment Trump took office, though, and judicial appointments were already charged with partisanship at that point. So what’s changed in this session? For one thing, the presidential cycle has already started on the Democratic side. At the same time, the 2020 election season puts Democrats at an advantage in the Senate elections, with Republicans defending far more seats in a reversal of 2018’s dynamic. Democrats see the judicial wars as a key to winning back the White House and control in the upper chamber.

And … that’s pretty understandable, since Trump and Mitch McConnell have been bragging openly on their ability to shove judicial appointments through the Senate for the past two and a half years. Both have made it clear that they see their ability to reset the entire federal judiciary as a major theme in 2020, just as Democrats do. They have succeeded thanks in large part to rules changes McConnell has forced in order to speed up confirmations. Those rules fights go back for two decades and grew especially bitter after the Harry Reid-Chuck Schumer “nuclear option” in 2013, but it’s impossible to ignore that McConnell has raised the stakes. It’s not just Democrats bragging about partisan power plays in relation to judicial appointments, and that’s why “reflexive” is the order of the day on both sides of the aisle.

At any rate, the pretense of nonpartisanship on judicial appointments has evaporated in the heat of maximalist politics. There’s little sense that a return to normalcy is in the offing, not in the near future and not in the long term either. If and when the roles get reversed, don’t expect Republicans not to respond to the incentives in the paradigm both parties have created. Congress has surrendered so much of its authority to the bureaucracy and the courts that both have become the real prize in elections. Until the judiciary and Congress resolve to fix that constitutional distortion by ending the “living Constitution” approach that turned the courts into a de facto constitutional convention, this electoral spoils system will endure. The big question will be whether true representative governance will endure along with it, or whether the star chamber will eventually take its place.

The post “They’ve lost their minds”: Senate Dems now totally committed to knee-jerk opposition to Trump judicial nominees appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group graham-feinstein-300x173 “They’ve lost their minds”: Senate Dems now totally committed to knee-jerk opposition to Trump judicial nominees The Blog Senate Democrats Mitch McConnell Kirsten Gillibrand judiciary John Cornyn donald trump 2020 Elections   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

In Response to the Debates, Bill Maher Makes His List of 10 Democratic Candidates Who Should Quit Immediately

Westlake Legal Group person-woman-flag-usa-president-vote-485835-pxhere.com_-620x479 In Response to the Debates, Bill Maher Makes His List of 10 Democratic Candidates Who Should Quit Immediately white house washington D.C. Uncategorized Real Time Politics Kirsten Gillibrand Joy Reid Hollywood HBO Front Page Stories Featured Story eric swallwell Entertainment democrats debates Campaigns Bill Maher Bill DeBlasio Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception 2020

 

 

After the first Democratic debate this week, Bill Maher had a piece of advice for 10 Oval Office hopefuls: Stop running for president.

Here’s what the HBO host told his show’s panel Friday night:

Look, there’s too many people in this race. So we saw them last night and the night before. I’ll give you veto rights, but I’m going to get rid of 10 of them right now. Is that okay? And if you disagree, just say.

Unsurprisingly, Bill doesn’t have any faith in the underdogs. Amid F words, he showed a photo of each candidate:

This guy, Hickenlooper. Nice guy. No, get out. Nice guy. Get the f*** out

This is Michael Bennett. You know if you Google Michael Bennett, the first five that come up aren’t even this guy. Get the f*** out.

Oh, vice principal Delaney. Nice guy. Nothing here. Get out.

Tim Ryan. I think he said one good thing. No.

Kirsten Gillbrand. Al Franken says “Hello.”

Eric Swallwell. I like him. But you know, too young, it looked like he was wearing a toupe last night. Get the f*** out.

He 86’d Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang…

So what of Beto “Anti-Privileged Millionaire Privileged Millionaire” O’Rourke (here)?

MSNBC host Joy Reid intervened, “Not youth pastor Beto. He reminds me of my daughter’s youth pastor. So, I feel badly.”

Maher quipped,”Here, you can keep the picture. But he’s not looking good.”

How ’bout New York Mayor Bill deBlasio, who wants to confiscate people’s money and decide who to give it to instead (here)?

Bill dropped the hammer:

“And this guy, start spreading the news. You’re leaving.”

So there you have it — Bill’s List of Losers.

What are yours? Who do you think will make it to the finals? Which Democrats look most likely to become the official nominee?

Let us all know in the Comments section.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

ULTIMATE WOKE: School Bans Mother’s Day Because It’s ‘Hurtful,’ Trades It In For Something More Inclusive

GRAPHIC VIDEO: Oklahoma Man Tries To Enter His Friend’s Home, Gets Bitten In The Face By A Huge Snake

Tens Of Thousands Call For Unhinged Racist, Sexist, Bigoted, Doxxing Sidewalk Bully PA Rep. Brian Sims To Resign

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post In Response to the Debates, Bill Maher Makes His List of 10 Democratic Candidates Who Should Quit Immediately appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group person-woman-flag-usa-president-vote-485835-pxhere.com_-300x232 In Response to the Debates, Bill Maher Makes His List of 10 Democratic Candidates Who Should Quit Immediately white house washington D.C. Uncategorized Real Time Politics Kirsten Gillibrand Joy Reid Hollywood HBO Front Page Stories Featured Story eric swallwell Entertainment democrats debates Campaigns Bill Maher Bill DeBlasio Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Winners And Losers Of The Second Democratic Debate

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-620x349 The Winners And Losers Of The Second Democratic Debate Pete Buttigieg michael bennett marianne williamson Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris John Hickenlooper Joe Biden Front Page Stories Featured Story eric swalwell democrats Democratic Debate Bernie Sanders Andrew Yang Allow Media Exception 2020

It’s over, folks. We made it.

The second night is complete, and we are now able to relax and enjoy the weekend while trying to forget what happened on stage tonight.

With the second set of ten candidates, you did not have the same level of animosity and interruptions that you have Wednesday night. While things seemed more civil, it made it tougher for candidates to stand out. So, it’s harder this time to pick who won and who lost. That said, I once again subjected myself to this for you all so you don’t have to think too much about this.

Again, a couple points on how this is judged. First of all, saying someone “won” is not saying they are right or that I agree with them. It means that, objectively, they had a good night. Secondly, this is about their forcefulness, composure, and passion more than it is about the strength of their ideas. And lastly, this is a ranking of who did the best on television. It is an important look, but it is not about their ability to run a campaign, but more a reflection of how their campaigns run them.

The Winners: Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Michael Bennett

These three – Bennett, Harris, and Sanders did something the other candidates did not do well: They drew blood from the top candidate. I mentioned earlier it was Biden’s to lose (and I think he did – see below), and these three knocked him down to the loser’s table.

Starting with Sanders, he was obviously the guy at Biden’s heels. Posing a stark contrast between himself and Biden on the issue of the Iraq War, he focused a lot on Biden’s time as a Senator, not as a Vice President. It destroyed Biden’s attempts to tie himself to Barack Obama, which is the only way he could really get any applause tonight.

Harris was able to go after Biden in a way no one else on stage could: She hit him on the segregationist comments, and did so way more aggressively than Corey Booker did this past week when asked by the media about it. She can come in both from Biden’s left and as a member of the black community, which voted for Obama and not Biden.

Then there is Bennett, who I did not expect to come out swinging at all, much less at Biden. But he is the one who most clearly got under Biden’s skin with his comments on Bush Tax Cuts. Biden talked about his ability to work with Repbulicans, and Bennett tore him down on it.

Sanders and Harris needed to win and knock Biden down a peg. Bennett needed to show some personality and something beyond just platform talking points, and he did.

The Losers: Joe Biden, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Andrew Yang

Like I said, Joe Biden did lose. He was the only one who had a job of not losing to be able to win, and he couldn’t even do that. His talking points were easily torn apart by both moderators and other candidates, he relied far too much on Obama’s legacy to help him out, and he could not make himself his own man.

Gillibrand had very little time to say really anything and stand out, and when she did, she was not memorable at all other than being frankly annoying (as a note, the most annoying people both nights were New York politicians so I think we see a pattern forming). I can’t really think of anything that was really noteworthy other than the fact that she answered her first question and it felt like it was twenty or thirty minutes into the debate.

Then there was Yang. I think. Couldn’t really tell because he was addressed like twice the whole night, and one of those times was his closing statement. Here’s an eclectic (read: very out there) guy in terms of personality and policy, and it was totally toned down. This was his chance to make an impression, and I don’t think he did.

The Also-Rans: Marianne Williamson, Eric Swalwell, John Hickenlooper, Pete Buttigieg

Let’s get this out of the way: Mayor Pete was not bad, and could have gotten into the winner’s circle, but he played it very safe. Too safe, in fact. I think he is probably a close fourth place, but he did not go the extra mile to make it into the top three. The same goes for Swalwell, who actually had a really good night, but his statements were so riddled with cliches that it was more corny than serious.

Hickenlooper was okay, made some points that I think were smarter than some of the others, and generally wasn’t terrible – a low bar, to be sure – but he too didn’t stand out nearly enough. Williamson, meanwhile, had very little time but did make use of it (unlike Yang). However, I don’t think she is taking herself seriously as a candidate and was just able to bring her activism to the stage. That’s actually not bad for her, but I don’t think she’s trying to win so much as get her voice heard.

The problem with this whole debate, though, is that it was boring. It lacked the passion of last night’s. In fact, the most passionate part of the night was Chuck Todd asking questions (Note to Chuck: I appreciate the effort, but not even Jazz Hands could make this debate more interesting. Good on you for trying, though.). The whole thing was just… tired, I guess? It was a strangely quiet night, and it really didn’t do any of the candidates any favors.

The post The Winners And Losers Of The Second Democratic Debate appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-300x169 The Winners And Losers Of The Second Democratic Debate Pete Buttigieg michael bennett marianne williamson Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris John Hickenlooper Joe Biden Front Page Stories Featured Story eric swalwell democrats Democratic Debate Bernie Sanders Andrew Yang Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘We’ll Do It Live!’ RedState Liveblogs the #DemDebate, Night 2

The post ‘We’ll Do It Live!’ RedState Liveblogs the #DemDebate, Night 2 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Article_Custom_Image-@3x_Night2-300x154 ‘We’ll Do It Live!’ RedState Liveblogs the #DemDebate, Night 2 Sister Toldjah Sarah Rumpf Sarah Lee Pete Buttigieg marianne williamson Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris John Hickenlooper Joe Biden Jennifer Van Laar Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post eric swalwell Brad Slager Bernie Sanders Andrew Yang Allow Media Exception 2020 election #DemDebate #DemocratDebate   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democratic Debate, Round 2: What To Expect When You’re Lamenting

Westlake Legal Group biden-pointing-620x317 Democratic Debate, Round 2: What To Expect When You’re Lamenting Pete Buttigieg michael bennett marianne williamson Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris John Hickenlooper Joe Biden Front Page Stories Featured Story eric swalwell elections democrats Democratic Debate Bernie Sanders Andrew Yang Allow Media Exception 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden mimics shooting a gun as he speaks at the Chuck Hagel Forum in Global Leadership, on the campus of the University of Nebraska-Omaha, in Omaha, Neb., Thursday, Feb. 28, 2019. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

Well, it’s time for the second round of the first Democratic debate. After last night’s glitch- and interruption-riddled debacle, one can only hope that tonight’s is even more of a trainwreck. The same rules for viewing will apply as last night: NBC-exclusive, so catch it at 9/8c on NBC, MSNBC, and Telemundo.

Tonight’s cast features the Democratic front-runner, Joe Biden, along with Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Michael Bennett, Marianne Williamson, Kirsten Gillibrand, Andrew Yang, John Hickenlooper, and Eric Swalwell.

As last night’s was Elizabeth Warren’s to lose (and I maintain she almost did by not winning it outright), so too is tonight’s Biden’s to lose. Despite a full assault from major media outlets, Biden has stayed on top in polling, but he has to deal with Bernie Sanders, who leads the far-left progressives, and Kamala Harris, who will try to take up the middle ground between the two.

Buttigieg could also make a stand here after taking a beating over his handling of Black Lives Matter protestors, but the rest of the slate is just there as a recognition of their fundraising and name-recognition efforts thus far. It’s very difficult to see any of them making a good impression – though one could have argued the same about John Delaney before last night’s debate.

Here at RedState, we will also be covering the debate on our front page with live commentary. If you check out RedState’s contributor list on Twitter, you’ll get live updates from many of us there as well.

Prepare your drinks now, friends. It’s going to be a long night.

The post Democratic Debate, Round 2: What To Expect When You’re Lamenting appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group biden-pointing-300x153 Democratic Debate, Round 2: What To Expect When You’re Lamenting Pete Buttigieg michael bennett marianne williamson Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris John Hickenlooper Joe Biden Front Page Stories Featured Story eric swalwell elections democrats Democratic Debate Bernie Sanders Andrew Yang Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Elizabeth Warren celebrated her birthday at a Planned Parenthood forum

Westlake Legal Group WarrenDark Elizabeth Warren celebrated her birthday at a Planned Parenthood forum The Blog Planned Parenthood Action Fund Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris Elizabeth Warren Abortion #WeDecide2020

Of course, she did. This is how ridiculous politics has become in 2019. Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren celebrated her birthday on the campaign trail in South Carolina by participating in a Planned Parenthood Action Fund forum. Nothing celebrates life more than courting the nation’s largest abortion provider.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPact) forum was not an official convention event during the South Carolina Democrat Convention but it was a must-attend event for 20 presidential hopefuls. The national political director for PPact tweeted out a video of some folks singing the Happy Birthday song to Elizabeth Warren, including Kirsten Gillibrand. As you may have noticed, Gillibrand is making abortion rights her central campaign theme, along with drinking in gay bars and playing beer pong.

PPact is the political arm of Planned Parenthood. This forum in South Carolina was the first such event focused on abortion. The usual talking points were uttered by the candidates.

The candidates were united in decrying a series of tough, recent abortion restrictions approved by Republican-controlled legislatures around the country geared to ultimately provoke a Supreme Court case that could overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

Those efforts have come alongside attempts to strip taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood, which abortion rights advocates and some leading medical groups say would make it harder for low-income women to get access to basic health care, not only abortion.

“We’ve been on defense for 47 years and it’s not working,” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. Warren, who turned 70 on Saturday, said trying to restrict abortion usually boils down to sexism.

“You’re not going to lock women back in the kitchen. You’re not going to tell us what to do,” she declared, eliciting a standing ovation from hundreds in the crowd, many sporting pink Planned Parenthood T-shirts.

Kirsten Gillibrand described the pushback against infanticide as President Trump’s war on women, though it is literally a war on the unborn. Kamala Harris conflated abortion rights with voting rights.

California Sen. Kamala Harris promised to create a federal system of “preclearance” mandating that states passing major abortion restrictions be subject to federal review, similar to how states with histories of racial discrimination long had their electoral rules scrutinized under the Voting Rights Act.

Joe Biden awkwardly tried to explain his flip-flop-flip on the Hyde Amendment. He seems to be a little rusty about having to articulate his opinions and dealing with time restraints.

Pressed by forum moderators about that change of heart and his overall “mixed record” on abortion rights, Biden responded, “I’m not sure about the mixed record part.”

Later, a tearful audience member declared that the Hyde Amendment did disproportional damage to low-income women who rely on government funding for many health care services, including abortion.

Biden noted that he helped former President Barack Obama pass that administration’s signature health care law which expanded women’s health insurance coverage, including improved access to birth control. He also referred several times to written notes and seemed unnerved by the forum’s 15-minute per candidate limit, joking, “What, do I have 10 seconds left or something?”

South Carolina is a conservative red state. An abortion forum hosted by Planned Parenthood is a new twist in the run-up to the Democrats’ first debate. While being pro-abortion is mandatory for Democrat candidates, abortion is not the top issue under consideration by voters as they decide which candidate to support. Three in ten voters say they will only vote for a candidate who supports their views on abortion. That is the highest number in CNN polling since that organization began polling the issue in 1996. Gender plays into the strongest abortion supporters, as you might expect.

Gender is a big factor in whether a person views abortion as a critical issue, even more than partisanship. Women (33%) — especially independent women (42%) and non-white women (39%) — are more apt to consider it a critical issue than men (26%). The share who say it is critical for them is about the same across party lines (33% for independents, 29% for Democrats, 28% for Republicans).

Twenty percent overall say they don’t see abortion as a major issue, while 45% would consider a candidate’s position on abortion, but don’t see it as a decisive issue.

Steve Bullock, Wayne Messam and Tulsi Gabbard didn’t attend the forum.

The post Elizabeth Warren celebrated her birthday at a Planned Parenthood forum appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group WarrenDark-300x159 Elizabeth Warren celebrated her birthday at a Planned Parenthood forum The Blog Planned Parenthood Action Fund Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris Elizabeth Warren Abortion #WeDecide2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Ben Sasse Gives Impassioned Floor Speech on the Left’s Abortion Extremism, Torches Gillibrand’s Absolutism

Westlake Legal Group BenSasseSenate-620x366 Video: Ben Sasse Gives Impassioned Floor Speech on the Left’s Abortion Extremism, Torches Gillibrand’s Absolutism washington D.C. progressives Pro-Life Politics planned parenthood North Carolina Nebraska Kirsten Gillibrand Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture & Faith Culture Conservatives Congress Campaigns Ben Sasse Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) speaks on the floor of the U.S. Senate – 6/21/19. Screen grab via Sasse’s You Tube channel.

In the aftermath of the Democratic party’s disturbing far leftward lurch on abortion this year, including supporting allowing babies who survive botched abortions to die, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) took to the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday to decry their position, and note how out of touch they’d become with the American people.

Noting that several of the Democratic candidates for president would be appearing this weekend at a Planned Parenthood forum in South Carolina, Sasse said that the Democratic party has become more extreme over the years on abortion, going from advocating for “safe, legal, and rare” to free abortions on demand, and comparing pro-lifers to racists and anti-Semitics:

And in fact, it’s actually worse than this – because the position of every senator running for the Democratic nomination, and at least one governor, is that a living, breathing baby who survives an abortion procedure can be left to die after birth. All seven senators running for the Democratic presidential nomination voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act earlier this year, and Governor Bullock, of Montana, vetoed a state-level version of the bill, just before he entered the race. So as things currently stand, it’s entirely possible that the Democratic nominee for the highest office in our land in 2020 will be publicly agnostic about the moral status of post-abortion infanticide. Morally agnostic about post-abortion infanticide.

[…]

As Democrats’ abortion positions have become more extreme, they have not sought to even persuade fellow citizens with whom they disagree. Rather, they have become openly hostile to Americans who disagree on this great moral challenge. My colleague from New York, for instance, Senator Gillibrand — who will be attending this weekend’s forum in South Carolina — made her feelings clear earlier this month in an interview with the Des Moines Register. In promising that she would only appoint judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade, here’s what she said. Listen to this quote:

“I think there are some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable. Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. . . .

This is not an issue where there is a fair other side. There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.”

After pointing out how outside of the mainstream Gillibrand’s stance on abortion is, Sasse went on to talk about the racist origins of Planned Parenthood – specifically its founder Margaret Sanger, who was a eugenicist. Sasse noted that the ugly eugenics and racism of the abortion movement did not die out with Sanger, but is in fact still very much a part of it today:

We could also note that it’s in part because of this ugly history that black women in America are three and a half times more likely to have an abortion than white women. And in some parts of Senator Gillibrand’s home state, black children are actually more likely to be aborted than to be carried to term. Or we could point to the continued eugenic use of abortion. For example, to kill children who have non-life-threatening diseases. In the United States today, two-thirds of all babies in the womb who are found to have down syndrome are aborted. Two-thirds of all babies found to have down syndrome in the U.S. are now aborted. And in some parts of Europe the rate is pushing 100% and there are public ad campaigns in two nations in Europe to celebrate the fact that they’ve gotten rid of all of their down syndrome babies.

But instead of going point by point, I’ll just recommend that anyone who wants to better understand this disturbing history should read Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky last month, which came down late last month. I guess that, according to my Senate colleague, Justice Thomas is one of those racists – those notorious pro-life racists that are stalking America.

Life News HQ has the full transcript of the speech, which you can read here. You can also watch it below:

Sasse has a 100% rating with the National Right to Life, and 0% ratings with both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

—————–
—Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–

The post Video: Ben Sasse Gives Impassioned Floor Speech on the Left’s Abortion Extremism, Torches Gillibrand’s Absolutism appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BenSasseSenate-300x177 Video: Ben Sasse Gives Impassioned Floor Speech on the Left’s Abortion Extremism, Torches Gillibrand’s Absolutism washington D.C. progressives Pro-Life Politics planned parenthood North Carolina Nebraska Kirsten Gillibrand Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture & Faith Culture Conservatives Congress Campaigns Ben Sasse Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Daily Beast: The Democratic Party is full of sexists

Westlake Legal Group Warren-AOC Daily Beast: The Democratic Party is full of sexists Women The Blog Sexism Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris Elizabeth Warren Daily Beast 2020 Democrat primaries

Democrats are still wrestling with one rather uncomfortable question in terms of how the primary race is shaping up in the early stages. We’re in the latest “Year of the Women” as well as the #MeToo era, right? So why are two ancient old white dudes still outperforming all of the qualified women who are running? Elizabeth Warren has been showing some momentum lately and Kamala Harris has manged to at least stay above the background noise level, but Biden and Sanders remain the definite leaders thus far on a national level.

How do we explain this? Well, at least according to some recent reporting at the Daily Beast, the answer should be obvious. The Democratic primary voters around the country are a bunch of sexists.

Sexism is weighing down the women running for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new public opinion survey conducted by Ipsos for The Daily Beast reveals.

A full 20 percent of Democratic and independent men who responded to the survey said they agreed with the sentiment that women are “less effective in politics than men.” And while 74 percent of respondents claimed they were personally comfortable with a female president, only 33 percent believed their neighbors would be comfortable with a woman in the Oval Office.

That latter number, explained Mallory Newall, research director at Ipsos, was a strong tell about how gender dynamics were souring voters on certain candidates. Asking respondents how they believe their neighbors feel about an issue is “a classic method to get around people being reluctant to admit to less popular views.”

It’s tempting to dismiss this sort of analysis right out of the gate because this same Democratic base didn’t seem to have that much trouble nominating Hillary Clinton last time. Granted, it didn’t work out for them very well in the end, but they still nominated a woman who wound up winning both the nomination and the popular vote in the general election, for whatever that’s worth. (Narrator: It wasn’t worth anything.)

But reading the details of the questions used in the linked survey, perhaps there’s more than meets the eye here. Yes, it’s rather shocking that one in five Democrats and left-leaning independents were willing to admit they thought women were “less effective” in politics. Honestly, I’m kind of surprised you’d get anyone to openly admit it in 2019. But it’s the second question that was more interesting.

They asked voters if they thought their neighbors would be comfortable with a female president. Only 33% answered that question in the affirmative. That’s a rather clever way to get around people’s innate reluctance to openly admit to what they know would be an unpopular view. That allows the respondent to basically say, “Oh, I’m totally open-minded and okay with this, but the rest of the people around here? Yeah… they’re kind of a bunch of sexists/racists/homophobes or whatever else.”

Admittedly, this doesn’t qualify as hard data because it requires some reading of the tea leaves to arrive at a conclusion. But if you ask a large enough group of people and almost always manage to miraculously find the only person in the neighborhood who doesn’t harbor some sort of bias, you eventually have to ask what’s really going on.

So what do we think? Is this survey accurate? Are Democrats really a bunch of closet misogynists who don’t think women can handle the top job? We report, you decide.

The post Daily Beast: The Democratic Party is full of sexists appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Warren-AOC-300x159 Daily Beast: The Democratic Party is full of sexists Women The Blog Sexism Kirsten Gillibrand kamala harris Elizabeth Warren Daily Beast 2020 Democrat primaries   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com