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 > Posts tagged "left"

John Hayward Absolutely Nails the Stakes of 2020, Conservatism, and Donald Trump

Westlake Legal Group trump-barr-ross-620x317 John Hayward Absolutely Nails the Stakes of 2020, Conservatism, and Donald Trump twitter town hall SJW Politics LGBTQ left Judges John Hayward George Will Front Page Stories Front Page Election donald trump democrats Crazy Beto O'Rourke Allow Media Exception 2020

President Donald Trump arrives with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr to speak about the census in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 11, 2019. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

As we deal with impeachment fever, the coming election, and the absolute insanity coming from the Democratic party, all these different factors have left gaping holes between most conservatives and the beltway class that claims the same general ideology. Obsessions over decorum vs. results have become the major dividing line. When Trump cussed at his rally the other night, I didn’t even have to open Twitter to know exactly who would rush to virtue signal their disapproval. Other’s simply didn’t care because they see a far more dangerous threat from the Democratic party in 2020 than Trump’s filthy mouth.

The differences seem almost not reconcilable at this point, with some former conservative icons like George Will actively stumping for a Democrat victory. It’s no coincidence that people like Will have the least to lose in that scenario.

That leads me to this thread Mollie Hemingway shared yesterday. It’s written by John Hayward and perfectly captures the angst and thinking behind much of the support for Trump.

I’m going to lay it all out here to digest.

I’ll cut in here to say this is exactly correct. While NE corridor conservatives thumb their noses up at those icky evangelicals (and Christians in general who support Trump), they never stopped to consider the actual realities at play. The “culture wars” are not a new thing and conservatives got their clock cleaned during the Obama years. It’s only gotten worse under Trump, as trans issues and the absolute insanity of the LGBTQ lobby have taken hold.

Christians didn’t vote for Trump and don’t support Trump now because they are hypocrites. They are doing it for self-survival. We just had a 2020 Democrat candidate vow to punish churches who don’t support same-sex marriage. Not only that, everyone in the audience cheered wildly at the idea. Not a single legacy media outlet pushed back, nor did any of the other candidates.

There is never going to be a line. They are never going to stop. That’s why so many saw Trump winning, and by virtue saving the courts, as so important. George Will may not be affected, but millions of Americans feel that weight.

Let’s continue.

Exactly. Conservatism isn’t just a “principle” or ideology. It’s the act of actually trying to conserve something. Any Republican that is actively throwing the game because they suppose it makes them moral or virtuous isn’t conserving anything. Perhaps they can feel some personal good about that, but they also don’t get to obscure the realities of their decisions.

There’s no better evidence for this than how much conservatives have continued to lose the culture wars no matter who is President. The judiciary is the last line of defense. There is no backup plan, no valient media riding in on a white horse to finally sway public opinion in a fair way. So some anti-Trump conservatives can “muh judges” all they want. It’s those judges that will ensure we have even a fighting chance over the next several decades.

Again, the left are not going to stop. It’s just a few years ago that it was considered a conspiracy theory to think Democrats might strip churches of tax exemption over teaches on homosexuality. How’s that worked out? Heck, we’ve went from “we aren’t going to take your guns” to “we support federal confiscation programs” in a matter of months.

The problem is that there are a sizable amount of conservative influencers who’ve grown fat and happy in the Acela Corridor that are perfectly fine with their profession becoming even more niche. They think they can ride the lightening and come out unscathed on the other end. I think they are mistaken.

Look, at this point, what Hayward is saying wont move the needle with these people, but it still needs to be said. If they want to sit on the sidelines, fine. What they don’t get to do is work to get a Democrat elected and then rejoin the party in 2021 as thought leaders. They don’t get to pretend the consequences they are cheering on don’t actually exist. They will have no grounds to complain about anything the left does and as I’ve said now three times, the left are not going to stop.

If a conservative is going to go out on Twitter and wring their hands over that CNN LGTBQ+ whatever town hall last week, then they should be ready to do something to stop it from becoming a reality. If they aren’t, then they aren’t conserving anything. They are just keeping faux religious tenants. We’ve got real religions for that.

Battles don’t wait for you to feel good enough about your own side to fight them.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post John Hayward Absolutely Nails the Stakes of 2020, Conservatism, and Donald Trump appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-minneapolis-300x153 John Hayward Absolutely Nails the Stakes of 2020, Conservatism, and Donald Trump twitter town hall SJW Politics LGBTQ left Judges John Hayward George Will Front Page Stories Front Page Election donald trump democrats Crazy Beto O'Rourke Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Study: Independents six points less likely to vote Democratic when told that candidates have shifted left

Westlake Legal Group ew Study: Independents six points less likely to vote Democratic when told that candidates have shifted left warren Trump The Blog shift sanders republican left indies independents democratic biden Allahpundit Alexander Agadjanian

A noteworthy caution to Democratic voters on a day when Biden’s lead in the RCP poll of polls has slipped to just 4.2 points, easily the smallest margin he’s enjoyed since entering the race. Progressive flamethrower Elizabeth Warren is now hot on his heels and has even led narrowly in a couple of polls taken over the last 10 days. Maybe the exciting left-wing candidate who can mobilize Dem voters is the way to go against Trump!

Or maybe not, says researcher Alexander Agadjanian:

The experiment’s procedure was simple. A random half of participants read a news snippet illustrating the leftward shift, while the other half read about unrelated topics, such as the schedule of election dates. The news item was a few sentences that included policies discussed by the candidates: decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings; expanding undocumented immigrants’ access to government services; replacing private health insurance with a government-run system; and establishing free public college for all children from working-class families. The content was drawn directly from real news coverage.

Both sets of respondents then indicated how they planned to vote in 2020 (whether for President Trump or the eventual Democratic nominee), how strongly they were considering voting Democratic, and how motivated they felt to turn out and vote for or against the Democratic nominee. Because of the random assignment — with some reading about the policy positions and others reading innocuous, unrelated information — the difference in responses between the groups can be attributed to the effect of reading about the leftward shift.

When deciding between Mr. Trump and the Democratic nominee, voters in the middle — the independents who could ultimately tilt things in Mr. Trump’s favor — became six percentage points less likely to vote Democratic after reading about the leftward turn compared with the independents who had read the innocuous content.

The good news for Warren is that *Democratic* voters who read about the leftward shift were *more* likely to say they’d strongly consider voting for the eventual nominee — but only by a margin of three points, less than the share of indies who were repelled by the leftist trend. If you’re a true-believing progressive, maybe none of that matters. Better to place a risky bet on meaningful change in the form of Warren or Bernie Sanders as nominee than to place a safe bet on the status quo by backing Biden. Or maybe you think the “alienated independent” effect here will be weaker than Agadjanian expects. For instance, if Trump ends up bogged down in impeachment and scandal, or if the economy slows down, indies who might be reluctant to vote for a leftist might nonetheless be more reluctant to vote for Trump. And maybe Warren as nominee will so energize Democrats, including far-left Democrats who sneered at Clinton three years ago, that Democratic turnout will blow the roof off and more than compensate for the loss in independents.

But alienating independents is a big risk, obviously. And the result here buttresses Trump’s strategy to run against socialism next year no matter who the nominee ends up being, even the not-particularly-socialist Biden. That would have been an interesting follow-up question for Agadjanian — do candidates with a rep for being far-left, e.g., Sanders and Warren, lose more independents than a moderate like Biden does when indies are made to read about the party’s leftward shift or is the effect uniform across all candidates? If it’s less pronounced for Biden, obviously that supports his electability pitch.

Another possibility: Maybe Warren as nominee would simply reposition herself as kinda sorta centrist in the general election. All nominees move towards the middle a little, after all. Perry Bacon argues today at FiveThirtyEight that that’s unlikely to happen this time, though. In recent history, party nominees have tended to pander to the center of the general electorate more through “tone” and their VP choice than by backing down on policy promises they made during the primaries. Watering down one’s policies for the general election might not even amount to effective pandering:

The previous Democratic presidential nominees were all in some ways following a kind of “median voter’ model, imagining that there was a set of voters whose views were basically in between the positions of the Democrats and the Republicans. But there is a lot of evidence that moderate, swing and independent voters aren’t particularly centrist, but hold a lot of different views, some of which are conservative, some of which are liberal.

So maybe Sanders or Warren, in a general election, keep their populism pretty amped up in an effort to woo voters who may swing between the two parties but would prefer an unabashed economic populist. Maybe Harris, instead of choosing a centrist white man as her running mate, picks Warren — or Warren chooses Harris — and they run a campaign with strongly liberal stands on issues of race and identity, hoping to win the election by energizing voters particularly turned off by Trump’s racialized and racist appeals.

Any “alienated independents” who are lost now aren’t likely to be wooed back next year in the general, in other words. Democrats are going to have to beat Trump with a version of Trump’s own strategy from 2016, with sky-high turnout among their own base and indies concluding that the other party’s candidate is just a little bit more reprehensible on balance. Every election is a “lesser of two evils” election now!

Speaking of centrism and electability, go read this story about Pete Buttigieg trying to reposition himself as a centrist in the primary now that Biden’s grip on the frontrunner role has begun to slip. Moderate Dems are going to demand an alternative on the ballot next year to Warren and Sanders, even if Grandpa Joe suddenly appears unelectable. Right now, with Harris having collapsed and none of the other also-rans showing signs of life in the polls, Mayor Pete is the only game in town.

The post Study: Independents six points less likely to vote Democratic when told that candidates have shifted left appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group ew-300x153 Study: Independents six points less likely to vote Democratic when told that candidates have shifted left warren Trump The Blog shift sanders republican left indies independents democratic biden Allahpundit Alexander Agadjanian   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is?

Westlake Legal Group w-4 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative

Is it because … lefties aren’t very nice generally?

I mean, who are they nice to? Besides Bernie, of course.

This isn’t the first time lately that she’s complained about their meanness, for what it’s worth.

She knows one of the reasons for the disparate treatment, as she explained to Eric Bolling in a subsequent interview (which you can watch in full here): “The Republicans don’t have to be attacking me now, I’m in a Democratic primary, so Republicans are like, ‘Hi, Marianne!’ And some people on the left are working for other candidates, you know how that goes.” She’s an agent of chaos in the Democratic race, a wild card offering progressive policies packaged with New Age warnings about “dark psychic forces” in the White House. Righties naturally crave Democratic electoral chaos, Democrats naturally abhor it. Ergo, righties are warmer to her than lefties are.

But there’s a point to be made here too about righties being more open to religion — or “spirituality,” in Williamson’s case — than lefties are, with some caveats. The numbers from Pew:

Westlake Legal Group 1-2 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative

More Republicans signal religious/spiritual interest than Democrats do no matter how you phrase the questions, although the gap often isn’t as wide as you’d think. In the table above, for instance, the Republican advantage over Dems among those who say religion is very or somewhat important to their lives is 12 points — noteworthy, but not overwhelming. When asked if they’re absolutely or fairly certain that God exists, 90 percent of Republicans say yes but so do 76 percent of Democrats. Steer the questions away from God/religion and towards vaguer “spiritual” signposts and the gap narrows. Among those who say they “feel a sense of spiritual peace and wellbeing” at least once or twice a month, Republicans lead just 77/72.

There are some notable divergences, though.

Westlake Legal Group 3-1 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative

Asked where they’re most likely to seek guidance on right and wrong, 44 percent of Republicans say religion. Just 25 percent of Democrats do. Go figure righties might take appeals about “dark psychic forces” more seriously than lefties.

But wait, there’s another important distinction here. Although it’s true that most Democrats are generally religious, it is not true that religious belief is distributed uniformly across demographic lines within the Democratic Party. An eye-popping result from another Pew survey:

Westlake Legal Group g-1 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative

Just one-third of white Democrats believe in God as described in the Bible. Nearly as many, 21 percent, don’t believe in God at all. And it’s Very Online white Democrats, of course, who are writing most of the liberal commentary on the presidential race and who are heavily invested in Sanders and Warren as instruments of a social-justice revolution that can overtake America if only the rest of the field, which includes Williamson, will get out of their g-ddamned way already. (If Williamson thinks they’ve been mean to her, she should ask Beto O’Rourke how it felt to be targeted by Berniebros early in the race as a potential obstacle to socialism’s final victory.) Of course the left’s atheist-agnostic progressive pundit niche would have special contempt for someone like Williamson. They’re the ones who are “being mean” to her, not Democrats generally.

And in fairness to them, sometimes they’re right to be. Not for religious reasons but for crankery like this.

Anyway, she missed the cut for tonight’s debate and has never polled much better than an asterisk despite her splashy performances at the first two debates, so she’s effectively out of the race even though she technically remains in. From now on we’ll have to get our fix of religion, progressive-style, from Pete Buttigieg, who seems to view Christianity chiefly as a political cudgel. Although given his polling lately, he might be headed for oblivion with Marianne soon enough.

The post Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group w-4-300x159 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Here’s How Hard Democrats and the Media Are Rooting for a Recession

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-2-2-620x317 Here’s How Hard Democrats and the Media Are Rooting for a Recession Rooting Interest recession Politics nbc MSNBC Montage media bias Mashup Liberals left jobs Harmful Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story fake news Economy donald trump democrats David Rutz CNN CBS ABC

If you’ve noticed a strong uptick in doom and gloom about the economy lately, you aren’t imagining it.

With the Mueller report blowing up on the pad, Democrats and the media needed a new strategy and they think they’ve found something. Specifically, they’ve honed in on two things: Making the case that Donald Trump is chaotic and rooting for a recession. The latter they are hoping hits next year, just in time for the 2020 election.

How hard are they rooting for a recession? This hard.

It’s as if the talking points went out and they are reciting them in unison. It doesn’t matter that unemployment is low and the fundamentals of the economy are strong, not perfect, but still strong. The left have decided the best thing to do is will a recession into happening, and make no mistake, a constant barrage of negative coverage can shake markets and employers.

Of course, a recession would profoundly hurt normal Americans but those in Acela corridor don’t care about that. They’ve got their big bank accounts and recession proof jobs. Seeing an economic slowdown is a price they are willing to pay, forget the collateral damage. Getting rid of Trump is the only thing that matters.

I’ll also point out the immense hypocrisy and inconsistency of Democrats and their media allies talking down the current economy while they continually tried to prop up the slowest recovery on record under Barack Obama. This is how it always happens. When a Democrat is president, any news is good news. When it’s a Republican, even good reports must be spun into negatives. Everything bad that happens under Democrats is headlined as being “unexpected.” You’ve seen the song and dance before.

In this case, even if a recession comes, it’s likely not coming for another 2 years or so (normal cycles dictate we will have another recession eventually). There’s no reason to be beating this drum right now except to try to suppress market and consumer confidence, perhaps speeding up the process. Nothing we are seeing from the left or the media is genuine concern or honest analysis. It’s purely politics and should be treated as such.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Here’s How Hard Democrats and the Media Are Rooting for a Recession appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media-bias-300x169 Here’s How Hard Democrats and the Media Are Rooting for a Recession Rooting Interest recession Politics nbc MSNBC Montage media bias Mashup Liberals left jobs Harmful Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story fake news Economy donald trump democrats David Rutz CNN CBS ABC   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

“Fredo” Is a Racist Term Unless the Left Uses It, Including Chris Cuomo’s Guests, Then It’s Fine

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-12-620x317 “Fredo” Is a Racist Term Unless the Left Uses It, Including Chris Cuomo’s Guests, Then It’s Fine republicans racism Politics Media left george takei Front Page Stories Fredo Featured Story donald trump jr donald trump democrats CNN Chris Cuomo Anna Navarro Allow Media Exception

“It’s okay when we do it” is the unofficial motto of the left. I’ve said it once before, but it bears repeating now.

In the wake of CNN’s Chris Cuomo flipping out over someone labeling him as “Fredo,” the left rushed to his defense by referring to the name as “racist against Italians.”

To be clear, “Fredo” is not a racist term, and is an attack on someone’s weak character. Still, Cuomo and the left can’t hear something unpleasant to their ears without firing off the term “racist” like they’re the seagulls in Finding Nemo.

Interestingly, the left likes to use the term Fredo itself before this. Here are a few examples, including a CNN host using it.

Here’s George Takei calling Donald Trump Jr. “Fredo.”

Here’s Vanity Fair using it to describe the Trump administration.

And for the pièce de résistance, here’s CNN contributor Anna Navarro calling Trump Jr. “Fredo”…on Chris Cuomo’s show! 

Apparently, using the term is only offensive if it’s used against someone on the left who takes it way too defensively and adopts a tough-guy Italian-American accent as a defense.

Use it to describe a Trump family member or his administration and it’s no longer a slur, it’s somehow and accurate descriptor. If you’re wondering why people can no longer take the left’s claims of “racism” seriously anymore, this is why.

As I wrote earlier, the left has no real defense for themselves as confronting public figures during their off-hours is something they themselves have encouraged. This includes Cuomo, who sat back and defended Antifa after they attempted to raid the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson, forcing his family to hide in the pantry. His network also doxxed an old lady for simply standing up for the Covington Catholic kids over a smirk.

This outrage from the left is purely for show. They don’t really think “Fredo” is a racial slur, they just want the public to believe it is in order to foster the “right is racist” narrative.

 

 

 

The post “Fredo” Is a Racist Term Unless the Left Uses It, Including Chris Cuomo’s Guests, Then It’s Fine appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-12-300x153 “Fredo” Is a Racist Term Unless the Left Uses It, Including Chris Cuomo’s Guests, Then It’s Fine republicans racism Politics Media left george takei Front Page Stories Fredo Featured Story donald trump jr donald trump democrats CNN Chris Cuomo Anna Navarro Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Leftists More Easily Manipulated by TV and Film According to New Survey

Westlake Legal Group arm-rest-4010909_960_720-620x422 Leftists More Easily Manipulated by TV and Film According to New Survey survey right Politics morning consult media manipulation Media left Hollywood Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment democrats confirmation bias Allow Media Exception

There’s a reason Hollywood celebrities continue to make cringe-worthy PSA’s and it’s because they have a high success rate of changing the minds of those who lean left.

According to a survey done by Morning Consult and The Hollywood Reporter, those who lean left are more easily susceptible to suggestions by the things they see in hear on the silver screen or what they see on their home screens as reported by the Daily Wire:

The survey asked: “To what extent has your opinion about racism been changed by a docuseries, movie, or TV show like ‘Green Book’ or ‘Crash’?”

17% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans responded with “a lot,” in contrast with 10% of all persons surveyed.

The survey asked: “To what extent has your opinion about sexism been changed by a docuseries, movie, or TV show like ‘The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel’ or ‘A League of Their Own’?”

14% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans responded with “a lot,” in contrast with 10% of all persons surveyed.

The survey asked: “To what extent has your opinion about LGBTQ people been changed by a docuseries, movie, or TV show like ‘Brokeback Mountain’ or ‘Modern Family’?”

15% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans responded with “a lot,” in contrast with 10% of all persons surveyed.

The survey asked: “To what extent has your opinion about climate change been changed by a docuseries, movie, or TV show like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ or ‘Planet Earth’?”

The difference was more stark on this question. 27% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans responded with “a lot,” in contrast with 18% of all persons surveyed.

The differences remain pretty static until the question about how things seen on the screen effect environment.

The study doesn’t go into why this may be, but if I were to throw a theory out, it’s one of two things. Either those who lean Republican are naturally more inclined to be less lead by things they often understand to be fiction, or — and this is more likely — Republicans and those who lean right have been trained over time to not believe what the mainstream media pumps out.

Since the right is often maliciously targeted by the media, and many documentaries are geared toward pushing a leftist narrative than an accurate one, the right has become wary of media manipulation. Especially in the age of the internet where proof of media falsehoods are just a click away, the right tends to immediately disbelieve or withhold judgement on what’s presented to them, while the left is ready to have its biases confirmed once the mainstream presents their own beliefs back to them.

I say the latter is more accurate because no one is immune to confirmation bias, but in the age when the left is in firm control over the mainstream media, it’s much easier for those on the right to be tougher nuts to crack in terms of manipulation.

The post Leftists More Easily Manipulated by TV and Film According to New Survey appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group arm-rest-4010909_960_720-300x204 Leftists More Easily Manipulated by TV and Film According to New Survey survey right Politics morning consult media manipulation Media left Hollywood Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment democrats confirmation bias Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Biden fondly recalls “civility” of segregationist senators, vows that he won’t demonize the rich

Westlake Legal Group jb Biden fondly recalls “civility” of segregationist senators, vows that he won’t demonize the rich wealth The Blog Tax segregationist rich liberal left fundraiser eastland donors biden

Remember when he got slammed by centrists for abandoning the Hyde Amendment, signaling that he might be turning towards the left?

He’s really overcorrected!

I don’t know what to make of this, candidly. Was he trolling liberals by saying it? Or is he really so oblivious as to how this plays in 2019, particularly among progressives?

At the event, Mr. Biden noted that he served with the late Senators James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia, both Democrats who were staunch opponents of desegregation. Mr. Eastland was the powerful chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Mr. Biden entered the chamber in 1973.

“I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland,” Mr. Biden said, slipping briefly into a Southern accent, according to a pool report from the fund-raiser. “He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son.’”…

“Well guess what?” Mr. Biden continued. “At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.”

I have a theory as to why Eastland called him “son” rather than “boy.”

The defense from Bidenland will be that he’s always talked this way about segregationist former colleagues (true), no one had much of a problem with it until now (true), and loyally serving the first black president for two terms as VP should be proof enough of his personal belief in racial equality. With the great mass of Democratic voters, his Obama association will provide him immunity from charges of racial insensitivity. But his competition will use this to try to pierce that immunity, especially in states like South Carolina where the primary electorate is majority black. They’re already teeing up attacks on his role in drafting the Clinton-era crime bill and his early opposition to busing as a means of ending segregation. Now they’ll throw this at him. Probably it won’t hurt him. But why would he take the risk? If he wanted to make a banal point about bipartisanship and comity, he could have just cited his close friendship with McCain.

Even if only the left-most five percent of the electorate holds this against him, that’s five percent that he needs in the general election. Progressives are *looking* for reasons to turn him into a hate object, knowing that he’s momentarily the chief impediment to a socialist takeover of the party. He should want to remain sufficiently tolerable to them that they’ll turn out for him, grudgingly, against Trump; that was the point of the Hyde Amendment flip-flop, after all. So what’s he doing highlighting his lack of any personal animus towards two segregationists?

Don’t ask me what he was doing with these comments either:

“Remember, I got in trouble with some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side, because I said, you know, what I’ve found is rich people are just as patriotic as poor people. Not a joke. I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who’s made money,” Biden told about 100 well-dressed donors at the Carlyle Hotel on New York’s Upper East Side, where the hors d’oeuvres included lobster, chicken satay and crudites.

“Truth of the matter is, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done,” Biden said. “We can disagree in the margins. But the truth of the matter is, it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change,” he said…

“You’re not the other,” Biden told the assembled group, most of whom were wearing suits. “I need you very badly.”

Bidenland will claim that that’s perfectly in keeping with his centrist, bipartisan message. He’s not saying that taxes on the rich can’t go up, they’ll point out, he’s only saying that the rich shouldn’t be regarded as enemies. Well .. no, he’s saying a little more than that. The bit about how “no one’s standard of living would change” reads like a promise, right up front at the start of the campaign, to a crowd of fabulously rich people that he’ll protect them — and their money — from the populist working class. Biden may reject the idea that there’s an “us” and “them” in American life (which is ironic given his patience for segregationists) but that idea has many adherents now on both sides. At a minimum, you would think, he might acknowledge that populists have legitimate grievances by not publicly pledging to elite donors that “nothing would fundamentally change” under his presidency. You can imagine what Bernie, and Warren, and maybe even some of the less wingnutty candidates like Beto and Klobuchar, will do with this soundbite at the debate next week. If you had to summarize the beliefs of the Democratic base in one line, you could do worse than “America’s distribution of wealth needs to fundamentally change.” Now here’s Biden aiming a dagger right at their hearts.

Again, why? It’s not like the crowd at the fundraiser would have closed their wallets if he had omitted this. They’re backing him in the first place because they already know he believes it: He’s the moderate business-friendly knight who’ll keep the howling Bernie barbarians away from their money. Biden didn’t need to confirm that out loud and hand a ripe line of attack to his opponents. What is he thinking?

The post Biden fondly recalls “civility” of segregationist senators, vows that he won’t demonize the rich appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group jb-300x153 Biden fondly recalls “civility” of segregationist senators, vows that he won’t demonize the rich wealth The Blog Tax segregationist rich liberal left fundraiser eastland donors biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Word “Racism” Has Lost All Meaning

Westlake Legal Group d90ed685-5f16-4a4f-b73c-6f20d000279d-620x317 The Word “Racism” Has Lost All Meaning white south park republicans racism Politics Michael Richards Matt Stone and Trey Parker left hispanic Front Page Stories Featured Story black Allow Media Exception accusations

In 2006, Michael Richards was very angry when he was continuously heckled while he was on stage doing a stand-up comedy show. Richards, unsure of what to do, began doing what some comedians do when they feel up against the wall. They immediately go to shock value. Richards began throwing around the “n-word” as a way to try to get cheap shock-laughs while freaking out on some hecklers and was labeled a racist for it. The hecklers were black, making Richards’ screaming of the “n-word” a racist act, and fair enough.

Richards has had the label of “racist” attached to him ever since. Thing is, I’m not exactly sure that Richards could be considered a racist. He committed a racist act, to be sure, but in subsequent interviews spanning years, I can only conclude that the guy isn’t actually harboring animosity toward people of different skin color. He was just a bad stand-up comedian who had a moment of panic-induced rage that made him cross a societal line in an attempt to gain footing.

It happens to comedians all the time in varying levels. It recently happened to Whoopie Goldberg. It doesn’t make what Richards did right, but it does offer us context, and context is exactly what seems to be thrown out in almost every accusation of racism nowadays.

As I wrote earlier on Wednesday, Tim Allen topped trending lists on Twitter because of accusations of racism being thrown at him. Why is he racist? Because he doesn’t know how to play spades, and six years ago he tried to reason that saying the “n-word” in a specific context should be allowed if the context has zero racist connotations.

Years of the “n-word” being used by all sorts of people proved Allen correct. One shining example is Matt Stone and Trey Parker of South Park making an entire episode centered around the Richards incident where they used the “n-word” openly many times. There was little to no blowback over it. Stone and Parker even made the argument in the South Park episode that Richards wasn’t racist, he was just a bad comedian. Richards himself has made that observation.

Here we see four white men using the “n-word” in various contexts, and yet none of them actually are racist when nuances are considered.

Yet context and nuance are given no quarter in today’s social justice infested society.

People are labeled “racist” left and right for simply opposing a person of color in any way regardless of the subject. I was recently labeled a racist for pointing out that twerking on cop cars and sticking your butt out at a camera at a Pride parade does nothing to help acceptance or tolerance of LGBT peoples.

The people in the video and pictures just happened to be black, but being black wasn’t the issue. It didn’t matter. I opposed something black people happened to be doing.

But you don’t even have to be doing anything to necessarily be labeled as racist. Are you a white Republican? You’re a racist? Are you a doctor or a nurse? Kamala Harris thinks you’re a racist. Did you vote for Trump? Clinton thinks you’re a racist. Are you a Hispanic woman wearing a MAGA hat? A white SJW will be along shortly to label you as racist. According to the activist left, Veggie Tales is racist too. Oh, and Lord of the Rings also causes racism to magically appear in people.

Most recently, Steven Crowder was labeled as a racist for daring to call Vox’s Carlos Maza a Mexican, which he is, and is something Carlos Maza proudly calls himself.

What isn’t racist? Anything that the left does.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace claimed there wasn’t a “strain of racism” on the left. Yet leftists activists and politicians embrace rabid antisemites like Nation of Islam hate preacher Louis Farrakhan, who think Hitler was a great man and that Jewish people are termites. CNN’s Don Lemon called white men the number one threat to America.  Leftist “comedian” Kristine Wong made a YouTube show that openly teaches kids racism against white people.

Even Virginia governors doing blackface seem only elicit a finite outrage from racially obsessed activists.

The word “racism” is no longer a description, and hasn’t been for some time. Now it’s simply a political tool with no meaning. The word doesn’t need context to be used, and you need not worry about dissecting nuance in order to toss it around. Just find something you don’t like and apply liberally. No pun intended.

This isn’t good for obvious reasons. For one, any actual racism gets lost in the minutia. We also lose sight of what actual racism looks like, and soon actual racism gets pardoned as reactive defensiveness against another race over accusations of racism that never happened. We clown ourselves and call it “being woke.”

This is why the word is losing its edge. People having the accusation of racism nowadays are more likely to laugh it off than actually go through the time-wasting process of proving they aren’t. Why should they? The vast majority of people accused of racism did nothing racist at all and have nothing to answer for.

What’s more, the general public isn’t asking them to answer for it either. The only people stomping their feet and demanding a pound of flesh are the mainstream media, politicians, and activists, and they’re losing the public’s ear thanks to overuse of the accusation.

The word “racism” just doesn’t mean anything now, and the left has only itself to blame.

The post The Word “Racism” Has Lost All Meaning appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group d90ed685-5f16-4a4f-b73c-6f20d000279d-300x153 The Word “Racism” Has Lost All Meaning white south park republicans racism Politics Michael Richards Matt Stone and Trey Parker left hispanic Front Page Stories Featured Story black Allow Media Exception accusations   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Heh: Plurality of Dem voters say Biden’s Hyde amendment flip-flop makes them … more likely to vote for him

Westlake Legal Group jb Heh: Plurality of Dem voters say Biden’s Hyde amendment flip-flop makes them … more likely to vote for him The Blog sanders liberal left Hyde Amendment flip flop democratic biden Abortion

At the end of the day, all most of us want is someone who’ll pander to us.

Doesn’t matter how cynical and expedient the pander is. The cynicism might even be a virtue of sorts, as a politician who’s willing to toss a stance he’s held for 40 years overboard overnight to get elected is a politician who’ll be verrrrrrry wary about crossing his base as president. Joe Biden wouldn’t have humiliated himself by bending the knee on the Hyde Amendment unless he was terrified of pro-choicers’ wrath. That terror won’t fade for a long time.

No one really cares whether an elected official shares their beliefs. What matters is whether an elected official will implement those beliefs. Trump learned that lesson as a newbie politician. Go figure that an old hand like Biden has learned it too.

Nearly a third of voters who say they plan to participate in a Democratic presidential primary or caucus, 32 percent, say they are more likely to vote for Biden after he changed his position on the Hyde Amendment, the ban named for the late Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill). Just 19 percent of potential Democratic primary voters say Biden’s flip-flop makes them less likely to vote for him.

Asked about the Hyde Amendment — which bans federal funds from being used by programs like Medicaid for abortion in most cases — Democratic primary voters lean against it, though not overwhelmingly. A plurality, 45 percent, oppose the amendment, while 38 percent support it. The energy is on the side of its opponents, however: 32 percent of Democratic primary voters “strongly oppose” the Hyde Amendment, more than the 19 percent who “strongly support” it.

I never know what to make of polls that ask voters if they’re more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate because of X. It all depends on which voters, no? It may be that many millions of progressives are now technically more likely to vote for Biden after his Hyde reversal, but that likelihood may have increased from one in 100 odds to two in 100. It may be that pro-choice Biden-loving centrists are also now more likely to vote for him following his Hyde flip-flop, except in their case the likelihood has increased from 98 in 100 odds to 99 in 100. In both cases, Biden’s Hyde switcheroo will have barely moved the electoral needle and yet it would nonetheless be true that many more people are likely to vote for him. Marginally, negligibly more likely.

Peek into the crosstabs and you’ll find that the split between those who said they were “much” more likely and “much” less likely to vote for him because of his Hyde reversal is closer than the split described in the excerpt above — 13/9 to be exact, which means that Biden’s reversal might have helped him a tiny bit in the primary. In the general election, though? Different ballgame. Here’s the split when the overall population was asked how his Hyde flip will affect their vote:

Westlake Legal Group mc Heh: Plurality of Dem voters say Biden’s Hyde amendment flip-flop makes them … more likely to vote for him The Blog sanders liberal left Hyde Amendment flip flop democratic biden Abortion

Among all registered voters and in every gender and age group (except one), more people are now less likely to vote for him post-Hyde reversal than they are more likely to do so. Notably, every group reaches double digits in the “much less likely” category. There may be a small but sizable minority of right-leaning voters out there who have no use for Trump and who like Biden enough personally that they’d consider crossing the aisle next year if Uncle Joe meets them a quarter way on the issues, but who now have misgivings. Call them the Meghan McCain demographic if you like. McCain told TV viewers yesterday that she’s no longer as high on Biden as she was before his flip. She’s not alone, apparently.

People will forget the Hyde flip-flop soon enough. The question is how many other flip-flops are still to come. Dude?

On May 1, Biden said in a speech, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man — They can’t even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the West. They can’t figure out how they’re going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. They’re not bad folks, folks … They’re not competition for us.”

Driving the news: Campaigning in Iowa on Tuesday, the same day that President Trump plans to visit the state, Biden will tell supporters in a prepared speech: “You bet I’m worried about China—if we keep following Trump’s path.”

“While Trump is tweeting, China is making massive investments in technologies of the future. While Trump is name-calling, China is building roads, bridges, and high-speed rail. While Trump is pursuing a damaging and erratic trade war, without any real strategy, China is positioning itself to lead the world in renewable energy. While Trump is attacking our friends, China is pressing its advantage all over the world. … But the reason I’m optimistic, and the point I’ve been making for years is— IF we do what we need to do here at home, IF we stand up for American interests, IF we invest in our people, live our values, and work with our partners — We can out-compete anyone.”

He’s flip-flopping on China now too? I wrote last night that the Hyde reversal was a sort of compromise with the left, with Biden willing to give a little on cultural issues because he won’t, and can’t, give much ground on economic policy to socialists like Bernie. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Biden’s going to switcheroo on economics too. The conventional wisdom about the primary is that he’s the centrist and Bernie’s the progressive and they’re about to wage war on behalf of their respective camps. But maybe Biden’s theory of the race is different: He’s Joe Biden, everyone knows him, everyone to the left of Susan Collins and to the right of Elizabeth Warren likes him, and black voters are poised to rally to him by virtue of his service in Obama’s administration. As much as the left wishes this election were about policy, in other words, Biden knows that it’s about intangibles — likability, electability, experience. If he needs to endorse Medicare For All to get nominated, fine, he’ll do it. And then if he needs to run away from it during the general election, he’ll do that too. What’s the left going to do at that point, reelect Trump?

Here’s the president offering his own theory of why Biden’s begun flip-flop-flipping.

The post Heh: Plurality of Dem voters say Biden’s Hyde amendment flip-flop makes them … more likely to vote for him appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group jb-300x153 Heh: Plurality of Dem voters say Biden’s Hyde amendment flip-flop makes them … more likely to vote for him The Blog sanders liberal left Hyde Amendment flip flop democratic biden Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Karen Pence: Let’s face it, attacking my husband is helping Pete Buttigieg gain notoriety

Westlake Legal Group karen-pence-lets-face-it-attacking-my-husband-is-helping-pete-buttigieg-gain-notoriety Karen Pence: Let’s face it, attacking my husband is helping Pete Buttigieg gain notoriety The Blog religion Mike Pence LGBT left Karen Pence gay christian buttigieg

Westlake Legal Group k Karen Pence: Let’s face it, attacking my husband is helping Pete Buttigieg gain notoriety The Blog religion Mike Pence LGBT left Karen Pence gay christian buttigieg

She doesn’t go as far as to say that notoriety is why Buttigieg is attacking Mike Pence, although that’s clearly implied.

But I’ll go that far. I already have, in fact. Buttigieg is manufacturing the perception of a “feud” between him and Pence because it’s to his advantage as a second-tier candidate to be seen as a nemesis of the sitting vice president. It’s also a clever way to blunt any discomfort rank-and-file Democrats might have with him being gay by associating that position with a despised Republican. Only right-wing Christian fanatics who serve Trump, Buttigieg means to suggest, could conceivably disapprove of his orientation. He’s trying to use partisan animosities to overcome any religious or moral objection to him on his own side.

And it’s working like a charm, with a little help from the Democratic Party’s friends in the media.

The smartest aspect of Buttigieg’s one-sided “feud” with Pence is as a branding exercise. He’s getting big coverage lately for two reasons. One is his modest rise in the polls, from nowheresville alongside the likes of Kirsten Gillibrand to a respectable five percent or so. But the other is his emergence as a de facto leader of the Christian left, a sort of “anti-Pence” but also an anti-secularist. That development has earned him some admirers even on the right. “There is a big sense that he, unlike a lot of the Democrats, is actually not ensconced in the belief system that says everyone who disagrees with him is a bad person,” said Ben Shapiro. Right — Buttigieg isn’t a bombthrower, which is a stylistic break from most progressive favorites. But he’s also not ensconced in the secularism that defines the modern left, something that most righties will naturally find encouraging among young lefties even if they disagree with Buttigieg on most policy matters. Conservative anti-Trumpers like Peter Wehner who disdain evangelicals’ political subservience to a character like the president can’t resist admiring him:

The challenge Buttigieg poses to many leaders of the Trump-supporting evangelical world isn’t simply in the realm of public policy; it is in his tone, his countenance, and the way he carries himself.

Buttigieg does not radiate pent-up grievances, cultural resentments, and bitterness. He’s a person of equanimity, a calming voice in a rancorous political culture. That doesn’t mean he’s right on the stands he’s taking, of course, and those things matter. (More about that later.) But I would say that the splenetic, fear-based approach of many evangelical leaders has created an opening for Buttigieg, who is their temperamental antithesis.

Buttigieg’s ongoing attempts to present himself as the anti-Pence are a neon sign advertising his Christian leftism, a potentially fruitful niche in the primary. But Wehner makes a sharp point about him: Buttigieg isn’t demanding a stricter separation between religion and politics to neutralize the Mike Pences of the world. On the contrary, he’s prone to saying things like “Christian faith is going to point you in a progressive direction.” He’s engaging the religious right on its own terms by seemingly granting the premise that religion should point the way on policy and instead arguing that it’s towards the left, not the right, that religion points. I think this is something even secular progressives appreciate about him. They don’t necessarily want “WWJD?” to be a threshold question in intraparty debates about health care, say, but I’m sure they like the idea of a Democrat battling the likes of Mike Pence, Robert Jeffress, Tony Perkins et al. on their own turf. There’s no greater virtue in an era of pathological negative partisanship than taking the fight to the enemy. Buttigieg is doing it on religious grounds, terrain Democrats rarely feel comfortable fighting on.

Exit question: Is what Karen Pence says here true, that Buttigieg is attacking her husband for his religious beliefs? Seems to me he’s attacking him for wanting to convert his religious beliefs into public policy. Which, again, Buttigieg seems to be just fine with so long as religion produces policy outcomes that match his ideological priorities.

Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

The post Karen Pence: Let’s face it, attacking my husband is helping Pete Buttigieg gain notoriety appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group k-300x159 Karen Pence: Let’s face it, attacking my husband is helping Pete Buttigieg gain notoriety The Blog religion Mike Pence LGBT left Karen Pence gay christian buttigieg   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com