Contradictions, the economy, outmaneuvered, SCOTUS and ... Obama

Never let it be said the Democrats are a party of contradictions:

The Democratic National Committee is kicking a candidate out of the chairmanship race after he told The Hill that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) should not be the party’s next leader because he is a Muslim.
In a Jan. 5 email to The Hill, Vincent Tolliver, a former House candidate in Arkansas, said that Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, should not be chairman because of Islamic positions on homosexuality.

“His being a Muslim is precisely why DNC voters should not vote for him,” Tolliver wrote. “Muslims discriminate against gays. Islamic law is clear on the subject, and being gay is a direct violation of it. In some Muslim countries, being gay is a crime punishable by death.”

“Clearly, Mr. Ellison is not the person to lead the DNC or any other organization committed to not discriminating based on gender identity or sexual orientation,” Tolliver continued. “I'm shocked [the Human Rights Campaign] has been silent on the issue. A vote for Representative Ellison by any member of the DNC would be divisive and unconscionable, not to mention counterproductive to the immediate and necessary steps of rebuilding the Democratic Party.”

Because:

"The Democratic Party welcomes all Americans from all backgrounds. What we do not welcome is people discriminating against others based on who they are or how they worship," interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile said in a statement to The Hill.

Uh, maybe I missed it but that had nothing to do with who Ellison is or what he worships, it had to do with the very real fact that there is a religion that openly and unapologetically does discriminate against gays and, in fact, does put them to death in some countries.  That's not even arguable.  And, if the Democrats think that's OK (because they don't think it is OK if Christians discriminate against gays, which, of course, is based on "how they worship") that puts a big "lie" on the Democrats supposed LGBTQ support.  And, of course, they'd rather silence dissent and avoid the subject than admit to the truth of Tolliver's point.  Democrats shouldn't dare to have a contrary opinion, because they will be ostracized if they do.

How good was the Obama economy?  We'll we've been told that it was a pretty good economy by the MSM.  Oh, and by the Democrats.  But what about the real numbers?

A good number of those presidents took office after a recession.  The Bush economies weren't so hot either.  And what has shown spectacular growth during those presidencies?  The administrative state and regulation.

I have to tell you, I found this to be both hilarious and ... smart.  I wonder how Trump's opposition will feel about it.

A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency. 

Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations. 

More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government.

You can hear the whining now if you tilt your head in the proper direction.

I approve of Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court, a very pleasant surprise indeed.  Radley Balko has some words of advice for the Democrats, which, if they're smart, they'll heed.  But then ... it's the Democrats:

There is, of course, the matter of Merrick Garland. Progressive activists are pushing Democrats to block Gorsuch at all costs, not because of his record, but because of the Republicans’ unprecedented denial of even a vote for Garland last year. I’ll just state before going any further that I think Republicans’ behavior with respect to Garland was unconscionable, as was Mitch McConnell’s promise to also block any nominees should Hillary Clinton win the election. It was a gross violation of democratic norms.

That said, this doesn’t seem like the time to revisit that fight. Trump has nominated a thoughtful judge who seems as likely to challenge the inevitable future Trump power grabs as any justice on the court. The added bonus here is that should it come to that, Trump would be opposed by his own nominee.
One can certainly understand the desire for retribution. But a protracted battle here would be counterproductive. On many issues, including most of those we cover here at The Watch, Gorsuch’s record suggests that he’d actually be to the left of Garland. He’s certainly better than the other “finalists” Trump was considering. Moreover, approving Gorsuch would give the Democrats added credibility down the line should they need to oppose Trump’s replacement of, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer or Anthony Kennedy — or should he nominate someone far more troubling, like Pryor. Adopting the GOP line of opposing all Supreme Court nominees from the opposing party at all times won’t win over fence-sitters, and it also isn’t likely to be successful. 

Or, shorter version, this is a man to replace Scalia who is much like Scalia and wouldn't be a friend to executive overreach. He maintains the balance of the court.  Keep your powder dry and use it all on a really troublesome nominee that might shift the court in a direction you don't want.

Will they actually consider that argument and use some common sense?  Heh. Like I said ... they're Democrats.

By the way, I found this to be pretty amusing as well as dead on:

Insta-mob - against everything.  Just give 'em a sign (which reminds me of the Bill Engvall joke).

Will we ever be rid of this man?  Not likely:

Eventually, the scales will fall from Democratic eyes. Their gauzy recollections of the Obama years will one day give way to a realization that he presided over the immolation of their party. Obama knows this. Why else would he commit himself to a course defined by such smallness? The president, the most powerful man on earth, was reduced in his final days in office to drumming up enthusiasm for state assembly races. Today, when he should be focusing on building his library and serving as a sagacious ambassador to the world, he lowers himself to offer a muted and impotent burble of opposition to his successor. On Monday, the former leader of the free world endorsed Sophia King in the race for alderman of Chicago’s Fourth Ward. 

Obama cannot withdraw from the political realm. If he does, he risks allowing the narrative to get away from him. Any sober liberal reflection on the president’s legacy will necessarily yield to despair over all the opportunities that were lost. So Obama will speak, endorse, and issue statements. He will posture and preen and do whatever he can to make sure the Democratic Party’s next leader is cast in his mold. So long as Obama can fill the silence, Democrats won’t have time to reflect on the president’s legacy.

I'm fascinated by the charges from the left that Trump is a "narcissist" and therefore dangerous.  What in the hell did they think the guy in the White House for the last 8 years was?  If you look up the word, a picture of Obama is right beside it.  If you think he's going to walk away from that which fills his need, you're nuts.

~McQ