April 19, 2017

Clearly, the problem is with their knit hats

POLITICO: "Democrats begin to wonder: When do we win?"

For all the anger, energy, and money swirling at the grassroots level, Democrats didnít manage to pick off the first two Republican-held congressional seats they contended for in the Trump era, and the prospects arenít markedly better in the next few House races coming up: the Montana race at the end of May, and the South Carolina contest on June 20.

Their best shot at knocking Donald Trump down a peg appears to be Ossoff's runoff against Republican Karen Handel, also scheduled for June 20. But the Democrat will be an underdog in that contest, when there won't be a crowded field of Republicans to splinter the vote.


I'm going to turn my favorite joke on its head. Yes, the GOP has several substantive challenges in the midterms. But "I hear they're going to let us run against the Democrats this year!" Like Jon Caldara, I see the weaknesses of my registered party vividly. But -- holy bovine! -- all they have is incompetent anger. They're elevating the Sanders-Warren wing, and now Rep. Maxine Waters is speaking for the party as a whole.

An amazing opportunity? You bet. But I see no evidence they will exploit it.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty agrees, and adds this gem in his "Morning Jolt" newsletter:

Ossoff also had a huge fundraising advantage that he's not likely to enjoy again, and that few candidates anywhere ever get to enjoy: more than $8 million, quadruple the next-closest contender. Not many Democratic House candidates get Samuel L. Jackson making radio ads for them, either, declaring, "We have to channel the great vengeance and furious anger we have for this administration into votes at the ballot box." That's nice. Democrats kind-of, sort-of did. But... Hillary Clinton won 47 percent in this district on Election Day 2016, and Ossoff won 48 percent.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2017

Quote of the Day

My only comment on the Republican health care reform debacle comes from British writer G.K. Chesterton, (1874-1936): "When a politician is in opposition he is an expert on the means to some end; and when he is in office he is an expert on the obstacles to it."

Remarkably prescient don't you think, coming as it did 99 years before Republicans' effort to repeal and replace Obamacare.-- LOTR-F friend Dave.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:25 PM | Comments (0)

December 2, 2016

Barone's Law Porved Inviolate

[Michael] Barone's Law: "All procedural arguments are insincere."

Kim Strassel has a little too much fun today, hurling Democrats' sincerest October arguments back at them in December. Assuming a Clinton "mandate," Senators Charles Schumer (Flexible - NY) and Amy Klobuchar (Skybox at Vikings - MN) were quite concerned about Republicans' potential obstructionism against all the necessary appointments and governmental needs of the administration.

Regrets? Delaware Sen. Chris Coons has a few--and not too few to mention. At the top of his list is his party's decision in 2013 to blow up the filibuster for most presidential nominees.

"Many of us will regret that in this Congress," a dejected Mr. Coons told CNN on Tuesday. "Because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency brake, to have in our system to slow down the confirmation of extreme nominees."


Huh. If only the founders had thought of that emergency brake...
Cue Sinatra and "My Way." That's how former Senate leader Harry Reid, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and President Obama ruled for eight years. They planned each charted course, each careful step. Now, they're not finding it so amusing.

Worry not, Senator Schumer is nothing if not flexible. He has no intention of listening to that October-Schumer-guy, who clearly didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
Some might describe electoral dominance as owning the White House, and the Senate, and the House, and 33 governorships and 68 (of 98) state legislative chambers. But Mr. Schumer now regrets his definition. In a recent ABC News story, he said Mr. Trump's victory is "not a mandate" and that his Democratic Party remains free to "go after him tooth and nail."

CODA: Ascertaining "Barone's Law," part of the layers and layers of fact checking you expect at ThreeSources, I found this article which begins "Kimberley Strassel has a good column in the Wall Street Journal today, pointing out that House Democrats who are criticizing and ridiculing[...]" It's from 2014. Clearly Barone's law is timeless.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:09 AM | Comments (0)