Mediaboss Marketing

We live in a golden age of political stupidity, but I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this: The idea of pulling Judge Merrick Garland off the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court and into the FBI is one of the silliest ideas I've seen anyone in Washington fall for. It's like Wile E. Coyote putting down a nest made of dynamite and writing NOT A TRAP on a whiteboard next to it. It's also an incredibly telling chapter in the book that's been written since the Republican National Convention the story of how Republicans who are uncomfortable with the Trump presidency gritting their teeth as they use it to lock in control of the courts.

On Thursday, as we reported at The Washington Post, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) gave real oomph to an idea that had been bouncing around conservative media. Democrats had vetted and praised Garland when President Barack Obama nominated him for the Supreme Court how, then, could they object to the idea of putting him in charge of the FBI?

[Sen. Mike Lee floats Garland for FBI, a move that would skew D.C. Court of Appeals]

The reasons to object were quickly explained by reporters and by liberal court analysts like Dahlia Lithwick. Garland probably wont want to give up his lifetime tenure as the chief judge of the second-most important court in the land, Lithwick wrote, and surely the most significant bulwark against Trump administration overreach, in exchange for a 12-minute gig on The Apprentice before he uses the wrong color highlighter and gets fired by a crazy person. Among most court-watchers, the scheme was pretty obvious: Lee would give Republicans a chance to tweak a Garland-less court, changing a 7-to-4 liberal majority to a 6-to-5 majority. And in his tweet, Lee was explicit: IfGarland went to the J. Edgar Hoover Building, Democrats wouldn't need a President Trump/Russia special prosecutor.

Yet what Lee apparently realized was that the churn of political conversation in Washington would get his idea looked at seriously.Lee floated the idea before the Senate's final votes of the week, meaning that senators of both parties would be available to reporters for hours. In that time, they were confronted with a shiny object the Garland-for-FBI float with little time to consider it. The conservative Washington Examiner went all-in on the story, getting Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) to say that Garland meets a lot of criteria and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to say he'd back him, but Garland probably wouldn't want the job. (The Examiner also quoted Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) as saying it would also create a vacancy in the important D.C. circuit, so maybe I like it better the more I think about it. Well, yeah.)

Lee, who does not stop in the hallways to talk to reporters, must have realized that the senators who did would push the idea along. Democrats, after all, came to feel that Garland was a good man robbed of a job their first instinct, when asked about him, was obviously to sing his praises. Their secondthought might be to point out that this was a cartoonishly obvious ploy togive a conservative judge a lifetime appointment on a powerful court. But most people, hearing the idea, might not get to the second thought. Amusingly, a number of liberal opinion-havers glommed onto the Garland idea, apparently unaware that he was still on the court in D.C. From aformer secretary of the treasury:

From a Democratic strategist who literally one month earlier was tweeting about how Garland could hold Trump accountable in the D.C. Circuit.

From Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), who stands to chair the House Oversight Committee if Democrats win the midterms.

To be fair, thequestion put to Cummings was What do you think of the idea, now being floated, to put Merrick Garland in charge of the FBI? His answer: Garland would be fine. That's less hearty than the praise of Summers, whose tweet, as of this writing, is being roundly mocked by the (typically well-behaved) denizens of Politics Twitter.

But is it Summers's fault that the scheme wasn't obvious? Every reporter asking about Lee's idea knew that it was a ploy to open up a seat on the D.C. Circuit. Every Democrat or liberal observer has the power to recognize the ploy. Why have some of them been suckered?

The reason, I think, is a fanciful analysis of Trump's relationship with the GOP that has caused Democrats to make mistake after mistake for the better part of two years. For a long time, Democrats assumed that Trump would lose the Republican nomination. When he didn't, they highlighted Republican critics of Trump inside the party, in the hope of winning them over to Hillary Clinton. Some suburbanite Republicans did come over, but according to the exit poll, 88 percent of self-identified Republicans went for Trump, compared with 89 percent of Democrats for Clinton.

Six months later, Democrats are still obsessed with finding intra-Republican resistance to Trump. Some of that's just accepting reality Republicans control Congress and most of the states, so they can stop Trump when Democrats can't. But some of it assumes an Aaron Sorkin-scripted conclusion to the Trump presidency. At some point, possibly, Trump's own party will stand up to him and bring him down. When Republicans say they want Garland for FBI, Democrats hear Trump's party in rebellion, because that's what they want to hear.

They are getting it exactly backward. Lee, like most Republicans, is willing to grit his teeth through most of what Trump does in exchange for priceless long-term conservative gains in the regulatory state and in the courts. Democrats understand this attitude when Republican voters display it. They know that manyRepublicans put up with Trump so that they could keep Garland off the Supreme Court and replace former justiceAntonin Scalia with a conservative.

Famously, Lee was the first sitting senator to demand that Trump quit the presidential race after the release of live mic recordings that found him crudely joking about sexual assault. If anyone spoke to my wife, or my daughter, or my mother, or any of my five sisters, the way that Donald Trump has spoken to women, I wouldn't hire that person, Lee said at the time. What he said next was more important Trump had become a distraction and needed to allow someone else to carry the banner to defeat Hillary Clinton.What Trump had done was horrible, but not horrible enough to countenance a vote for thecandidate who could keep him from the White House.

At the time, Democrats heard this as the trumpet kicking off a civil war inside the GOP. It really wasn't. Some Democrats want this week's Lee gambit to reveal that Republicans are now bailing on Trump and ready for a real Russia probe. That's not what's happening. So far, the major Republican response to the firing of James B. Comey, from one of the party's leading Trump critics, is to suggest that Trump be given an open slot on a key court that can be filled by a conservative judge.

Visit link:
The 'Merrick Garland for FBI' scheme shows why liberals lose - Washington Post

Actress and comedian Melissa McCarthy was spotted Friday outside CNNsNew York offices on a motorized podium, doing her parody of Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. She was presumably filming a scene for an upcoming episode of Saturday Night Live.

Stunts like this only further prove how far down the liberal rabbit hole the satirical show has gone. At this point, it might as well be considered an anti-Trump political action committee.

The only parody performances we ever get to see are of conservatives the series refuses to grow or become anything more than a program that makes tired old jokes about anything and everything Trump-related.

Related: Trump and Rosie Finally Agree on One Thing

"Saturday Night Live" is made by, and for, liberals. It continues to ignore a major portion of the country and voters at its own peril.

It's no longer satire but a weaponized political tool, used by the Left for its own purposes.

Link:
'SNL' Weaponized Against Trump, by and for Liberals - LifeZette

|

Posted: May 14, 2017 12:01 AM

I rarely use the word stupid. Most frequently the word I use is ignorant which means lacking knowledge or awareness. Stupid means something significantly different. Stupidity means lacking intelligence, understanding, reason, wit and/or good sense. Republicans have often referred to liberals as just plain wrong though some invoked stupidity in a knee-jerk manner. If you doubted that liberals are stupid, we now have proof.

The proof comes from the high priests of the Left the editorial board of The New York Times. What set them off and displayed their complete lack of intelligence and good sense was their editorial attacking former President Obama for taking a $400,000 speaking fee from Cantor Fitzgerald. In an editorial entitled The Cost of Obamas Speech, they reacted with shock that he would accept such a fee from the forces he was fighting against. And this is not feigned shock like Captain Louie in Casablanca. This is real shock.

They even quoted his own words from The Audacity of Hope. I read that book. I just thought the people who fell for his slop were fools. Now I know they are stupid.

Ruth Marcus joined the chorus of the offended and took to the pages of the Washington Post to chastise the Obamas for the $400,000 fee. The stupidity of the Left was further validated when Vox published an article with a title that states the $400,000 fee will undermine everything Obama believes in.

Everything Obama believes in is Obama. Did you really think he was going to live by all that garbage he was shoveling down your throats?

Isnt it interesting that the Obamas are following the same pattern as the Clintons? First, totally forget where you came from. The Obamas will return to Chicago as frequently as the Clintons have returned to Arkansas. The Obamas will do obligatory visits to the presidential library and maybe catch a Chisox game.

In Los Angeles we live with celebrities on a daily basis. We have a term for people like Obama who are enamored by these celebrities Star_____. The Obamas would be the King and Queen of that if they were not exceeded by you guessed it, the Clintons.

But did you not get a hint where the Obamas were headed when they signed what is estimated to be a $60-65 million deal for their memoirs. Penguin is going to have to sell a lot of books. That means a royalty of $6.50 on each of 10 million books sold. Seems more like a bribe than good business.

But let us review what the Obamas have been doing since they left office:

Amazingly, none of this set-off the Leftists. Hanging with the ultra-rich is fine; just dont take Wall Street money.

Did you really think Obama was going to be hangin with the common folk? Jay Z and Beyonc will be how they will be rollin in the future along with clipping his Gs as he did when he was talking to the common folk. Maybe some time at Oprahs many estates. He will be hobnobbing with anyone rich and famous who will take him on exclusive golf courses where he can wine and dine with the elite.

Some would say the Obamas deserve to make a lot of money because they sacrificed for the country for eight years. Not to get technical, but the people of the United States provide handsomely for them. Obama receives a pension of $205,700 the first year out of office which will increase over time. He also receives funding for staffing, rent, travel, etc. This does not include his secret service protection. This amounts to millions of dollars each year. He may even have some friends who would pick up a few meals for him and maybe a few rounds of golf.

Fascinating how easily the Left is captivated by rich people who are willing to say and do things that further their own exclusive lifestyle. Somehow they still think the Democratic Party cares about the commoner. It is all about power and money. Money in their pockets.

The question is, are you stupid enough to believe them?

UPDATE: Missile Launched by North Korea Landed in Sea of Japan

See the original post:
Proof That Liberals Are Stupid - Townhall

In an era of political upstarts, Germanys biggest election drama features a more traditional player: Christian Lindner, a young career politician based in Dsseldorf familiar with the national stage, is attempting to return his Free Democratic Party (FDP) to its customary role of kingmaker in German politics. If he succeeds, it could be a game changer for Germanys next government and provide a pathway out of the current comfortable but suffocating grand coalition between the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD). Over the last several years in which the two major parties have been aligned, they have diluted their identities to meet in the middle. Although stable, the grand coalition has failed to inspire.

Lindners chances of achieving that goal will become clearer after Sundays state election in North Rhine-Westphalia, in which the FDP is expected to win well over ten percent of the vote. Combined with its strong showing in the Schleswig-Holstein state elections, the party should make its way back into the federal parliament and could join forces with Chancellor Angela Merkels CDU and, if needed, the Greens, to form a government.

Historically, the FDP, which adheres to economic and social liberalism, has been a pivotal player in Germany politics. It has worked as a junior partner to form governments with the CDU or the center-left SPD. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the statesman who navigated German reunification in 1989, unfortunately saw his beloved FDP diminish in stature in the last few years of his life. The first sign came when the Greens usurped the FDP to establish a government with the SPD in 1998. The downfall was complete in 2013, when the party couldnt muster the five percent threshold to enter parliament, a crushing blow for a party that had been active in German politics for over six decades.

Today the German political landscape is highly fragmented. A record five parties (the Greens, the Alternative for Germany, the Christian Social Union, the Left, and

Read more from the original source:
The Return of Germany's Liberals - Foreign Affairs (subscription)

A Theresa May election victory would be a disaster for Britain. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

The election of Emmanuel Macron was met with relief by liberals and progressives across Britain. Not that they were necessarily in love with all the ex-bankers policies, but it meant that at least France, and Europe, was saved from a hard rightwinger whose election would have sowed division and inflamed tensions.

Given such a stark choice, the idea that some on the French left could have abstained or spoiled their ballot papers was, on this side of the channel, met with some bafflement.

So why do so many of these same liberal or progressive voters not use the same logic when considering their own vote in the forthcoming UK election?

With every passing day its clear we are facing a huge choice on 8 June. Theresa May has channelled her inner Dalek for the past three weeks; strong and stable; strengthen my hand; coalition of chaos. Shes maxed-out on the idea that this election is all about competence, and has virtually nothing to say on how shed actually run the country, or deal with the contradictions brought about by Brexit: access to the single market, the damage to the economy, the Irish border.

In these past few days, though, weve been starting to learn what shed do. Its a powerful reminder why a May election victory would be a disaster for Britain, even if she is obviously not as extreme as Marine Le Pen. She wants to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, even though this would mean cutting off the supply of labour that has helped Britain recover from years of austerity. Where would the nurses, care workers, builders and high-skilled employees come from or the overseas students who bring in so much revenue?

Amid all the crises Britain will face over the next few years, May thinks its time to promise a vote on foxhunting. She wants more grammar schools even though its clear to anyone who considers the evidence that this does nothing for social mobility. The only liberal policy May has on energy pricing is one she nicked from Labour and was trashing only two years ago.

The prime minister says only she can get a good deal from Europe, but shes been making enemies across the Channel. Her scurrilous accusation that the EU is interfering in a British election will win her no friends, and no concessions, in Brussels. She may talk tough, and think it plays well in the UK to be a bloody difficult woman, but in Europe, where it really counts, she has set back Britains cause and could end up with no deal at all.

So why are so many progressives so keen to help her by instead of focusing on all the negatives of a future May government, directing their anger at Jeremy Corbyn?

Yes, hes flawed too; hes not a great performer, and so far the signs of him rescuing the party are patchy, to say the least. But on 8 June we have a simple choice. Itll be either Labour or Conservative. And in terms of policy theres only one of these two parties that any liberal or progressive could want running the country. The party of the rich, of the bankers, of austerity for the many and tax breaks for the few? Really? The party that leaves the NHS on its knees, cuts back on schools and access to universities, bashes the working poor and people with disabilities, demonises the jobless, and fuels fears about migrants?

And all of this in lockstep with its cheerleaders at the Daily Mail, which sees the party as a partner for its vile agenda of scapegoating minorities and taking Britain back to the 1950s.

Forget Corbyns personality and his problems of cut-through. What is it about his policy proposals that progressives can dislike especially now we have the leaked manifesto, with its pledges on rail nationalisation, workers rights and education? Many might prefer a Labour pledge to stay in Europe, but that would be electoral suicide given last years referendum result and where the partys working-class base is right now.

The Liberal Democrats would reverse Brexit which I would love too but a vote for this party, which made no progress in last weeks local elections, would in effect be wasted. The party will have a maximum of 40 MPs after the election (and even that seems unlikely) and will in no way be able to keep a Conservative prime minister in check.

On tax, Labour will not touch the 95% of the workforce earning below 80,000. But by taking money from those high earners, and corporations too, it will give a cash injection to schools and the NHS. It will also build a million new homes, introduce a real living wage, and protect pensioners (most of whom are living on the breadline rather than living in mansions, as the popular stereotype would have you believe). I could go on.

The next four weeks will determine who runs the country for the next five years. We all know its very likely to be Theresa May, but theres still a lot to play for no one can tell how big her majority might be. If its under 40 then an opposition can hold her to account and put pressure to get the worst aspects of her agenda off the statute books.

But if progressives sit on their hands, and spend the next month whingeing about why they want another Labour leader, May could end up with a landslide and her nasty, divisive politics will be embedded into our way of life. No, shes not Le Pen, but five years is a very long time; imagine spending that period having to listen to endless stories of public services being slashed, of the growing numbers on low wages and zero-hours work, of Britains isolation from our closest neighbours, seeing more of May cosying up to Donald Trump (that state visit is still planned for the autumn).

It boils down to what kind of future you want to see for your country. If you think itll be a tough choice on 8 June then just think of France. Really, in truth, its all very simple.

Read this article:
Why Corbyn-bashing liberals must vote Labour on 8 June - The Guardian