Cindy Sheehan Redux?

From Byron York at The Washington Examiner via H/T at Instapundit:

With a few obvious differences, the uproar bears some resemblance to a white-hot controversy more than a decade ago involving Cindy Sheehan, a California woman whose son Casey was killed in 2004 while serving in the U.S. Army in Iraq.

Sheehan became a media sensation when she attacked President George W. Bush over the war. Opponents of the war immediately took up her cause in their protests, and Sheehan became, for a while, ubiquitous in media reports of opposition to Bush and the war.

Some Republican Bush supporters (including Coulter) stirred outrage with foolish attacks on Sheehan, although in those pre-Twitter days there were fewer opportunities for a single comment to go viral. . . .

One last thing. Cindy Sheehan’s son, Casey, and Humayan Khan died just 65 days apart in Iraq in 2004. The next year, when Sheehan became an idol of the antiwar cause in an increasingly bitter debate over Iraq, Democrats expressed great admiration for her.

Now, with Democrats having nominated a candidate who voted to authorize the Iraq war (only later to oppose it), against a Republican who regularly calls the war a disaster and says he opposed it from the beginning, another Gold Star parent, Khizr Khan, has become a cause — but in an entirely different context.

I wonder what they’ll flip on next?

easy, anything and everything that will get them elected.

Democrats' problem -- Americans have little faith in government

From Michael Barone at the Washington Examiner via H/T at Instapundit:

The Republican party certainly has its problems: a chaotic presidential race, a despised congressional party, unpopularity among the rapidly growing number of non-whites.

But the Democratic party has its problems as well. One of them is the fact that the two signature policies of Barack Obama—the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, the nuclear agreement with Iran—are unpopular with most voters.

Seven years of Obama'll do that.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help. "

-- Ronald Reagan

That is the problem.

Why Can’t the Dems Say ‘Radical Islam’?

From The Daily Beast via H/T at Instapundit:

How Saturday night’s debate displayed a party both at odds with reality and the popular will when it comes to terrorism.

Saturday night’s Democratic presidential debate offered the country a moment of clarity that exposes just how brittle and discredited the worldview of America’s elites has become—and it showed that critiques of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approach to policy are an exposed nerve which will absolutely present a challenge to her in future debates next fall.

Because, they want the votes.

And they're idiots.

Senate Democrats block bill to strip sanctuary cities of federal funds

From Hot Air:

If you think about Sanctuary Cities, they essentially flout the law by giving sanctuary to those already breaking the law, namely illegal (note the word) immigrants. Republicans introduced and tried to pass a bill that would strip these cities of federal funding until they enforced existing law. One of the results of this willful ignoring of the law was the murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was shot to death while walking on a San Francisco Pier with her father. Her killer, an illegal alien, had been deported 5 times on multiple felonies and been recently released from the custody of the San Francisco County Jail without being turned over to federal immigration authorities.

The bill offered was a means to force compliance with the law from these cities or have them suffer some consequences:

The bill offered by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., would have cut off law enforcement grants — including money to hire police officers — to more than 300 cities, counties and states with sanctuary policies. The legislation also would have stripped them of community development block grants, which are used to provide housing to low-income and moderate-income families and to help communities recover from natural disasters.

The Democrats, of course, voted to protect the non-citizens here illegally:

Senate Democrats blocked a bill Tuesday that would have punished “sanctuary cities” that protect undocumented immigrants from being turned over to federal agents to face deportation.

Senators voted 54-45 to advance the legislation, falling six votes short of the 60 needed.

So party loyalty is more important than protecting the citizenry. Sen. Ted Cruz's has a response to the vote.

Sen. Ted Cruz, however, set the record straight by correctly identifying the problem:

If Democratic senators choose to value partisan loyalty to the Obama administration over protecting the lives of the children who will be murdered by violent criminal illegal aliens in sanctuary cities…that will provide a moment of clarity.

Oh, and remember this the next time Democrats, any Democrats, start lecturing you on the “rule of law”.

What about the law of the land?

Why Is Murder Spiking in Certain Cities?

From The Atlantic via H/T at Instapundit:

Do they all have long-time Democratic machines?

Well, yes! But there are several other common factors.

1.) High minority population.

2.) Restrictive gun control laws.

3.) Sanctuary City Policies.

4.) Economic stagnation.

5.) Every knee jerk liberal policy.

Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, and Los Angeles all share these factors. In New York City, Mayor (Comrade) de Blasio, is reversing 20 years of low crime in less than 2 years in office.

Quote of the Day

From Young Conservative via H/T at Instapundit:

Being a Democrat in the Age of Obama requires you to believe cops kill black kids on purpose but radical Islamists kill Jews by accident.

— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) February 10, 2015

Boom!

The Democrats Now Own Iran. They’ll Soon Wish They Didn’t

From Commentary via H/T at Instapundit:

Obama got his deal despite the opposition of the majority of Congress and the American people. But the Democratic Party now gets the responsibility for Iranian terror and hate. By making Iran a partisan issue in this manner, Obama saddled his party with the blame for everything that will happen in the coming years. Munich analogies are often inappropriate but when Rep. Patrick Murphy (the likely Democratic nominee for the Senate seat Marco Rubio is vacating next year)said the deal gives us “peace in our time,” his channeling of Neville Chamberlain was no ordinary gaffe. In the years to come when Obama is retired and Iran uses the deal to make new mischief and atrocities, Democrats may regret giving in to the president’s pressure. But, like the appeasers of the 1930s, the legacy of the pro-Iran deal Democrats is now set in stone.

Any terrorism against Americans sponsored by the Iranians, will be blamed and owned by him and his party for a generation.

Since Obama Took Office Dems Have Been Decimated All Across the Country

From Breitbart's Big Government:

In 2008, Barack Obama rode into the White House on a wave of Democrat votes, in what many at the time believed to be a permanent Democrat majority.

But instead of permanent superiority, the Democrat Party has been decimated all across the country with 85 of 98 state legislatures becoming more Republican since 2010.

Democrats and other liberals were so sure that the GOP had become a doomed party upon the ascension of Barack Obama that many had thought that the popular liberal book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” had been validated.

But as Democrats celebrated, something began to happen. Democrats out in the states began to lose election after election. It has gotten so bad that Democrat stalwart Donna Brazille recently complained that she and her party “have absolutely been devastated.”

Politico’s Jeff Grenfield agreed, saying, “no president in modern times has presided over so disastrous a stretch for his party, at almost every level of politics.”

Now, a new piece in the Washington Post found that Democrats have “taken a drubbing” in the states.

The Dear Leader has never shown any interest in building anything other than his legacy. Party be damned. He made members of his party make unpopular votes and left them hanging. This has stripped the Democratic Party of any up and comers to fill the lower ranks and prepare them for higher office. The devastation left after he leaves office will haunt the Democratic Party for a longer time than Nixon.

The Democrats -- Too Old and Too White?

From Victor Davis Hanson at National Review:

Leftwingers’ taunts in 2008 and 2012 have come back to haunt them.

In the jubilation of the Obama election victories of 2008 and 2012, the Left warned Republicans that the party of McCain and Romney was now “too old, too white, too male — and too few.” Columnists between 2008 and 2012 ad nauseam berated Republicans on the grounds that their national candidates “no longer looked like America.” The New York Times stable crowed that the Republicans of 2008 were “all white and nearly all male” — not too long before McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate. In reaction to the defeats of McCain and Romney, Salon and Harper’s ran stories on the “Grand Old White Party” and “Angry White Men.”

For Democratic progressives, Hawaiian Barack Obama could not be of mixed ancestry and decidedly middle class, but simply “black” or “African American” — as if he had shared the Jim Crow experience of Clarence Thomas. Nor was there any allowance that race itself had become hard to sort into neat categories in a nation of immigration, intermarriage, and assimilation, in which millions of Americans were one-half this and one-quarter that.
...........................

On the Republican side, there is plenty of diversity as defined by liberals — Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio.

And on the Democratic side? The only representative of “diversity” is Hillary Clinton, who counts by virtue of being female, but who is white and soon to be 68, a fixture on the national political scene for more than a quarter of a century.

yep, the rest of them are a bunch of old, white guys, just like McCain and Romney.

Nuclear Inspections Farce Puts Democrats to the Test

From Commentary via H/T at Instapundit:

On Tuesday, a report surfaced that Iran issued a threat to Yuko Amano, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that he should expect personal consequences if he revealed the details of the side deals his organization had struck with the Islamist state to Congress. Amano appears to have kept his word and kept silent about the outcome of negotiations about inspections of military sites in the country where nuclear research was being conducted. But now we know why the secret was being kept. The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Iran is going to be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate those sights rather than having IAEA experts do the job. The Obama administration had enough trouble walking back its promises of “anytime, anywhere” nuclear inspections and instead making Congress accept a plan that gave Iran 24 days of warning before its sites where visited. But now we are expected to accept that the questions about the possible military dimensions (PMDs) of its past nuclear research will be answered by Iran and not the IAEA. If there are Democrats with consciences still wavering as to whether they will vote to support a pact that will be verified by this farcical scheme, this report should force them to abandon the president.

Reagen preached, "trust but verify." The Dear Leaders motto, "I stand on my head to make a deal, any deal. But the Democrats in the Senate believe in Party over Country. That will haunt them for a long time, especially after the first Iranian supported terrorist attack with American casualties.

They Hate Your Guts

From PJ O'Kourke at the Weekly Standard:

I would like to address myself to the poor, the huddled masses, the wretched refugees teeming to America’s shore, the homeless, the economically, socially, and mentally tempest-tossed. Also, I’d like to address the young, the hip, the progressive, the compassionate, and the caring. I’d like a word with everyone who votes for Democrats.

Democrats hate your guts.

Democrats need your vote and they’ll do anything—no matter how low and degrading—to get it. They hate you the way a whore hates a john.

All politicians hate people. Politics is a way to gain power over people without justification for having that power. Nothing in the 11,000-year history of politics—going back to the governing elites of Mesopotamia—indicates that politicians are wiser, smarter, kinder, more moral, or better skilled at any craft (aside from politics) than we are.

But political rulers need the acquiescence of the ruled to slake the craving for power. Politicians hate you the way a junkie hates junk.

It's all about the accumulation of power

Senate Democrats who trumpeted Bergdahl deal go silent

From Mary Katherine Ham at Hot Air:

I want you to go over to The Weekly Standard for John McCormack’s and Mike Warren’s work on this, but here’s a taste:

“You know, I think, um, let me hold off on that,” said Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
“All I’ve heard is what I’ve read in the press,” said Vermont’s senior senator Pat Leahy.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, who crowed about the deal on the Sunday shows, is now very interested in the intel briefing she’s to receive tomorrow. That’d be the briefing she should have gotten some 32 days before she went on the Sunday shows to make grand pronouncements with no information. #YesAllWomen have to go on national news shows to laud their male party bosses’ grand accomplishments with incomplete and willfully inaccurate information, apparently.

As of now, The Reid stands alone in his continued vocal support of the Bergdahl deal.

............

But, as Phil Klein notes, it’s hard to argue Bergdahl’s status and actions shouldn’t matter to Americans when his status and actions as a hero were integral to the White House pitch for this deal. If Bergdahl’s not a hero, there’s far less political cover to get rid of the Taliban Five, which Allahpundit suspects was the whole point of this endeavor.

“Regardless of circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American prisoner back,” Obama said. “Period. Full stop. We don’t condition that.” Now, it’s fair to argue that whether the prisoner exchange was a good deal or not is a separate issue from whether Bergdahl was a deserter. In other words, there’s a case for bringing him back and handling evidence of desertion under American laws and procedures rather than simply letting him rot in the custody of the Taliban.

However, the argument that the nature of his service is irrelevant to the discussion was made less convincing because the White House initially attempted to turn Bergdahl’s release into a public relations victory and presented Bergdahl to the American people as a national hero.

On the bright side, at least maybe we’ve finally found something Obama knew about before the media told him about it?

I suspect The Dear Leader sold several Democrat Senators a bill of goods with regard to Bergdahl. That's why so many are backtracking. Giving up the 5 Taliban leaders for a War Hero is one thing, but a Deserter and/or possible Traitor, that's a whole other thing.