Tag: democrats

Pete Buttigieg Is Bootleg Obama in the Worst Ways Possible

There’s a famous aphorism often attributed to Miles Davis which says that the notes you don’t play in jazz are more important than the ones you do. Much the same can be said of political memoirs and, indeed, most books written by politicians or professional apparatchiks, particularly if published during an election year: being a genre largely concerned with PR and brand-building, they tend to be heavy on pablum and featherlight when it comes to substance; glorified press releases masquerading as earnest reflections or honest tales of personal triumph in the face of adversity. To any but the most credulous reviewer, they therefore present something of a dilemma. How exactly, after all, are you supposed to write about what isn’t there?

Apocryphal though they may be, this is where the words ascribed to America’s great jazz innovator really come in handy. In my experience as a regular (and almost always reluctant) appraiser of books and speeches by liberal and centrist politicians, identifying the blank space — the things left unsaid, the issues unaddressed, the possibilities elided, the questions unanswered, the past events ignored, the facts omitted, etc. — can often get you quite a long way.

David Plouffe’s A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump, for example, spends just over 250 pages telling readers to canvass, phone bank, and write approving social media posts about a generic and entirely hypothetical Democratic nominee. Tasked with reviewing it, I was initially stumped about what, if anything, to say — an ostensible handbook for fighting the Right with scant reference to ideology, program, or social vision not exactly offering up a lot of raw material with which to work. My writer’s block persisted until I realized that Plouffe’s omissions were precisely the point, his vision of liberalism being one that either treats most real political questions as settled or considers them none of the average person’s business (the permissible kind of rank-and-file activism in the modern Democratic Party being about deference to party elites and not much else).

Keep reading

Wait…These Are the Top Three Concerns for Democratic Voters? Yes, It’s Insane.

It shouldn’t shock us, but here we are again, folks. We can think Democrats can’t be this dense, but they always find ways to amaze, don’t they? If you could guess what the top three issues Democratic voters are most concerned with what would you pick? Climate change? The economy? Taxes? Nope. It’s Trump supporters, white supremacy, and systemic racism. I’m not kidding. We’re facing job losses and a stagnant economy that will remain stuck in the mud if this minimum wage hike passes in the COVID relief bill. And Democrats’ top concerns are issues that won’t help a single person in America. It’s selfish. It’s detached. It shows that these people really don’t have a care in the world. It must be nice. Only the financially secure and the privileged can say they’re really, really worried about people with differing political views. 

Keep reading

Democrat Illinois Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban ‘All Violent Video Games’

A Democrat lawmaker in Illinois has announced he wants to ban the sale of Grand Theft Auto (GTA), along with other video games that feature violence, after his state witnessed an increase in the amount of carjackings.

Democrat state Rep. Marcus Evans introduced the bill, HB 3531, which aims to amend an Illinois law preventing violent video games from being sold to children to an all-out ban on the sale “of all violent video games” to anyone.

During a press conference on Monday, Evans mentioned Grand Theft Auto by name and put into his own words what he believes to be an example of a violent video game. According to Evans, “a video game that allows a user or player to control a character within the video game that is encouraged to perpetuate human-on-human violence in which the player kills or otherwise causes serious physical or psychological harm to another human or an animal” is an example of a violent video game.

“The bill would prohibit the sale of some of these games that promote the activities that we’re suffering from in our communities,” Evans said.

“Grand Theft Auto and other violent video games are getting in the minds of our young people and perpetuating the normalcy of carjacking,” Evans continued. “Carjacking is not normal, and carjacking must stop.”

Evans also insisted that games like GTA promote behavior similar to that which has been seen prominently in Chicago.

Keep reading

House Democrats Want Biden To Relinquish Sole Authority To Launch Nuclear Weapons

Dozens of House Democrats are calling on President Biden to relinquish sole control over the country’s nuclear arsenal and the ability to launch a strike using those weapons.

Politico reports that the Democrats, led by Rep. Jimmy Panetta (CA) and Rep. Ted Lieu (CA), wrote a letter warning that “vesting one person” with the authority to initiate a nuclear war “entails real risks.”

“While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so,” the letter explains.

“The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war,” they add. “Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.”

Keep reading

Democrats’ H.R. 1 Sets ‘Unconstitutional’ Limits on 1st Amendment: Free Speech Group

“Buried in H.R. 1’s nearly 800 pages is a censor’s wish list of new burdens on speech and donor privacy. It proposes a democracy where civic engagement is punished and where fewer people have a voice in our government, our laws, and public life,” Eric Wang, the author of the study, said in a statement accompanying the release of the analysis. He is an IFS senior fellow and special counsel in the election law practice group at the Washington law firm of Wiley Rein, LLP.

Among the 14 constitutional problems identified by the IFS analysis in H.R. 1’s Title IV—including especially subtitles B, C, and D—the first are provisions that “unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a vague, subjective, and dangerously broad standard that asks whether the speech ‘promotes,’ ‘attacks,’ ‘supports,’ or ‘opposes’ (PASO) the candidate or official.”

“This standard is impossible to understand and would likely regulate any mention of an elected official who hasn’t announced their retirement.”

The proposal does that by creating a new category of regulated speech called “campaign-related disbursements” by nonprofit advocacy groups and others interested in communicating about public policy issues.

Such speech would include any public communications that mention a specific candidate for federal office and attacks or supports that candidate “without regard to whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against” the candidate.

Keep reading