Posts

The Rushmore Report: Sen. Al Franken Should Resign Immediately

Those popping sounds you hear aren’t light bulbs breaking as they hit the frozen surface of Lake Wobegon. Instead, that sound comes  from political heads exploding in the Democratic Media Complex. Because liberal Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota was exposed, completely, for what he really is by West Coast radio news anchor Leeann Tweeden. What does this mean for Franken’s future?

There’s that photo of Franken smiling and grabbing at her breasts as Tweeden, a former model, slept on the way home from a USO tour in 2006. Franken leered and posed, fingers spread on her, like some cartoon of a sex-crazed sixth grade boy.

“You knew exactly what you were doing,” Tweeden wrote in an online post. “You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping, and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later, and be ashamed.”

And just like that, the Democratic strategy to politicize sexual abuse and use it to beat Republicans to death at the polls must undergo a drastic rewrite.

So what do they do? Do they demand that Franken resign?

Franken and Democratic and Republican leaders want to send all this to the Senate Ethics Committee for an investigation. But there it will be lost in dusty vaults away from public scrutiny.

We already know what happened. An ethics committee investigation won’t tell us what happened. The only question is: What are Democrats going to do about it?

Franken apologized, says he’s sorry, says he respects women. But if he truly means it, there’s one thing for him to do: Resign immediately, disappear out into the woods.

It’s exactly what I recommended for the repugnant Alabama Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore: Take a long walk in the woods and disappear.

Republican senators want Moore to drop out of the race. But will Democrats demand en masse that Franken resign? No. They’ll want to study this, and spin it somehow, and mitigate differences between Franken and Moore, the former a simple creep, the latter accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. But all that is just playing for time.

And what will the media half of the Democratic Media Complex do?

Years ago many of them, particularly liberal pundits in Washington and New York, defended President Bill Clinton’s alleged assaults on women and dismissed allegations that he raped Juanita Broaddrick.

Leading feminists and liberal men trashed Clinton’s female accusers, because Clinton was their guy and he promised them what they wanted.

And what did a few women from Arkansas matter to the elite feminists of Washington and New York and Chicago and L.A. who were willing to forgive Clinton in exchange for a prize?

After all, Clinton was president. He promised he’d protect abortion. And they got what they wanted.

In recent days, though, as many on the left and right peeled (and rightfully so) the skin off creepy Roy Moore, an amazing thing has happened.

Pundits on the left began to wring their hands and confess their guilt about what they did to Clinton’s accusers.

It all rings hollow, of course, but there’s a good reason that it rings hollow.

It is hollow.

But without the icy tears of calculated contrition, they couldn’t proceed on the Democratic action plan.

Now the Franken explosion complicates that strategy, which only a few days ago was quite clear: Hound Moore as a monster, cast Republicans as either abusers of women or supporters of sexual abuse, and shame them, shame them, shame them.

And forge all of it into another Year of the Woman campaign to be used ultimately against President Donald Trump, whose history with women is ugly and boorish at best.

But now, that strategy – smelting gender identity politics with the real pain women have suffered at the hands of men – has been undercut.

And anything less than Franken’s departure from the Senate will be seen as just more political hypocrisy.

Tweeden, now news anchor on “McIntyire in the Morning” on KABC-AM in Los Angeles, posted her account and then talked at length about it.

She detailed Franken’s behavior, his grabbing and groping and aggressive kiss – actually more than just a “kiss,” during a USO tour before he was elected to the Senate, before he was a champion of women.

“Franken came at me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed his lips against mine and . . . [we won’t recount the exact words here],” Tweeden wrote. “I walked away. All I could think about was getting to a bathroom as fast as possible. I felt disgusted and violated.”

Other women might come forward, accusing both Republicans and Democrats. Let it all come out. All of it.

This is what happens when the levee breaks.

And Franken, a comedian by trade, must realize that with the photo out there, with another accuser, it just might be time for him to exit stage left.

I can see him walking alone along the frozen banks of Lake Wobegon, laughing at his own jokes.

About the Author

John Kass is a writer for the Chicago Tribune.

The Rushmore Report: The Democratic Party’s Inconvenient Truth

Question: Which political party brought an end to slavery? If you said “the Democratic Party,” you’d be wrong. Question: To which party did John Wilkes Booth belong? If you said “the Republican Party,” you’d be wrong. Question: Which party supported civil rights legislation? If you said “the Democratic Party,” you’d again be wrong. Let’s talk about it – the inconvenient truth for the Democratic Party.

The fact is, since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has opposed every major civil rights legislation, and has a long history of discrimination. The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.

In contrast, the Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party in 1854. Its mission was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories. They were dealt a blow with the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Supreme Court found that slaves weren’t citizens, but were property. The seven justices who ruled for slavery were all Democrats; the two in opposition were both Republicans.

John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated President Lincoln. Then the Democratic Party opposed the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery), the 14th Amendment (giving blacks citizenry), and the 15th Amendment (giving blacks the right to vote). All three amendments passed because of strong Republican support.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded by Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest. Historian Eric Foner – himself a Democrat – wrote, “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.”

It was the Democrats who opposed civil rights legislation in 1964. Eighty percent of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act, while less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the votes to break the logjam.

Let’s carry this forward to 2017. Black unemployment is less under President Trump than it was at any point in President Obama’s eight years. The number of food stamp recipients is down, while black home ownership is up. Republicans support school choice, which would free inner city blacks from the failing schools in so many of their neighborhoods. Democrats oppose school choice.

Let’s review. It was Republicans who freed slaves, gave them citizenship, gave them the right to vote, and passed the Civil Rights Act – against Democratic opposition in each case. It is under Republican leadership that black unemployment has dropped and home ownership is up.

For the Democratic Party, none of this is convenient. But it’s still the truth.

The Rushmore Report: O’Reilly – Progressives Don’t Want White People ‘Calling the Shots’

Bill O’Reilly sat down with Sean Hannity to discuss the belief system of the far left in America. The former Fox News host said the “evil, far left agents” in America want to “destroy” the Constitution because slave owners were behind it – and that, he argued, is their goal.

“They want it all changed. Who forged it? Slave owners, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington. We can’t have a Constitution they made. We have to have a new one.” That’s the end game,” he said.

And there are many other institutions that are under fire, he added.

“They don’t want capitalism. They don’t want the electoral college. They don’t want white people, generally, calling the shots. So they have to mobilize minority Americans to be angry,” he said.

The progressive ideology is spreading so rapidly, O’Reilly argued, because “media and entertainers drive it.”

“There is no reason why it’s happening,” he said. “A year ago, you didn’t hear the words ‘white supremacist.’ It was ‘white privilege.’ In my neighborhood, eight miles away from Hillary’s home, I had guys in undershirts falling apart, going, ‘Where is your white privilege, right?’ That’s what you had a year ago. It’s morphed into white supremacists now and people who are buying it.”

About the Author

Leah Barkoukis writes for TownHall.

The Rushmore Report: Democrats’ Banal Deal

With little gusto and virtually no discernible enthusiasm, Democratic congressional leaders have proposed “The Better Deal,” a plan for America’s future. They should have called it “The Banal Deal.” One presumes that in naming this collection of thread-worn policies they were trying to play off President Trump’s “Art of the Deal.”

Or maybe they were trying to take us all back in time to The New Deal. In any case, the title was as trite as the initiatives that appeared beneath it.

The proposal was a collection of failed, unimaginative, “big government knows best” ideas. Its roots are the themes of anger and populist discontent most prominently articulated by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

It seems to escape the notice of the leadership of the Democratic Party that Sanders is not a Democrat. He is a socialist – as is Ms. Warren, although she does not have the integrity to claim that title.

Socialism is not a workable form of government, as was unquestionably proven by the Soviet Union in the last century and Venezuela and Cuba in this century.

It leads to a lower standard of living for all, justified in the name of attacking the few who have succeeded. It is envy politics.

But this inglorious history has not prevented socialism from being embraced by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in their quest to find something to justify their party beyond opposition to Trump.

The modern Democratic Party is not the party of Harry Truman or John Kennedy, or even of Bill Clinton.

This is a tired group of people who have allowed themselves to be coopted by charlatans of the left with ideas that have failed miserably whenever they were tried.

To be guided by the purveyors of the radical left is to admit that, as a party, Democrats have abandoned those who believe in the American dream; people who want only to obtain a better life for themselves and their children.

The Better Deal is a self-inflicted wound, an admission that Democrats seem to have no one among them who sees the greater good of America.

This nation needs a Democratic Party that connects with people as they move forward; a party that expresses optimism in our nation’s uniqueness and does not weight it down with failed ideas from other cultures and times.

Right now, it does not have it.

About the Author

Judd Gregg is the former governor and three-time senator from New Hampshire, who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee.

The Rushmore Report: Three Democrats Who May Run for President in 2020 – Who You’ve Never Heard Of

With the 2016 election just 11 months old, the 2020 election is already making news. President Trump filed re-election paperwork on Inauguration Day. And now several Democrats are making noise about running, as well. With Trump’s approval ratings mired in the 30s, there will be almost no limit to the number of Democrats who will jump into the race. There will be the usual suspects: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and yes, Hillary Clinton. But let’s consider some others who may surprise. Here are three Democrats who may run for president – who you’ve probably never heard of.

1. John Delaney

At this point, Rep. John Delaney of Maryland is the only serious declared Democratic candidate for office. Elected to Congress in 2012, Delaney announced his intent to run for president in July. For most outside his district or immediate family, they had not heard of Mr. Delaney. His district stretches from the D.C. suburbs to western Maryland, which is a more conservative area of the state. In announcing his candidacy, Delaney said, “To do this work with the commitment it deserves, I will not be running for re-election to the House of Representatives. No games, no cat-and-mouse, no backup plan at the 11th hour if a focus group goes badly.”

2. Eric Garcetti

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti is another contender whose name has been floated for both California governor and U.S. president. His term doesn’t end until 2022, but in an interview with the Los Angeles Times last week, he didn’t rule out the possibility of running for either. He said only that he is “committed to the people of Los Angeles.”

3. Seth Moulton

Just 38 years of age, Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts would be the youngest Democratic candidate. He would be 41 on Inauguration Day of 2021. A former Marine Corps officer and graduate of Harvard Business School, Moulton serves on the House Budget Committee and is a ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Moulton has said he wants to see new Democratic leadership before the 2018 elections. While some insiders have already approached him about running, he says he probably won’t run. Which means he probably will run.

The Rushmore Report: Democratic Congressmen Site Problem with Party – Themselves

Last Friday, Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe to reiterate what his Michigan colleague, Debbie Dingell, has been saying, which is that the Democratic Party has to listen to voters again. The wounds of the 2016 campaign are being re-opened, thanks to Hillary Clinton’s book, What Happened, in which the former First Lady offers her account of the election.

She also takes swipes at Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, the media, Barack Obama, James Comey, and sexism for torpedoing her presidential hopes. It’s something the Democrats don’t need right now, but alas – it happened. The divisions between the establishment and progressive wings of the party have been rehashed.

During the show, Moulton said that he feels the Democratic Party hasn’t learned anything from 2016, and that a true self-evaluation is still absent. He knows the game: The GOP controls the White House, Congress, two-thirds of the governorships, and 69/99 state legislatures. The party is in its worst shape since the 1920s. It’s not a national party. It’s not in a position to become a governing party. Moreover, he said that his party didn’t just lose 2016, but several elections before that.

“If we don’t realize that we are partly to blame for that; that we’ve lost touch with a lot of American voters; we’ve lost touch with a lot of voters who used to be on our side – then, we’re not going to be able to move forward,” he said.

Rep. Dingell has also said that to a certain degree, especially when it comes to the white working class bloc that killed Clinton in the general election. Dingell said that Michigan was in play – her party thought she was nuts. Trump would go on to win the state. She knows these workers and she saw how Trump resonated with them. They’re concerned about jobs, not Russia. She also lamented how identity politics has hijacked her party, which has widened the gap between the Democratic Party and everyone else. She also said she gets mad when people say that Trump supporters are racist. She knows better; they’re not.

Moulton and Dingell may have the right ideas on how to get their party back on track. The issue is whether the rest of the Democratic Party wants to follow because this involves reaching out to Trump voters and other slices of the white working class demographic. The people who feel left behind. The people who voted for Obama twice and then flipped for Trump. There’s the insufferable urban-based professional wing of the Democratic Party that hates these people, doesn’t care about them, and thinks they’re relics of an older world, and yes – racist. In reality, they’re just hard-working Americans looking for ways to provide for their families.

My guess is that the vast majority of liberals don’t think they’re out of touch; it’s just that the rest of us are wrong. That’s fine. They’ll keep losing. There’s also an empathy gap with Democrats. And yes, until they recognize it – and much else – they’ll remain constrained to their urban strongholds, which isn’t enough to win national elections.

About the Author

Matt Vespa writes for Townhall.

The Rushmore Report: Look Who the President Invited to Dinner

The President of the United States can pretty much pick anyone he wants to invite over to dinner. There aren’t a lot of us who would not be willing to rearrange our schedule to dine at the White House. Sure, there are some who stay away to make a political point. (If you are reading, Mr. President, I’m not one of them. I’m available for the next 3.3 years, maybe more.) So while most of us would come to dinner at the White House, we are still waiting for that elusive invitation. Except for five interesting citizens. Guess who’s coming to dinner at the White House these days? These five names may surprise you.

Tuesday night, Mr. Trump hosted a bipartisan group of senators for dinner. Yes, you read that correctly – “bipartisan.” The agenda was to discuss tax reform, but that’s not important. Well, it is important, but it’s really not that important. It was three specific senators on the RSVP list that make the dinner important, not the topic, nor the menu.

Then, Trump surprised the next day. Last night, he hosted two more politicians for dinner. Again, it was not the topic nor menu that mattered, but the names of his dinner guests.

Are you ready for the names? There were the five men and women who came to dinner the last two nights. And notice what they all have in common – a “D” after their name.

  1. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
  2. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
  3. Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
  4. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
  5. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly were the only three Democratic senators who did not sign a letter to Trump that rejected any cooperation with him on a tax plan that included a cut for the top one percent. Schumer and Pelosi, as leaders of the minority, represent any chance of bipartisan – there’s that word again – cooperation with the White House.

Donnelly said, “I had another good conversation with President Trump about my proposal to address the outsourcing of American jobs.”

Heitkamp said, “Any chance to talk with the president about issues important to North Dakota is an opportunity I welcome. Tonight, we had a good conversation.”

This sudden foray into bipartisanship follows Trump’s agreement with Schumer and Pelosi from last week that secured a raise of the federal debt ceiling and funding of the government for the next three months, along with funding for Hurricane Harvey relief.

Republicans don’t quite know what to think of this. Some have criticized the bipartisan effort. Others, such as popular blogger Ben Shapiro, have redefined the president. Shapiro says, “Trump is our first independent president; he is not a Republican.”

So what are we to make of this new outreach to the other side of the aisle? I mean, we haven’t seen this kind of effort to work with the other side since way back in the days of President George W. Bush. Ah, remember the days when a different Clinton of a different era worked with the Speaker of the House from a different political party to balance the federal budget? And remember when President Reagan worked with a Democrat named Tip O’Neil, who was also House Speaker from the opposing party?

Those were the days, my friend. At the time, I thought they’d never end. But end they did. We have become accustomed to presidents passing laws with zero outreach to the other party. Both sides have been doing it.

So now, here comes that genteel man of all things reasonable and calm – President Donald J. Trump – to still the waters, unify the nation, and build bridges rather than walls.

What does this mean, exactly? Will the president be content to simply stick his toes into the pool of bipartisanship, or will he dive in all the way? And if he does dive in, will he even know how to swim in such unfamiliar waters? Where he now sees cute dolphins, he will find sharks. Where he now sees the inviting calm of still waters, he will find storms ahead. And the boat in which he seeks refuge may well have a leak.

But I say it’s worth the effort. What we’ve been doing for the past nine years hasn’t worked. Whether the president’s efforts turn out to be more than a couple of nice dinners is still to be seen. I gave up predicting his next move several moves back. But this could be the dawn of something new.

For now, we’ll just have to wait . . . and pray.

The Rushmore Report: Democrats Who Were for the Border Wall – Until Trump Was for It

Today’s Democratic Party screams “Racism!” at the mere mention of a border wall. They ignore a few poignant points. First, dozens of countries around the world have border walls; this isn’t something new. Second, many prominent Democrats were for the border wall – until the unthinkable happened. Donald Trump was elected President. If he is for something, by definition, the Democratic Party is against it.

In 2006, several Democrats supported the wall, including a certain Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. A leaked internal memo from his 2008 presidential campaign confirmed his support for fencing, in order to cut down on illegal immigration.

One of Obama’s “core goals,” according to the memo: “Preserve the integrity of our borders to reduce illegal immigration.”

Obama’s position was confirmed in the following words: “Securing our borders will not solve the illegal immigration problem in isolation, but combined with an earned path to citizenship for the undocumented and new legal alternatives to unauthorized entry, some additional fencing could help get the border under control.”

A section titled “Fencing” says Obama “supports physical fencing along the border under very specific  circumstances, where it makes sense as a matter of security and to act as a deterrent to unsafe undocumented entry.”

So, judged by today’s Democratic definition, Mr. Obama was a racist. (They are clear – anyone who supported border security is racist.)

The Washington Free Beacon has found clips of other Democratic leaders who were for the border wall – until they were against it. These include Hillary Clinton, former Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

So, playing politics with border security is in the Democrats’ playbook. They were for border security until they found out President Trump was for it – so now, naturally, they are against it.

The Rushmore Report: Dems Pledge to Come Up with a Message – At Last

As polling shows that more Americans today think the Democratic Party “just stands against” President Donald Trump instead of promoting its own message, leading liberals are calling for the party to unify its base by refocusing its attention on an economic alternative. A Washington Post poll last week found that only 37 percent of Americans believe that the Democratic Party actually “stands for something.”

Another 52 percent say the party “just stands against Trump.” With focus now on the 2018 midterm elections, that same poll found that only 24 percent of registered voters plan to vote based on their opposition to Trump in the midterm elections. Meanwhile, 20 percent of registered voters will vote based on their support of Trump. And 51 percent said Trump will not be a factor in their midterm votes.

Now, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has unveiled a legislative agenda called “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.” According to Schumer, the agenda has three prongs that will focus on creating more job-training opportunities, lowering costs of everyday expenses, and raising wages.

Schumer was asked why Democrats didn’t release this type of economic agenda during the 2016 campaign. He responded, “Well, I don’t know why it didn’t happen in the campaign. We all take blame, not any one person.” He added, the new agenda “is not going to be left or right.”

He continued, “It will unify the Democratic Party, because we are united on economic issues. And a bold, sharp-edged message, platform, policy, that talks about working people and how the system is rigged against them is going to resonate. And this is the first time we’re going to have it, and our party is going to be unified.”

There you have it. Democratic leader Chuck Schumer says of his party: “This is the first time we’re going to have it.”

America is waiting. The Democratic Party says it actually has a message – at last.

About the Author

Samuel Smith is a reporter for The Christian Post.

The Rushmore Report: Dems on Pace to Clear Trump Nominees – In Just 11 Years

Dozens of President Trump’s nominees are waiting for their confirmations to move forward as Democrats embark on historic obstructionism, according to several Republican lawmakers. Yet, the GOP isn’t the only one to have noticed the maddening delays. The New York Times is now reporting on the brand new “delaying tactic” the Democrats are employing to deny Trump his nominees. Here is what is happening.

Democrats are requiring that Republicans check all the procedural boxes on most nominees, even those they intend to eventually support. That requires the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to request a former “cloture” vote to move forward.

An “intervening day” is then required to allow the cloture request to “ripen.” Next is a vote to impose cloture followed by 30 hours of “post-cloture” debate before a final vote. Democrats have refused to shorten the debate time – to “yield back,” in the parlance of the Senate – though in most cases there is little to debate.

In the end, many Democrats end up voting for the nominee, as each of them did last week on a federal appeals court judge from Idaho.

The process is being delayed to an “excruciating degree,” the Times concludes.

In some instances, top Democrats have apparently admitted that their obstructionism was political at its core. One case in point is the Democrats’ treatment of deputy defense secretary nominee Patrick Shanahan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer refused to hold a vote on him – twice – before noting that “once things change a little bit in healthcare” they can consider the nominee.

If the Democrats continue to delay, Trump’s nominees will be waiting in the wings long after he has left office.

Republicans calculate that at the current rate, it will take 11 years and four months to fill all possible Trump administration spots at the current average of three and a half days spent considering each nominee.

About the Author

Cortney O’Brien writes for Townhall.