Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 434: To Democrats, everything and nothing sounds good at one time

Biden full of
Ever been to a restaurant and everything and nothing on the menu sounded good at the same time?

If this describes your experience then you know exactly how Democrat voters must be feeling this morning, the day after dopey Joe Biden apparently locked up his party’s nomination for president. With impressive victories in Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri (and a smaller-margin win in Idaho), the former Obama veep once again swept the “begins with M” states (he prevailed in Minnesota, Maine and Massachusetts last week, but Maryland’s is in a month and Montana doesn’t vote until June) and corralled the vast majority of their delegates. Bernie Sanders did manage strong showings in the other states on Tuesday -- North Dakota and Washington -- but the numbers are looking increasingly bleak for the crusty old Vermont Democrat socialist. There just aren’t enough Sanders friendly states left (meaning, pasty white locales with nutty leftist orientations like you’d find in the northeast or west coast).

The establishment fought back and now it appears they’ve won. Any outsider rebellion’s been suppressed. The question is where does the liberal party go from here?

Buoyed by continued overwhelming support from African-American Democrats, Biden seems unbeatable in any state with a sizable black population, which means Sanders is effectively toast even though there are still 53 percent of the convention delegates yet to be awarded and there’s another presidential primary debate coming up on Sunday night (in Arizona).

After that, Illinois, Florida and Ohio vote next Tuesday. If current trends hold the Biden train will be unstoppable (assuming the mentally slipping frontrunner could even find the tracks or recognize them under his invisible locomotive). The rout will be so complete that if “Dandy Don” Meredith (of Monday Night Football fame) were still alive he’d be singing “Turn out the lights, the party’s over.” There hasn’t been this many forks stuck in a Sanders (product) since the first Kentucky Fried Chicken store opened last century.

“The Bern” was no doubt hoping Michigan would halt his campaign’s bleeding since he’d won the state four years ago over Hillary Clinton (yes, but only by about a point and a half), but not even an endorsement from washed-up civil rights-era dinosaur Jessie Jackson could sway the Democrats’ most faithful voting bloc away from Obama’s best political pal. To provide some perspective on how out-of-the-game Jackson is, he’s only a month younger than Sanders. Funny how time flies.

At any rate, with the Democrat race all-but solved -- or at the very least, narrowed to two late seventies (in age) white men with severe electability (in the long term) issues, some in the media are wondering how we arrived at this point and whether the deck was stacked against the women candidates all along. With Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren giving up the trail last week, the only remaining female face is Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s… and she’s only won two delegates thus far.

What now? In a piece titled, “We should have seen the challenges of Elizabeth Warren's campaign,” liberal Fox News commentator Jessica Tarlov addressed the subject this week at The Hill, “As a member of the media, I’ve certainly thought a lot about how 2016 was covered and how we can learn from our mistakes. I can’t handle another 2016-like shock and, to avoid it, the media and voters have got to get on the same page.

“Just like we, by and large, couldn’t see the possibility of a Trump win in 2016, the coverage has relentlessly diminished Biden’s candidacy when all the trappings of a successful run have been in plain view.

“We’re all human and bound to have personal preferences. The key is to make sure that we can still see what’s really going on, despite those preferences, and honestly reflect upon our biases when the outcome isn’t what ‘makes sense’ to us.”

Has the media really downplayed Biden’s chances? If anything it’s (the media’s) unleashed its full wrath against Sanders of late, leaving beaming, babbling Joe as the (77-year-old) comeback kid and preordained Democrat savior and last best hope.

In a surprisingly candid (for a liberal Democrat) analysis, Tarlov basically argued that Biden’s candidacy was undervalued by the pundit class while Warren’s was elevated due to media bias. Her opening sentence summed it up: “In the sea of post-mortems on Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, I have yet to see the central truth of her candidacy mentioned: the media loved her more than Democrats did.”

As a regular observer who never thought “Pocahontas” would find much success as a presidential candidate, I wasn’t particularly surprised to see her founder in the Democrat race. Her entire agenda was staked on having “plans” and “solutions” to problems that either were not real or unprovable (climate change, slavery reparations) or vastly overblown (universal childcare, free college tuition and insert-your-big-government-liberal-cause-here). Even among those who would normally have a healthy appetite for such taxpayer funded giveaways there was skepticism because the candidate couldn’t explain how she’d find the means to support them.

So therefore, seeing the Massachusetts senator struggle in the early states was everything I anticipated, especially when there were much more attractive (not an appearance thing, obviously!) alternatives competing against her. Even realistic politics watchers from her home state felt she wouldn’t win there, and her own constituents supposedly would know her best. Nasty, grouchy and petulant John Kasich won only his home state (Ohio) on the GOP side in 2016, but “Pocahontas” can’t even brag about being the Bay State’s favorite daughter.

But is there something to the “women candidates always start at a disadvantage” thing? Somebody on some cable news show the other day complained that the fact there’s never been a woman president proves they’ve been de facto discriminated against. This is far too simple of an explanation. There’s never been a Hispanic or Asian-American or American Indian president either and it doesn’t mean a candidate of that background couldn’t win today if they were appealing enough. Contrary to the PC crowd’s assertions, America ain’t a racist (or sexist) place.

While it may be true that women candidates are held to a different standard in some respects (as Tarlov suggested), this year’s Democrat field -- and Hillary Clinton -- demonstrated that gender does not represent an insurmountable barrier to a woman taking over the Oval Office.

If that were the case then Big Bubba Bill Clinton wouldn’t have lasted long, would he? But it must be the right woman candidate.

On paper, all of the Democrats looked like potentially good prospects for the liberal nomination. But delving down below the surface, none of them were all that strong when pitted against each other and definitely not in a two-person contest with Trump. Each had/has enormous would be fatal flaws that either felled their presidential runs or will end up strangling them (Biden or Sanders) in the general election. Translation: there really wasn’t a “winning hand” dealt Democrat voters in the first place. The media fawned over the size and “diversity” of the 2020 candidates but, in their rush to anoint someone to deny the incumbent president a second term, they neglected to report on what was really visible to everyone.

Tarlov also asserted that women are held to a higher “likability” standard than men, but is it true? Neither Hillary four years ago nor “Pocahontas” this year was deemed friendly and approachable -- largely because they’re not. Ditto for Kamala Harris who scowled her way through Democrat debates, staring directly into the camera and trying to come across as tough and intimidating rather than accommodating and open to compassion. She thought the bad-ass routine was her ticket. It wasn’t. Likewise, Kirsten Gillibrand and Marianne Williamson clearly didn’t have the type of personality the masses would adopt.

And wasn’t Amy Klobuchar thought of as “likable” (even if her staff would beg to differ)? How about Tulsi Gabbard? The latter’s been on Tucker Carlson’s show a number of times (including last night) and always presented herself as charming and well-mannered, a gifted conversationalist even if you disagreed with everything she said.

Besides, Trump has his own likability problem, considering he still repels half the country despite his myriad of accomplishments. But Democrats -- and let’s be honest a few Republicans -- made up their minds about Trump on day one when he announced his candidacy in June, 2015. Trump never intended to fit the stereotype of a “presidential” leader, he much preferring the role of political entertainer and message carrier for the conservative movement to a dull, “serious” person with establishment approved decorum (Mitt Romney?).

It's safe to say Trump wasn’t -- and probably still isn’t -- what conservatives would consider a “principled” card-carrying ideological limited government warrior. Every once in a while, he says or does something that makes us wonder… is he really in it for us? Like the time he invited congressional “leaders” to the White House and gave an inordinate amount of meeting agenda space to Dianne Feinstein to spill her gun restriction schemes.

But then he invariably returns to the winning political position. Democrats and critics drove Trump to embrace the conservative movement. He may not be a natural fit but his political instincts placed him on the right side. And we’re better off for it.

In contrast, the Democrats’ backing of Biden shows tremendous weakness. Dennis Lennox wrote at The Washington Times, “[T]he sudden clearing of the field, which culminated … in the exit of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is aimed at protecting the Democratic majority in the lower chamber of Congress as well as the plethora of other down-ballot races across the country.

“Democrats are not happy with Mr. Biden. However, they realize he is a much safer choice atop the party’s ticket than Mr. Sanders, who to this day is not a card-carrying member of the party.

“Sure, Mr. Sanders has a path to the nomination, but that path is incredibly narrow. Basically, he has to run the table, which seems insurmountable given the fact that the entire Democratic establishment is against him. Even if the race goes to convention it is unlikely that Mr. Biden could lose, thanks to the impact of superdelegates after the first round of voting on the floor of the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.”

Yesterday’s results bolster Lennox’s contention. Sure, every remaining state will go through the motions of voting and Sanders will earn his share of delegates but Biden’s destined to win the nomination (one way or another) and there’s no stopping it now.

Democrat elites felt having Biden’s name on the ballot would be enough to save their swing district House members and maybe motivate enough party voters to cut into or reverse the GOP’s senate majority. The party’s prospects looked dreary with Trump in the White House for another term but they wouldn’t get any of their items passed with Republicans in firm control (again) of the three branches of government.

They had to do something. Their field was weak. To them, Biden was the final option.

Regardless of the reasons, Democrats are pretty much stuck with Joe Biden -- and all that comes with him -- for their party nominee. The 2020 field’s women candidates didn’t lose because of their gender; they lost because they weren’t good choices and the establishment first sought to take care of their own.

Share this