Connect with us

News

Avenatti on Beto’s loss: We need candidates who fight, not ones who preach “puppies and daisies”

Published

on

He doesn’t mention the B-word here but it’s clear enough who he means, especially after O’Rourke jabbed at him the other day. If Beto! gets into the 2020 race, he’s going to use Avenatti as his foil in the primaries — and now maybe vice versa. Evidently Avenatti’s prepared to engage.

Andrew Gillum was plenty willing to fight fight fight in Florida, more favorable terrain for Democrats than Texas, and he ended up in the loser column too. Seems like a good career move for Avenatti, whom some Dems already blame for blowing their shot to take out Brett Kavanaugh, to start brawling publicly with liberals’ new Most Favorite Person In The World, though.

He posted that first tweet last night, around the time Cruz took a decisive lead in Texas. And his belief that somehow O’Rourke blew the election is surprisingly not uncommon, although most diagnoses focus not on Avenatti’s dopey gimmicky infatuation with “fighting” but on Beto’s decision to run to the left instead of to the center. Smart reporters like Tim Alberta and Elaina Plott have made that point in recent days. If only he’d reached out to centrist Republicans instead of running as the progressive savior, he might have won!

Which feels like a weird criticism of a guy who got way closer to winning a Senate seat in Texas than any Democrat has in at least 25 years.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, Cruz’s predecessor, routinely won her elections with better than 60 percent of the vote. John Cornyn, Cruz’s colleague, has never had a race closer than 12. He won his last one in the red wave year of 2014 by 28 points. His predecessor, Phil Gramm, also easily won his elections in the 1990s. And many of their opponents ran as centrists, of course, since that’s the normal thing for a red-state Democrat to do. It often works — look at Joe Manchin, for one — but it’s been tried in Texas and failed abysmally. Suddenly here comes the charismatic progressive Beto, who raises a cargo-hold full of money and gets within two and a half points of knocking off Mr Conservative on his home field and the criticism is that … he was too progressive? How excited to turn out and donate would his many admirers have been if he’d run as a Sinema-esque “hey, I like the border wall too” leftist LARPing as a Blue Dog Democrat? I could understand the criticism that it was silly of him to run to the left if fake-centrists like Claire McCaskill and Joe Donnelly were winning nationally. They weren’t. Both lost, Donnelly badly. And a bona fide centrist Democrat, Phil Bredesen, got run off the field in Tennessee. It’s easy to argue that O’Rourke overperformed, not underperformed, by running as a true-blue lefty and turning himself into a “cause.”

And although it didn’t win him the Senate, it may have won other precious things for Dems.

Democrats gained two House seats and nearly stole a third before Republican Will Hurd barely held on to win. They picked up 12 seats in the state house and gained two more in the state senate. In all likelihood Democrats energized by Betomania! turned out in force for him and ended up voting party-line down ballot. None of this disproves the Alberta/Plott theory that a more centrist Beto would have turned out even more Dems (or at least offset the ones he lost with some centrist Republican votes) and maybe won his own race. But to argue that is to argue that the Beto phenomenon boiled down exclusively to personal charisma. He was always destined to make the race close based on his rockstar persona or whatever, supposedly; finding the formula that would win was merely a matter of trying on ideological outfits and finding the sexiest one. I don’t buy it. I think the fact that O’Rourke wouldn’t compromise on his ideology, even in Texas, is what gave him a special “principled underdog” appeal to Democrats who share his beliefs, which translated into money and turnout. If he’d run as Joe Manchin he would have washed out, rejected even by centrist Republicans on grounds that so-called centrist Dems tend to end up as reliable liberals once they get to Washington. Better to stick with Cruz.

David Frum thinks O’Rourke falling just short last night is a gift to Democrats in 2020:

If Beto O’Rourke had eked it out in Texas, Democrats might well have nominated him for president in 2020, almost guaranteeing a debacle. There is no progressive majority in America. There is no progressive plurality in America. And there certainly is no progressive Electoral College coalition in America…

Obama and Kennedy were realists, who regularly disappointed and vexed their most liberal supporters. Senator Barack Obama voted for ethanol subsidies and regularly went awol from political tussles over gun control. Obama was no Beto—which is why Obama actually won his U.S. Senate race in 2004. Beto enthusiasts are today recalling that Abraham Lincoln lost a Senate race in 1858 before winning the presidency in 1860. They are not recalling the innumerably more numerous politicians who failed to win a Senate race before not winning the presidency.

That’s a cute line at the end but I can’t believe any political commentator would attempt to set unbreakable rules of national politics when we’re neck-deep in the Trump era at this very moment. True, most politicians who run for statewide office and lose usually aren’t thought of as presidential material. But celebrities best known for hosting a game show aren’t usually thought of as presidential material either. The rules aren’t what they were, or so many (like Michael Avenatti) believe. Also, while it’s hopefully true that there’s no progressive majority in America, there were sizable national majorities very recently who were willing to elect a reasonably progressive candidate named Barack Obama.

And I don’t know why Frum thinks O’Rourke as a national candidate wouldn’t stake out an opportune centrist position here and there just to signal his “reasonableness.” Having now established his brand in Texas as a principled liberal, Democrats wouldn’t fault him for a little pandering in purple states in the name of electability. (Remember Obama’s “opposition” to gay marriage?) Oh, and the reason Obama won his Senate seat in 2004 wasn’t because he was some unusually canny pragmatist carefully finding a middle way. It was because he ran in farking Illinois against Alan Keyes, of all people, after a more formidable Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out due to scandal. Surely Frum’s not suggesting that 2004-era Obama would have turned Texas blue running against Cornyn or Hutchison. I understand the urge to goof on Beto and his left-wing cult of personality but c’mon.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Mexican Protesters Scream at Illegal Immigrants: “Donald Trump Was Right! This Is an Invasion” (VIDEO)

Published

on

By

They don’t like being invaded either.

MEXICAN PROTESTERS WAVING MEXICAN FLAGS CONFRONTED ILLEGAL ALIENS IN TIJUANA AGAIN ON SUNDAY–

During the protest today one protester screamed at the illegal migrant caravan, “Donald Trump was right! This is an invasion.”

You Might Like

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Trump: I don’t know if Salman lied to me, skips question on weapons sales

Published

on

By

President Donald Trump isn’t really sure if Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman had anything to do with the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. He told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace there had been several conversations with Salman over Khashoggi and the story hadn’t changed.

I don’t know, who can really know, but I can say this…he has many people now who say that he had no knowledge.

He told me that he had nothing to do with it. He told me that, I would say, maybe five times at different points…as recently as a few days ago.

Trump also noted it might be one of those situations where the truth will never come out on whether Salman was directly involved in ordering Khashoggi’s murder.

Will anyone really know? Will anyone really know? But he did have, certainly, people that were reasonably close to him and close to him that were probably involved. You saw we put on very heavy sanctions – massive sanctions on a large group of people from Saudi Arabia. But at the same time, we do have an ally and I want to stick with an ally that’s been very good.

The comment goes against the CIA notion Salman had some involvement in at least getting Khashoggi to the Saudi embassy in Turkey where he died. The President is probably right in his assessment – as even the CIA didn’t completely implicate Salman – but it won’t go over well with a lot of people who prefer presidents speak in definitive answers regarding international incidents.

One thing which isn’t questionable is the ridiculousness of suggesting there were “massive sanctions” on the Saudis. Yes, 17 people were sanctioned – but they’d already had their visas revoked. ABC News suggested the sanctions show the U.S. is taking what happened seriously but I’m not convinced it’ll mean anything because there are plenty of questions on whether sanctions actually hinder those they’re meant to hinder.

The more damning statement by Trump is his decision to avoid a question from Wallace on Saudi arms sales.

Wallace: So if Congress were to move to either cut off any U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen or to block any arms sales, you wouldn’t go along with it?

Trump: Well, I want to see Yemen end, but it takes two to tango. Iran has to end it also. And Iran is a very different country than when I took over. It’s far weakened because of what I did with the so-called Iran deal – Iran nuclear deal – which was one of the great ripoffs of all times. But I want Saudi to stop, but I want Iran to stop also.

This is a beyond ridiculous answer and shows the failure of the President to change any sort of foreign policy. Trump is just going along with the previous administration’s policy of being “arms seller in chief.” There is no reason for the U.S. government to be involved in arms sales – and I know it’s because there’s a federal law on the issue.

The logic of those who believe the U.S. government should control who gets American weapons is so they can pick what country gets what. But where is the accountability? How does the public hold the government accountable when it’s full of bureaucrats and so-called ‘policy experts’ who are the ones who actually make the decisions.

The Government Accountability Agency noted in 2016 the U.S. had consistently failed in following procedures (and U.S. law) when it came to arms sales to Egypt (emphasis mine).

The U.S. government completed human rights vetting for 5,581 Egyptian security forces before providing U.S.-funded training in fiscal year 2011 through March 31, 2015; however, our analysis of a sample of names from training rosters of Egyptian security forces who received U.S.-funded training shows that that the U.S. government did not complete all required vetting prior to providing training, in violation of State’s and DOD’s policies. In contrast to State’s vetting requirements for training, State’s policies and procedures encourage, but do not specifically require, vetting for foreign security forces that receive U.S.-funded equipment, including those in Egypt. The primary method State uses in Egypt to comply with Leahy law requirements when providing equipment is to attest in memos that State is in compliance with Leahy law requirements. Various factors have posed challenges to the U.S. government’s efforts to vet recipients of U.S. assistance. Gaps and uncertainties in information have made it challenging for U.S. officials to vet some cases before providing training. Additionally, State has not established procedures for clearing smaller units or individuals within a larger unit that has been deemed ineligible to receive assistance. Finally, Embassy Cairo has recorded little information on human rights abuses by Egyptian officials in INVEST since the beginning of fiscal year 2011, despite State requirements to do so.

This is why it shouldn’t be the U.S. government doing these arms sales, and why Trump’s refusal to answer Wallace’s question regarding Saudi arms sales is disappointing – and more of a story than his “who can really say” answer regarding Khashoggi. Congress needs to stop the arms sales and completely change U.S. policy.

It’s so much easier to hold private companies accountable for sales, especially when there’s no government protection barrier surrounding them. One would think a businessman elected to the presidency would realize this. Apparently not.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

ALL OF ORANGE COUNTY Turns Blue After Democrats Find Thousands of Votes Post Election Day

Published

on

By

Orange County, a traditionally conservative enclave in Southern California turned all blue after Democrats found tens of thousands of votes post election day.

Just two years ago in 2016, only 2 Congressional districts in Orange County voted blue–now just two years later every single district voted blue.

Democrat blue wave? More like Democrat election fraud.

The 39th district was officially called for Democrat Gil Cisneros over Republican Young Kim who was up by 3 points on election night and was set to be the first Korean-American Congresswoman. The Democrats stole this race with ‘late votes.’

Young Kim was up by 3,900 votes on election night with 100% of the precincts reporting according to AP and she ended up losing by 3,000 votes 11 days after the election.

Republican Congresswoman Mimi Walters in California’s 45th district was also ahead on election night then was magically defeated by Democrat Katie Porter several days after the election.

Democrat Katie Porter was trailing Mimi Walters on election night then jumped ahead by hundreds of votes after the Democrats produced thousands of ballots after the election.

There may be something more sinister happening in Orange County, California.


The Gateway Pundit spoke to two concerned voters in California’s 45th district who said when they went to vote, they were told they weren’t on the roster so they were given provisional ballots.

Two registered Republicans in California’s 45th district told this reporter that they have been voting for over 20 years in Orange County and what happened this midterm has never happened to them–EVER.

“I’ve been a registered Republican and an active voter for over 20 years and when I went to vote on election day, I was told that I wasn’t on the roster so I was given a provisional ballot,” a Republican voter told The Gateway Pundit.

Was this an isolated incident or is this more widespread?

One America News reporter Jack Posobiec spoke to a pollworker in California on election day.

The pollworker told Jack Posobiec, “I have received a very large amount of voters whose registration was changed to vote by mail without their consent and then not mailed their ballots. I’m allowing provisional voting. My registrar is giving me the runaround about this and just saying don’t worry. This is not my first election. I have not seen this problem before.”

The Drudge Report featured the story about the stunning losses in Orange County and the responses by concerned voters in Southern California raised eyebrows as well.

One woman who lives in Newport Beach in California’s 48th district said she hasn’t missed a vote in 43 years and was forced to fill out a provisional ballot on election day; her vote still hasn’t been counted.

“I was made to fill out provisional ballot after voting in the same precinct in OC consistently 20 years said I was mail in never have been My vote still has not been counted I check daily. Same with red friends. I’m ind. never missed a vote n 43 yrs,” tweeted a Newport Beach resident named Vanessa Butler.

Where the hell is the GOP??

You Might Like

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close