A story has been circulating that the White House has toyed with the idea of turning illegal immigrants loose in sanctuary cities while the immigration hearings are pending. The reaction of the elites from the Bay Area and the Northeastern Megalopolis has been pure NIMBY—not in my back yard. The Leftist elites’ gut reaction to having to deal with some those migrants on their home turf when they thought the illegals would be cluttering up the border towns in Texas and Arizona has led them to make a poor decision. They should be welcoming migrants to blue states.
The Left is claiming that the proposed citizenship question on the 2020 census will suppress the count of immigrants. but at least for the time being, the lawsuit they’ve filed to keep the citizenship question off the 2020 census is going in their favor. That means if more migrants are counted in Texas instead of California, a red state will have a chance to pick up one or two more seats in the House and electoral votes.
Joe Biden that is. Politico reports that Creepy Joe is still in first place in the polling for the Democrat’s 2020 presidential nomination. Bernie Sanders, the other elderly straight white male candidate, is in second place and the only other candidate polling in double digits. Kamala Harris, Robert O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Cory Booker round out the pack.
It would seem that the Democrats being polled have not yet understood The Narrative about electing someone other than a SWM. I suspect that serious efforts will be made to publish details of various and sundry misdeeds of the top tier male candidates over the next few months. I also suspect that we’ll see one or more of the bottom tier contestants make a “surprising” rise to front runner status before the early caucuses and primaries.
Back in 1988, when the field of Democrat candidates for the presidential nomination consisted of Colorado Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, Paul Simon, Gary Hart, and Bruce Babbitt, one commentator referred to them as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
Now, it’s the 2020 bunch. They’re blue. They’re of diminutive stature.
Philip Klein has a post over at the Washington Examiner that takes a look at Joe Biden’s behavior during the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991. Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee overseeing the confirmation process of the nomination of Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. Klein’s uses Thomas’ 2007 autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son, as the basis of his post. From that point of view, Biden’s behavior might best be described as two-faced backstabbing.
Part of Biden’s quasi-defense of his groping has been that standards of behavior have evolved. What was acceptable during his early years is no longer permissible. In a half-hearted mea culpa, he says he should do better now.
The standard under which Thomas was challenged involved making remarks to Anita Hill that made her uncomfortable. There was no physical contact. Just words. Unproven words. He said/she said “evidence.” That seems to me to be a much stricter standard than the documented complaints against Biden which involve unwanted touching captured in images and video. IANAL, but isn’t that technically the crime of battery?
It may be that the real law Biden has violated is the Law of Karma, and he’s now experiencing his own high tech lynching (to borrow a phrase from Justice Thomas) at the hands of the feminists because he might get in the way of a women being nominated in 2020.
You reap what you sow, Joe.
UPDATE—My podcasting partner Stacy McCain has further thoughts on how Biden’s past is being used against him because he no longer serves The Narrative.
It’s interesting that many of the Democrat Party pr flacks with bylines have turned their attention to Joe Biden as he has begun to be considered as a candidate for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination. Things that unreported when he was Vice President are now coming to light.
For example, there’s a report at The Hill about Biden’s interference in an criminal investigation in Ukraine.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
The prosecutor was fired, and his successor terminated an investigation into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
As the now-completed Russia collusion investigation showed us, every American deserves the right to be presumed innocent until evidence is made public or a conviction is secured, especially when some matters of a case involve foreigners. The same presumption should be afforded to Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, … and Burisma in the Ukraine case.
Nonetheless, some hard questions should be answered by Biden as he prepares, potentially, to run for president in 2020: Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work was performed for the money Hunter Biden’s firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who very publicly pursued Burisma?
Joe, they’re trying to tell you that you’re past your sell by date.
And even the New York Times has noticed. He’s too connected to the Democrats past failures and simply not credible with the party’s She Guevara Democratic Socialist wing.
Biden’s issues with gender, after all, go far beyond chronic handsiness. His waffling on reproductive choice troubles many feminists; as The Times reported last week, Biden’s “back-and-forth over abortion would become a hallmark of his political career.” He was the chairman of the hearings on Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination, where Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of sexual harassment, was demeaned and dismissed. Though Biden has expressed sorrow for how Hill was treated, he’s never directly apologized to her.
Beyond gender, on issue after issue, if Biden runs for president he will have to run away from his own record. He — and by extension, we — will have to relive the debate over the Iraq war, which he voted to authorize. He’ll have to explain his vote to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which, by lifting regulations on banking, helped create the conditions for the 2008 financial meltdown. (Biden has called that vote one of the biggest regrets of his career.) In 2016, Hillary Clinton was slammed for her previous support of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which contributed to mass incarceration. Biden helped write the law, which he called, in 2015, the “1994 Biden crime bill.”
As noted in the Babylon Bee, Republicans colluded with Reality to defeat the Green Nude Eel. The vote was 0-57. All of the Republicans voted against it, as did three Democrats and one Independent. All the other Democrats and the other Independent voted “present.” That included the bill’s sponsor and all its cosponsors. It included all the senators who had endorsed the Green Nude Eel in connection with their candidacies for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination.
These remarks by Senator Lee (R-UT) are a fair summary of the Republican objections to the bill.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics was available for comment and noted, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”