Category: incumbents

Categories
crime and punishment incumbents international affairs

The Lurid Latest

Ilhan Omar, traitor, step brother

Offensive.

Absurd.

Absolutely false.

Those are the words Representative Ilhan Omar used to describe the startling accusation against her — that she married her second husband to bring him into the country, and that he was actually her biological brother.

Most people would find such a scheme “offensive,” sure.

And it is “absurd” in the sense it would be a good plot point in a Christopher Buckley or Tom Sharpe farce-cum-satire, yes. 

It is not absurd, however, as in impossible or completely out-of-character for the far-left Islamist Democrat from Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District.

But is it “absolutely false”?

Not according to Anton Lazarro, a GOP Minnesota operative who spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on private investigators to obtain DNA evidence of both alleged brother and ostensible sister and then published the results. 

Omar’s incest/immigration scandal has criminal complexities.

“His website, IlhanOmarDNA.com,” writes Miranda Devine for The New York Post, “containing the DNA test results, was online briefly before it was taken down Wednesday.” I just checked moments ago, and the website is back up and running. Peruse at your leisure. The main contention is that “test results stated there is a 99.999998 percent chance that Omar and her second husband, Ahmed Elmi, now her ex-husband, are siblings, according to an analysis by British company Endeavor DNA Laboratories.”

No sooner had Mr. Lazarro posted it than the FBI arrested him on charges of “underage sex-trafficking.” And those charges have put the kibosh on a major publicity campaign against Rep. Omar — though the Post journalist appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Lazarro, for his part, “is denying the charges,” writes Terresa Monroe-Hamilton for BizPac Review. “It remains to be seen if he is guilty or not, but the timing seems very, very convenient.”

A lurid story all around. 

Offensive, though? Absurd? Absolutely untrue?

I’d like to know more.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents initiative, referendum, and recall

Christmas in California?

California, Covid, corruption

“Gray Davis was never in a position to play Santa Claus,” said Steve Maviglio, press flack for the former California governor who was recalled by voters in 2003.

Maviglio was comparing Davis’ relative misfortune, back then — in not having a pandemic and the resulting economic stimulus — to today’s prospects for current Governor Gavin Newsom, who likewise faces a citizen-initiated recall. Yet, while 18 years ago Davis both cut budgets and raised taxes, Newsom has now discovered an extra $100 billion of spendable funds to let him off that hook. 

California’s whopping budget surplus of $75.7 billion? Just the beginning. Democrats in Congress wanted to help with even more tax dollars, voting to drop-ship Golden State pols another $26 billion as part of the stimulus bill . . . which every Republican opposed, calling it at the time a move to “supply the Governor of California with a special slush fund.”

“Newsom wants to hand out cash before California recall election,” Politico headlined its story on Monday, informing that the embattled governor was quick to “tell Californians he wants to give them cash and pay some of their utility bills and back rent,” and noting specifically: “Checks would arrive in voters’ mailboxes not long before ballots do this fall.”

One key part of Newsom’s $100 billion “California Comeback Plan” is to give $600 “to some two-thirds of state residents in households making up to $75,000, along with $500 to families with dependents.”*

“It’s very significant,” offered former Gov. Davis, arguing “the future looks brighter as evidenced by the checks the public will soon receive.” 

Whose future, precisely? Not Californians, really. Newsom’s.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* “Unlike the federal stimulus aid, undocumented immigrants and their families will be eligible to receive a state tax rebate,” The Sacramento Bee explained. “In fact, undocumented immigrants with dependent children will be eligible for $1,000 for family checks, double what other California families will receive, in order to make up for the lack of support at the federal level, according to Finance Director Keely Bosler.” [Emphasis added.] Must they document that they are undocumented?

PDF for printing

Photo by Rob Growler / Photo by Gage Skidmore

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability incumbents

When More Is Better

Congress, representation, democracy,

On Monday, we considered how to get better representation in Congress for the 700,000 folks residing in our nation’s capital city, Washington, D.C.

Today, let’s tackle how the rest of us get any semblance of representation. We are sliced up into 435 congressional districts, each comprised of roughly 700,000 people electing a “representative” supposedly doing our business in Washington. 

Are they doing our business? 

The nearly universal and long-standing public disapproval of Congress answers that question.*

As the framers of the Constitution saw it, Congress would be the first and most powerful branch of government, as it would be closest to the people. The original idea was to create in members of Congress a “fidelity to their constituents,” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 57, which “would be found very insufficient without the restraint of frequent elections. Hence . . . the House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.”

Madison goes on to say that congresspeople “will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease.”

Yet well-funded congressional incumbents sporting 90 percent-plus re-election rates cycle after cycle, decade after decade — serving 20 and 30 and 50-plus years — cannot plausibly feel either compelled or dependent.

Looming large over the problem? Huge population districts. 

The more voters in a district, the more expansive and expensive campaigns must be . . . and the bigger the need for help from special interests . . . and the more powerful those groups’ influence.

Conversely, the smaller a district is, the more influence constituents individually have on their representative.

It may seem paradoxical, but it isn’t: citizens will wield more power when there are more representatives in Congress.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* In April, after sending stimulus checks to the entire country, Congress did more than double its approval rating, though it is still seen unfavorably by a lopsided two-to-one margin.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents political challengers term limits

Knock Down the Incumbency

Knock Down the House, socialism, term limits,

Over the weekend, I suffered through Knock Down the House . . . so you don’t have to. 

While the documentary heralding four inexperienced Democratic women running for Congress in 2018 cost Netflix $10 million, I did not have to spend a dime — beyond my regular monthly subscription.

The award-winning film, directed by Rachel Lears, who wrote it along with her husband, Robin Blotnick, is expertly crafted. Unfortunately, it is geared to democratic socialists predisposed to adoring the subjects. 

The star is now Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who defeated then Rep. Joe Crowley, a ten-term, 20-year incumbent . . . the Number 4 Democrat in the House of Representatives.

In addition to Ocasio-Cortez, the movie follows Amy Vilela, seeking to replace a retiring Nevada Democrat; Cori Bush, challenging the Clay Family’s hereditary congressional dynasty in Missouri’s 1st district*; and Paula Jean Swearengin, battling incumbent Sen. Joe Machin in West Virginia’s Democratic Party Primary. Of the four challengers chronicled, all of whom received extensive support from two progressive groups, Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress, AOC was the only winner.

“Let’s assume all the energy in this room can get you on the ballot and into office,” offers a fellow at one of Ocasio-Cortez’s early meetings. “How, then, do we overcome the drop in power?”

“I think we really need to have to look at what that power does now,” AOC responds. “When it matters, [Rep. Crowley] doesn’t stand up for us; when it matters, he doesn’t advocate for our interests.”

Whatever one thinks of AOC’s politics, her point here is not without merit: the idea that we citizens benefit from longtime incumbents who ‘bring home the bacon’ is . . . baloney. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* At the completion of this term, Rep. Lacy Clay, Ms. Bush’s opponent, will have served 20 years. His father, Bill Clay, held the seat for 32 years before that. Together, over half a century. The film alludes to the fact that Clay Jr. gained the seat in 2000 only after the surprise retirement of Clay Sr. on the very last day to file for the office . . . with Jr. filing, instead.

PDF for printing

Knock Down the House, socialism, term limits,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
incumbents political challengers Popular term limits

The Incumbency vs. Progressives

democratic party, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, DCCC, Bill Lipinski, primary challenger,

“The Democratic Party leadership is choosing machine politics,” charged Alexandra Rojas, the young executive director of Justice Democrats, “over ushering in a new generation of leaders and the fundamental idea of democracy.”

She specifically assails the DCCC’s blacklist of political professionals working for Democratic Party candidates who dare to challenge Democratic incumbents in next year’s Democratic primaries. 

The Intercept reports that “at least four consultants dropped” challenger Marie Newman’s campaign “under pressure from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s new policy to cut off vendors working with primary challengers.” 

Newman is formidable, having come within 2 percentage points of Rep. Dan Lipinski in the 2018 Illinois Democratic Primary. The National Abortion Rights Action League, Democracy for America and other progressive groups are decrying a DCCC “blacklist policy that protects anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, corporate Democrats like Dan Lipinski.”

And progressives have reason for disgust. Lipinski is a protected insider.

For the last 36 years, there has been a Lipinski in Congress. Bill Lipinski, the current congressman’s father, held the seat for 22 years before giving it to his son. And yes, “giving” is correct. 

In 2004, two months before the November election, while running unopposed for a 12th term, the incumbent resigned — too late to trigger a special election wherein voters could make a choice. Instead, Bill’s replacement was hand-picked by the Illinois district’s Democratic Party Committee.

Controlled by — you guessed it! — Bill Lipinski. 

That insider group chose Bill’s son, Daniel, who was then living in Kentucky.

“It was an open process,” claimed the father. 

Today, per the blacklist, “[t]he DCCC says the policy doesn’t discourage primary challengers.”

Well, I guess no one expects truth from a political machine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

democratic party, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, DCCC, Bill Lipinski, primary challenger,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents partisanship

AOC Right, DCCC Wrong

Democrat, incumbent, fairness, AOC

“AOC is right as rain here,” I re-tweeted Sunday.

And what was the usually all-wet U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) right about?

“By stymieing primaries,” the freshman representative had tweeted at her own party’s congressional leaders and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), “you deny most voters their best chance at choosing their representative.”

On purpose. 

Ocasio-Cortez refers to the recent DCCC announcement, first reported by The Intercept, that “warned political strategists and vendors . . . that if they support candidates mounting primary challenges against incumbent House Democrats, the party will cut them off from business.”

Isn’t the goal of the DCCC to elect as many Democrats to Congress as possible? 

No. 

“The core mission of the DCCC is electing House Democrats, which includes supporting and protecting incumbents,” reads a new form for party political consultants. “To that end, the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus.”

In short, if you want to make money, and most political professionals do, don’t dare work for a Democratic challenger against a Democratic incumbent. 

“If the DCCC enacts this policy to blacklist vendors who work with challengers, we risk undermining an entire universe of potential candidates and vendors — especially women and people of color,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, another Democratic freshman who defeated an incumbent Democrat, tweeted on Saturday. 

The policy has been enacted and is in full effect.

Among Washington Democrats, incumbency trumps everything . . . even diversity. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. The National Republican Congressional Committee has long had this same total fixation — mutatis mutandis — on re-electing incumbents. In fact, the newsworthiness of this latest DCCC strong-arming of consultants seems to be only that the insider power-play is more “open” than ever before.

PDF for printing

Democrat, incumbent, fairness, AOC

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
incumbents video

“Everyone can be replaced”

The Young Turks take note of an ominous sign from the party the progressives think is theirs. A leftist take on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s smoke-filled room machinations.

“Yay, democracy: once you get in you never get out!”

Ana Kasparian spoke the line quoted in the title, above; John Iadarola spoke, sarcastically, the words used here as caption to the video, directly above. Francesca Fiorentini also comments on this news story.

Categories
incumbents political challengers term limits

Old Dominions

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax

A photo, found on Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s 1984 medical school yearbook page, went viral. It was of a person in black-face next to another in a Ku Klux Klan sheet. In almost no time at all, Democrats and others quickly demanded that the governor resign.

Why the speed? 

The already-started presidential campaign? 

Or the likelihood that Democrats would experience no disadvantage should their governor step down?

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, an up-and-comer in the Democratic Party, would take Northam’s place. And under Virginia’s gubernatorial term limits, Fairfax could run again for a full term after finishing the rest of this current term. 

With Virginia’s one-term limit, it would allow a rare option to run as an incumbent.

There’s a speed bump, though. Not necessarily the sexual assault allegation lodged against Fairfax, which he denies . . . and about which we know little. What’s certain? Fairfax is positioned far to the left of Northam — in a state that is still more purple than blue. 

A bitter feud with Laborers’ International Union of North America illustrates the problem. Mr. Fairfax has long opposed two pipelines that the union desperately desires. The union — a donor of $600,000 to Democrats in 2017 — demanded that candidate Northam remove Fairfax’s name and picture from mailers to union households. 

Northam complied. 

And got hit by charges of racism.

You see, Fairfax is black. 

Playing down the dis, Fairfax called it a “mistake”; others chose “mindboggling,” a “slap in the face,” and a signal that blacks “are expendable.”

Northam still won . . . with 87 percent support from black voters.

Should Northam finish his term, Lt. Gov. Fairfax would remain well positioned, but the race would be wide open. If Fairfax becomes governor, however, no Democrat will challenge him for fear of splitting the party.

Yet, come 2021, Fairfax is too far left to defeat a decent Republican . . . should one appear.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
incumbents political challengers

Winning Reform

Ranked Choice Voting, Maine, example, sample

Bruce Poliquin, Maine’s incumbent second-district U.S. Representative, knows what to blame for his loss this last election: the preferences of Maine voters.

Well, he blames Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) . . . in which voters rank the candidates by preference, and whose votes are counted so to better tally second- and even third-favored options.*

The Republican Representative enjoyed a slight lead on election night, but fell short of a majority. When two independent candidates were eliminated, their second-choice votes put Democrat challenger Jared Golden over the 50-percent mark.

Maine Republicans are upset. It turns out that losing isn’t as much fun as winning.

Shocking, I know.

So Poliquin sued, arguing that RCV is unconstitutional. He asked a federal judge to stop the ballot tabulation.

Judge Lance Walker, a Trump appointee, was “not persuaded.” He additionally noted that “the citizens of Maine have rejected the policy arguments plaintiffs advance against RCV.”

Twice.

In 2016, Mainers passed RCV by ballot initiative and then, in a 2017 referendum, vetoed the legislature’s arrogant repeal of the voter-enacted reform.

“While Mr. Poliquin publicly works through the five stages of grief over his election loss,” remarked RCV advocate Kyle Bailey, “the real story is that the implementation of Maine’s Ranked Choice Voting law was smooth, transparent, and in accordance with the will of the Maine voters,”

Meanwhile, Chuck Slocum, past chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota, urges fellow Republicans to “consider” this non-partisan reform.

Yes, a process that better counts voter preferences ought to help your political party.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* In cases where no candidate gains a majority of first-choice votes, the last place candidate is eliminated and his or her votes re-allocated to those voters’ second choice, and this process continues until a candidate reaches a majority.

PDF for printing

 

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

 

Categories
incumbents insider corruption

The Politics of Exclusion

locks, Republicans, Democrats, democracy, Libertarians, Greens

“The mainstream media screams about Russia stealing elections,” says U.S. senatorial candidate Dale Kerns, “but behind the scenes they pull the strings to keep the duopoly in control.”

Mr. Kerns, who is running in Pennsylvania as a Libertarian in a four-candidate race, has had the rug pulled out from under him. Early on, the League of Women Voters had assured him that he would be able to participate in televised candidate debates in Philadelphia. That opportunity was dashed as the date of the event neared.

“Make no mistake, this is cronyism,” insists Kerns, who notes that “big media corporations collud[e] with big government political parties to keep out competition.”

Eric Boehm covers the scandal/not-a-scandal over at Reason. The early promise of inclusion came from the League, and it was “other organizers” of the event who decided that the Libertarian and Green candidates’ polling numbers were low enough to excuse exclusion.

You might wonder why debate organizers would want to have less interesting debates. But remember: the two entrenched parties’ candidates want to win. Period. The last thing they want are challengers from other parties included, because those challengers can only peel off voters from them.* And though the major-media hosts may wish to seem non-partisan, they almost never refrain from taking a side. 

I do not (and cannot) know which reason contributed more to the Philadelphia renege, so will let you hazard your own guesses. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Which helps explain why the parties tend to “cheat with both hands,” as Nicholas Sarwark, the Libertarian candidate for the mayorship of Phoenix, Arizona, put it.

PDF for printing

 

Photo from Max Pixel