Connect with us

Democrats

Getting Democrats on the record for Green New Deal is great, but it’s just the start

Published

on

Getting Democrats on the record for Green New Deal is great but its just the start

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell intends to force Democrats on record either supporting or opposing the Green New Deal. It’s a classic move that works wonders whenever a party starts to step into the fringes, such as the insane realm in which the Green New Deal currently resides intellectually. This can be a strong play, but Republicans must follow up with a tremendous push to expose the truth regardless of how Democrats vote.

The problem is there are plenty of people who really like the concept of the Green New Deal. That puts the Democrats in a strange position of having something their base seems to like in principle, but that’s so indefensible in its details that voting in favor of it puts them individually in a pickle.

Three are three ways this could go down if McConnell forces a vote.

  1. Some Democrats pretend to love it while others avoid it. There won’t be too many Democrats who outright vote against it, but there may be a good number who simply choose not to vote on it. This scenario is arguably a best-case scenario for Democrats as it would signal to Independents that the party as a whole hasn’t gone insane while securing the passions of the base behind certain Senators, particularly those running for President in 2020.
  2. Democrats support it wholesale. If a vast majority of Democrats support it, this will seem to be a win for Republicans. But that would only happen if the GOP continues further and applies tremendous pressure to inform the people why it’s such a bad idea. If they don’t, their gambit of getting Democrats on record could lead to a sheep-like following of the deal from the left that could actually backfire on Republicans.
  3. Most Democrats don’t support it. If the Democratic Party decides to rein in their maverick Congresswoman from New York, this would be the time. By separating out the greater Democratic body from the radical ideas coming from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, they’ll alert the press and the people that they’re still trying to maintain a semblance of order and common sense in the party ahead of an election year.

In the third scenario, Republicans will want to take this opportunity to start ignoring Ocasio-Cortez and the far-left fringe and focus on whatever policy recommendations come out of the major candidates. We can assume they’d either deflect or try to come up with an alternative to the Green New Deal, one that is more palatable and grounded in reality. Even though the strategy itself would be different following scenario 3 than it would be with scenario 2 or 1, the basic premise remains: expose the craziness coming from Democrats.

Of course, this third scenario is unlikely based on what we’ve seen so far from candidates. They’ll push their colleagues to support the deal knowing it cannot pass and use it as a rallying cry similar to how Republicans used Obamacare repeal before getting the power to actually repeal it. Just as Republicans bluffed by passing a clean repeal in 2015 for President Obama to veto, so too will the Democrats likely go on record supporting a Green New Deal knowing it won’t actually become law any time soon.

Whether scenario two or scenario one happen, it’s imperative for Republicans to regain their footing in the emotional side of politics. There’s a potential for them to start fundraising and messaging immediately behind the threat of radical socialist ideas permeating through this new version of the Democratic Party. That’s what McConnell hopes to achieve by pushing a vote.

Now is the time to force Democrats into a choice. Are they the party of lukewarm leftism their leaders want them to be, or are they the radical progressives who should terrify intelligent Americans with their insane proposals? Let’s find out.

 


Subscribe on YouTube

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Justin Fairfax let off the hook by Virginia Democrats, but not accusers

Published

on

Justin Fairfax let off the hook by Virginia Democrats but not accusers

Democrats in Virginia’s House have ended calls for Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax to resign following two accusations of sexual assault. But his accusers continue to speak out, saying they want to testify against Fairfax in an effort to both remove him from office and possibly bring him to justice.

The excuse Democrats are making for ending their calls for impeachment or for Fairfax to step down are because they want a criminal investigation to proceed unimpaired. This is a solid argument, but one that doesn’t echo the sentiment from the around the country or in Virginia itself.

Calls were relatively universal just a week ago following the second sexual assault accusation against Fairfax. The sad part is the calls for Governor Ralph Northam to step down over a photo on his yearbook page depicting one person in blackface and another person in a Ku Klux Klan outfit were also very heavy before the first Fairfax accusation. It’s as if Democrats were all gung ho about making an example out of Northam until they learned his successor had problems of his own.

If there is to be consistency within the #MeToo movement, the Democratic Party, and American politics in general, then there needs to be an understanding of what is considered sufficiently acceptable evidence in the court of public opinion to demand a resignation. This is impossible, of course, as each situation is different. Would Al Franken have been forced to leave the Senate if there weren’t pictures of him groping a sleeping reporter? Probably not. Is the presence of two credible accusations the tipping point, since following the first accusation the responses were muted? Perhaps.

If that’s the case, though, does that mean if someone commits a single sexual assault, that they’re still morally qualified to lead? Of course not.

These are the conundrums that face a society bent on finding the moral high ground but unable to come together on how that moral high ground actually manifests. Should Fairfax step down? That question may be asked for another three years if he doesn’t.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Beto O’Rourke is throwing crazy ideas against the wall and some seem to be sticking

Published

on

Beto ORourke is throwing crazy ideas against the wall and some seem to be sticking

Ever since the 2018 midterm elections, I’ve considered Beto O’Rourke to be one of the biggest threats to President Trump in the 2020 election. The obvious counter to this notion is that he lost his race for Senate to Ted Cruz, but here’s the thing. He got close, much closer than anyone would have thought possible a year before, and he was able to raise more money than any Senate candidate in our nation’s history.

For a hyper-leftist Democrat to come within a few percentage points of victory in deep red Texas tells us this is someone who knows how to campaign, raise funds, and draw a crowd.

Lately, he’s been acting like a lost puppy trying to get back some of the attention he lost when others announced their candidacy. Before Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Amy Klobuchar announced their candidacies, O’Rourke was being played up as the guy who could challenge Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden if they entered the race. Now that Sanders has, O’Rourke finds himself on the outside looking in.

I still consider O’Rourke to be one of the four candidates who should concern President Trump the most, but there’s a caveat I must add. If he continues to throw out ideas that make no sense, such as taking down the 700 miles of wall currently built along the southern border or offering amnesty to pretty much everyone already here illegally, he may fade quickly.

Then again, it may propel him to the top of the list.

It’s important for conservatives to never underestimate the leftward lurch that’s happening across America today. The combination of scholastic indoctrination, media propaganda, and a strange spirit of deception spreading across the nation have resulted in a growing American populace that is open to the untenable ideas of socialism, open borders, and expanded government control over our lives. This is why instead of counting O’Rourke as being down for the count, we should probably watch the responses and start taking him more seriously.

Support conservative news.

There seems to a trend emerging. The crazier they get, the more they’re loved.

A decade ago, it would have been unfathomable for even half of the Democrats to embrace taking down portions of the border wall that are already built. It’s one thing to not want to spend money on more wall, but to spend money on taking down current walls is pure stupidity. And yet, there’s no rebuke from the left. No Democrats are saying, “stop this lunacy.” No Democrats are out there calling for common sense to prevail.

Instead, they’re saying, “Yes, that might work.”

Do not get caught up in the notion that socialism, open borders, and oppressive government could never happen in America. Three or four years ago, I might have thought that. Today, it seems more than possible. It must be stopped.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Conservatives railed against the NY-Amazon deal before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thwarted it

Published

on

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is partially right about the Amazon deal

When New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wrote an op-ed in November defending the decision to offer Amazon $2.8 billion in incentives to build their second headquarters in Long Island City, there was an interesting condemnation you don’t often see.

“The extreme conservatives and the socialists both now vehemently oppose incentives for Amazon,” Cuomo wrote.

Of course, “extreme conservatives” and “socialists” are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, so what was it about the deal that made it so unappealing on both sides of the fence? It comes down to the incentives that were being offered and the inherent “quick fix” mentality of politicians near the center of the ideological spectrum.

Where conservatives and socialists split on this issue is in how the money should have been used, but both extreme sides agree that using it as an incentive for a company like Amazon is simply lazy governance. Fiscal conservatives understand that in a city like New York City, there’s less of a need for big companies to come in and a much bigger need to plant small businesses throughout. Crowded cities that already have multi-billion dollar corporations get much less benefit from another multi-billion dollar corporation setting up shop than they would from a similar infusion of small businesses. From a fiscally conservative perspective, it’s better to use incentives to bring 250 companies that employ 100 people each than one company that employs 25,000.

Smaller cities without infrastructure or housing issues are the opposite. It makes sense to try to get an Amazon to become a central hub to attract other businesses. These smaller cities do not have to suffer through the same problems a city like NYC has to contend with when there’s such a massive infusion into an already-crowded housing market and an already-crumbling infrastructure.

100% crowdfunded journalism. Please support us.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez skips a few steps when she says the money for Amazon could be used to fix other problems already facing New Yorkers, but technically speaking she’s correct. If New York utilized incentives to bring in smaller companies that would generate more tax dollars in the long run, her programs could be initiated as a result if properly earmarked. That’s not to say I agree with all of the programs she’s referring to and the money “saved” from the collapsing Amazon deal couldn’t be used directly for them, but combined with conservative fiscal principles and a focus on small businesses, her ideas are doable.

Conservatives balked when the deal was announced. Now, suddenly, many of the same conservatives are laughing at Ocasio-Cortez for being the catalyst that made the deal go away. This is disingenuous. We can debate with her the semantics of how the incentives should be used, but let’s not switch sides and call the deal a winner when we were universally calling it a loser three months ago.

As always, conservatives should stay consistent and not do as the leftists do by picking a side against a politician for the sake of that politician. Conservatives were complaining about the Amazon deal well before AOC became the face of the opposition.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report