Joe Biden Puts His Foot in His Electability; A dubious argument to run on, and an admission he’s otherwise running on empty.

Tony Branco, Townhall

The American Spectator  "Joe Biden is setting a bear trap for himself by insisting that Democrats should back him solely on the “electability” issue.

"He even had his wife, Jill, as a campaign surrogate, admit to the party’s far-left base that their preferred candidates “might be better on, I don’t know, health care than Joe is” at a New Hampshire campaign event broadcast by MSNBC.

"Mrs. Biden, however, married that admission to a warning: “You’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election, and maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

Tony Branco, Townhall

"Let’s play that again: “swallow a little bit.” Maybe this strategy will work, but Biden is just as likely to get his electoral hind legs maimed for the effort.
"Trying to sell yourself on the basis of electability has a long pedigree. Of failure.

"Lamar Alexander ran in the Republican presidential primaries in 1996 on the slogan of “ABC: Alexander Beats Clinton.” He finished third place in the Iowa caucuses and dropped out before the “Super Tuesday” primaries.

"Alexander tried again in four years. That time, he didn’t even make it to the Iowa caucuses.

The 1996 election may seem like ancient history to folks, but how about 2016? Is that recent enough?

"Both Jeb Bush and John Kasich were supposed to be more “electable” than Donald Trump and were explicitly sold on that basis. Both had experience governing large states. Both could “credibly” challenge Hillary Clinton. And both went over like a led balloon with primary voters.

"We can quibble with the judgment of those voters, but who exactly went on to be “electable” by defeating Hillary Clinton? Why, Donald J. Trump." . . .

The Times Outraged: Panics as Media Matters Tactics Turned on Paper

A loose network of liberal operatives allied with the Democratic Party and the liberal media is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive, well-funded operation to discredit conservative media deemed hostile to Democrats and the American Left by publicizing damaging information about conservative journalists and other conservative media figures.

Spectator
                      Aiding and abetting attacks on conservative media backfires.

"Well, this is nothing if not rich.

"The New York Times headlined the story this way:

Trump Allies Target Journalists Over Coverage Deemed Hostile to White House

"The opening two paragraphs say this: 

WASHINGTON — A loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive operation to discredit news organizations deemed hostile to President Trump by publicizing damaging information about journalists.

It is the latest step in a long-running effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting. Four people familiar with the operation described how it works, asserting that it has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at some of the country’s most prominent news organizations.

"Well.

"One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the utter hypocrisy in this story.

Here, for example, is this absolute gem of BS in the story (bold print supplied for emphasis):

But using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations as retribution for — or as a warning not to pursue — coverage critical of the president is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power.

"Let’s stop there for a moment. Memo to the New York Times: Your paper — and the media writ large — are the very definition of “people in positions of power.” Are you kidding?" . . .

We Just Found Out Who’s Been Leaking Trump’s Private Conversations

"Perhaps she can earn a bit role on MSNBC for a few months though." You can be sure CNN is trying hard to get her.

RedState  "If you’ve been wondering how so much of what Trump says in the privacy of the Oval Office manages to make its way to The New York Times and other outlets, we might have an answer.

"Over the years, we’ve seen more stories than I can keep up with leaked to the press centering on something Trump supposedly said in private. Often they center on harmless, off the cuff statements (such as the “nuke hurricanes” flap) that are then printed to try to embarrass the President. Context, whether something was actually a joke, or whether it’s even being presented truthfully never seems to matter and since everything is anonymous, it can never be countered.

"Now, Trump’s most trusted executive assistant has been caught leaking details, not just about happenings in the Oval Office, but also about his family.

Madeleine Westerhout, the president’s personal assistant, was said to have indiscreetly shared details 

about the president’s family and the Oval Office operations she was part of during a recent off-the-record 

dinner with journalists. Doug Mills/The New York Times

"In fact, it’s no surprise that many media members are painting her in a sympathetic light after the resignation. They just lost what was probably their main source into the President’s inner circle. Outlets like Axios and The New York Times have seemingly had a direct line into the Oval Office since Trump was inaugurated. Westerhout may not be the only source, but she appears to be a major one and it explains so much about how the press got ahold of personal comments that only a handful of people would have heard.

"Westerhout will now learn a hard lesson, namely that the press didn’t really care about her. I’m sure they flattered her and made her feel special while she had the goods. Now that she’s gone, she’ll be cast aside as worthless. She could have kept her job for decades to come, long after Trump left the White House and now that’s gone. All to get some plaudits from Maggie Haberman and company. I have a feeling she’s regretting that decision." . . .

Democrat voters, do you REALLY want these people to rule over us?

Under Democrats, we wake up every morning wondering what they will do to us next. AND to our military. TD

Unpacking the Clown Car
Minus the flags these would be Democrats:

It becomes clearer every day that most journalists would rather have Democrats in power than a good economy

Every economic proposal from the Democrats running would involve transferring more power and money to the government from the private sector. Since the Washington, DC area is already one of the richest areas of the country, despite producing nothing, that would make the wealth and wage gap widen, not shrink.

Don't tell me your pronouns — I can guess!  . . . "Generally, I try to leave the aggressively aggrieved alone, but should anyone ever absolutely insist I call him "zie" or "ey," or "he" when she is clearly female, I am prepared with a response:

" 'Alright," I will say, "I'll take your word for it.  I will do my best to remember, every time I see you, that you consider yourself to be something nature doesn't —but I do have one condition.  As you can see, I'm a person of average height at best.  I've always thought that being a little taller would have gotten me more respect and helped my self-esteem.  For the sake of fairness, since I'm remembering your special self-identity, would you mind crouching a little in my presence — just to acknowledge that, inside, I feel taller?' "

Ocasio-Cortez: A knucklehead gives herself airs  . . . "Informed?  She herself famously didn't know that legislators aren't "inaugurated," but sworn in.  Before being sworn in, she imagined herself signing legislation.  She had, and probably still has, little idea of how the government works, what "Legislative Branch" means, and "Executive Branch," and so on.  People as ignorant as this girl have no business in government because their thrashing around, their uninformed assumptions and nonsensical pronouncements, cause problems for serious people trying to do serious work." . . .

Rashida Tlaib Denounces America, Declaration of Independence in Disgusting Tweet

The Federalist Papers  To celebrate the Fourth of July, Rep. Rashida Tlaib decided to denounce America and the Declaration of Independence on Twitter.

Tlaib retweeted this message:

Ayanna Pressley

Verified account

"Our founding fathers were not living gods...they were fallible human beings." The Declaration of Independence "did not condemn slavery, protect the rights of women or include Native Americans."

"Do you know who else believed that? Roger Taney, the author of the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, and Stephen A. Douglas, Abraham Lincoln’s challenger in the 1860 presidential election.
"Do you know who DIDN’T believe that the Declaration was “sexist, racist, and prejudiced”?"Abraham Lincoln. And Frederick Douglass.
"So why is Rashida Tlaib repeating the arguments of the racist Taney and Steve Douglas against the anti-slavery Lincoln and Fred Douglass?" . . .

Brit Hume: Biden's misstatements could provide a big boost to 2020 rival Warren

Fox News

Hume says Biden gaffes, fading memory could hurt candidate

"If Democrats grow more concerned about former Vice President Joe Biden's verbal missteps, they could begin to consider nominating another candidate, according to Brit Hume.

"Biden may mean well when he speaks incorrectly, but such mistakes could bring about a perception of "fading memory," Hume said Friday on "Special Report."

" ' I think it could become a very big deal indeed," he said.

" 'He's often misspoken and made gaffes. A number of these recent ones strike me as a man with fading memory -- which is to be expected of a man his age," Hume continued, adding he and Biden, who's 76, are both around the same age." . . .