| Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty November 18, 2014 The Coming Cries about Republican ‘Disrespect for the Presidency’ This is a DSCC ad for Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, airing on KZBE, an Urban Adult Contemporary radio station based in Berwick, Louisiana: Have you heard the crazy stuff that Bill Cassidy, Bobby Jindal, and the Republicans are always saying about President Barack Obama? They have shown our president so much disrespect -- from playing the race card in commercials, talking about trying to impeach him, to lying about the progress the country has made under his leadership. Do your remember when the stock market was at an all-time low under the Republican-led administration? Now the stock market has more than doubled under President Obama, but they lie, saying the economy is horrible. Do you remember how bad the unemployment numbers were under Republicans? Now unemployment is lower than it as been in 14 years. More lies by the Republicans. The president needs you to have his back, now more than ever. Now, even by the standards of dishonest campaign ads, some of these claims are astounding. For example, you can indisputably declare the stock market hit hard times during the Great Recession -- the closing low of 6,547.05 for the Dow Jones Industrial Average on March 9, 2009, represented a 54 percent drop in 17 months. But that’s not the same as “an all-time low.” It wasn’t even the all-time steepest drop; the Dow fell 90 percent during the Great Depression. The claim that “unemployment is lower than it has been in 14 years” is just flat wrong. The current 5.8 percent unemployment rate -- driven heavily by the declining workforce-participation rate -- is the lowest since July 2008. But what really jumps out is the declaration, “They have shown our president so much disrespect.” The allegation of “playing the race card in commercials” is pretty laughable considering the Democrats’ incendiary tactics this past cycle; the objection to minor GOP figures “talking about trying to impeach him,” is interesting considering parallel Democratic talk of impeaching Bush; and the “lying about the progress the country has made under his leadership” is, as shown above, false based upon the erroneous criteria they cite. But what’s more, why would an argument about the “progress” or lack thereof under a president be inherently disrespectful? This is redefining “respect” to require “agreement.” Watch for this maneuver more in the coming months. Barack Obama has lost the Democratic control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Democrats in both chambers are less likely to go along with Obama after these awful midterms. He’s lost the public’s trust. The media is more critical than it used to be (if not as critical as conservatives wish). Many of his policies are flopping. Attention is shifting to Hillary. Accusing opponents of racism, greed, and xenophobia flopped as a tactic in the midterm elections. What does he have left? The presidency. Expect to see a lot more charges that “Republicans aren’t showing respect for the presidency” in the coming months. The question is whether anyone will notice that the allegedly disrespected president shows no respect for the constitutionally mandated role of Congress. It’s not a new maneuver, of course: Fox Business Network anchor Melissa Francis said she was “silenced” by CNBC when management told her she was “disrespecting the office of the president” by reporting about Obamacare. Senate Democrats Suddenly Sweating Obama’s Immigration Amnesty Order A few paragraphs above, I wrote that Democrats in both chambers are less likely to go along with Obama after these awful midterms.” Yet another example: What happens if a half dozen Senate Dems defect and side with the GOP against Obama’s executive deportation relief? Immigration advocates are warning that this is a real possibility -- one that could have a serious impact on the politics of this fight if and when a government shutdown battle looms -- and they are preparing to exert maximum pressure on those Democrats they deem at risk. “We are preparing to pressure them at home and in Washington, to let them know that there will be hell to pay if this happens,” Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, tells me. Among the Democrats believed to be at risk are Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, and Joe Donnelly. Angus King (who is an independent but caucuses with Dems) is also a question mark. The problem, advocates worry, is that if these Democrats come out against any Obama executive action, it could complicate the political battle to come. Republicans are expected to try to pass legislation rolling back whatever Obama does. Democrats will try to block it. But if Republicans can get 60 votes -- which they could do if enough Dems defect -- the president would then have to veto it. That could make the politics of this battle worse for Obama: Not only is he acting unilaterally; he’s also facing bipartisan opposition within Congress that is requiring him to protect those unilateral actions with a veto. (Interesting observation: They didn’t list Senator Mary Landrieu. Is it because she’s considered loyal to the president on this, they merely forgot her, or they’re convinced she’s a goner?) Now you know which offices to flood with calls. Oh, Hey, By the Way, Slight Chance of Riots in the Coming Days Sounds like the cat’s out of the bag in Ferguson: As the nation waits to hear whether a Missouri police officer will face charges for killing unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, the FBI is warning law enforcement agencies across the country that the decision “will likely” lead some extremist protesters to threaten and even attack police officers or federal agents. Peaceful protesters could be caught in the middle, and electrical facilities or water treatment plants could also become targets. In addition, so-called “hacktivists” like the group “Anonymous” could try to launch cyber-attacks against authorities. Is there any bad situation “Anonymous” can’t make worse? They’re like tequila. “The announcement of the grand jury’s decision will likely be exploited by some individuals to justify threats and attacks against law enforcement and critical infrastructure,” the FBI says in an intelligence bulletin issued in recent days. “This also poses a threat to those civilians engaged in lawful or otherwise constitutionally protected activities.” . . . The bulletin’s conclusions were blunt: “The FBI assesses those infiltrating and exploiting otherwise legitimate public demonstrations with the intent to incite and engage in violence could be armed with bladed weapons or firearms, equipped with tactical gear/gas masks, or bulletproof vests to mitigate law enforcement measures.” The bulletin cites a series of recent messages threatening law enforcement, including a message posted online last week by a black separatist group that offered “a $5,000 bounty for the location” of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who fired the shots that killed Brown on Aug. 9. Now, we don’t know for certain that the grand jury won’t indict on any charges, but that Washington Post story from last month certainly suggested it was a strong possibility: Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown fought for control of the officer’s gun, and Wilson fatally shot the unarmed teenager after he moved toward the officer as they faced off in the street, according to interviews, news accounts and the full report of the St. Louis County autopsy of Brown’s body. Because Wilson is white and Brown was black, the case has ignited intense debate over how police interact with African American men. But more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony to a St. Louis County grand jury that largely supports Wilson’s account of events of Aug. 9, according to several people familiar with the investigation who spoke with The Washington Post. Some of the physical evidence -- including blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests -- also supports Wilson’s account of the shooting, The Post’s sources said, which casts Brown as an aggressor who threatened the officer’s life. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited from publicly discussing the case. There are many astounding aspects of modern American life, but a big one is certain people’s willingness to riot, driven by their intense, deep-rooted belief that they know exactly what happened in a sequence of events they did not witness. ADDENDA: If you’re mad at Jonathan Gruber, Vermont residents have twice as much reason to be mad at as federal taxpayers: “According to the contract obtained from the Agency of Administration, Vermont is paying Gruber $400,000 for ‘policy expertise, research, and economic modeling related to the implementation of Green Mountain Care.’ Gruber’s work will be presented to the Legislature on Jan. 15.” The headline over at Watchdog.org? ‘Terminate Gruber,’ Vermont minority leader says You know, the Republican party used to have a guy good at that sort of thing.
 From Our Sponsor:
Get the latest news at www.nationalreview.com | 
Comments
Post a Comment