2016 Election to Be Historic Ideological Battle

From Philip Klein, at the Washington Examiner, "Why the 2016 presidential race will be a historic ideological battle":

Republican and Democratic voters, making drastically different assumptions about the politics of the 2016 presidential race, are pulling their parties even further apart — setting the stage for a historic ideological battle in 2016.

Opening his MSNBC show shortly before the first Democratic debate, liberal Chris Hayes was ebullient.

Socialist insurgent Sen. Bernie Sanders has been rising in the polls and drawing huge crowds, and front-runner Hillary Clinton, rather than putting him on the defensive, has been eager to embrace a broad liberal policy agenda.

This has been a welcome development to Hayes, who noted that as a progressive who came of political age during the Bill Clinton era, he remembered "a time when the conventional wisdom in the Democratic Party was you needed to convince everyone that you weren't George McGovern, and you need to convince particularly white swing voters you weren't just going to hand out welfare to the other people that don't look like you. You're going to be tough on crime, you're going to fight wars, you're going to fly back to Arkansas to watch a man executed."

But this time around, things were different. "I still can't believe what I'm seeing," he said, gleefully.

Hayes was not alone among liberals celebrating the leftward shift within the Democratic Party. "The Elizabeth Warren wing of American politics has clearly shifted the center of gravity in the Democratic Party," the Progressive Change Campaign Committee boasted in a statement following the debate. "This was the first presidential debate in history where debt-free college, expanding Social Security benefits, breaking up Too Big To Fail banks, and criminal prosecution of Wall Street bankers were big issues."

What's happening in the Democratic Party is that President Obama's two election victories have given its voters confidence the demographics of the nation are working in their favor. Mitt Romney won the white vote by 20 points — the same margin as Ronald Reagan did in his landslide victory over Jimmy Carter — and yet this wasn't enough to overcome Obama's advantage with non-whites.

Democrats figure that the coalition of unmarried women, minority groups and young voters aren't going to back a Republican nominee who wants to defund Planned Parenthood, support voter ID laws, crack down on illegal immigration, oppose efforts to combat climate change, protest gay marriage, and so on. Given their growing confidence that the changing face of America is with them, Democratic voters feel more comfortable letting their liberal flag fly in a way that Bill Clinton would have never dreamed of. His ever-calculating spouse has made the calculation, in the words of the New York Times' Jonathan Martin, that "there's no gen[eral] election downside in aligning w[ith] the left."

Republicans, on the other hand, are making a completely different calculation. Looking ahead to the 2016 campaign, they see Hillary Clinton's numbers steadily tanking under an ethical cloud, as a growing number of Americans say they don't trust her. Polls have shown Republicans ahead of Clinton even in Pennsylvania, a blue state that has eluded GOP nominees for decades. They're confident that her weaknesses as a candidate have made the presidency ripe for the picking. Given this sense of optimism, they see no reason to settle...

I don't buy the demographic argument, since the explanation is pure politics, which is moving the ideology radically leftward, regardless of the demographic composition of the electorate. Indeed, it may be wishful thinking to expect demography to propel the Democrats forward under some elusive coalition of the ascendant --- mainly, because of historic low voter turnout among these constituencies.

But keep reading.

Obama Drops Afghanistan Exit Plan (VIDEO)

Lots of folks were mocking the clusterfuck Democrats on Twitter yesterday. No hope. No change. Just incompetence.

At the Wall Street Journal, "In Major Afghanistan Shift, Obama Drops Plan to Withdraw Most U.S. Forces":

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama said Thursday he was dropping plans to withdraw nearly all American troops from Afghanistan, reversing his long-held intention to exit the conflict before the end of his administration.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. will maintain the current American force of 9,800 troops in Afghanistan through most of next year and keep at least 5,500 U.S. troops in the country after he leaves office in January 2017.

His announcement followed mounting pressure at home and abroad to change the U.S. strategy in response to escalating insurgent violence, including an assault by Taliban militants who temporarily seized control last month of the northern city of Kunduz, and a deeply uneven performance by Afghan forces.

Concerns that a steeper U.S. withdrawal would make Afghanistan vulnerable to extremists, as happened in Iraq with Islamic State militants after the U.S. drawdown there in 2011, also influenced Mr. Obama’s decision.

The new plan reflects the latest in a series of difficulties Mr. Obama has encountered in trying to follow through on his earliest campaign promises before leaving office.

“I know many of you have grown weary of this conflict,” Mr. Obama said, addressing Americans from the White House. But he added: “I’m firmly convinced that we should make this extra effort.”

Mr. Obama’s previous plan, in place since last year, called for steadily withdrawing the 9,800 U.S. troops through 2016 and leaving about 1,000 at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul by the time his term ends.

Under the new plan, the president said remaining U.S. troops will be stationed at points outside the Afghan capital, serving in Jalalabad in the east, Kandahar in the south, and at Bagram Air Field.

Mr. Obama said his decision capped a monthslong strategy review prompted by a deteriorating situation on the ground that raised alarm among U.S. commanders and U.S. allies.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had called for a larger U.S. and NATO troop presence than was previously foreseen. On Thursday he welcomed Mr. Obama’s move, saying: “America believes that a stable Afghanistan is in the interest of the world and of the region.”

Mr. Obama’s decision will result in a larger force than he has preferred, but about as small as military commanders believe necessary to support a continued U.S. presence devoted to both training and counterterrorism operations.

Many military officials prefer a larger U.S. force—up to the current 9,800, or at least 7,500 to 8,000. A force of 5,500 is only slightly more than what many military officials consider a minimal realistic option for carrying out the two operations.

But military commanders were heartened by the absence in Mr. Obama’s new plan of a strict time frame for the drawdown of U.S. forces, allowing them more flexibility than previous plans afforded. White House officials said it is possible the reduction to 5,500 won’t happen before Mr. Obama leaves office.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the new plan, which administration officials estimate will cost $14.6 billion a year, is “reasonable” under the current conditions in Afghanistan, though circumstances can change...

Still more.

Plus, the full administration press conference video, "The President Delivers a Statement on Afghanistan."

Rosie Jones, Melissa Debling, Beth Lily in Zoo's Sexiest Shoot Ever! (VIDEO)

Sweet babes.

Watch, "ZOO'S 600th issue: special edition with Melissa Debling, Rosie Jones and Beth Lily!"

'Were Your Children Human Beings' Before They Were Born? Debbie Wasserman Schultz Refuses to Answer (VIDEO)

She's scum.

Of course she refuse to answer the question, but if she had she'd have to admit that abortion is murder.

At the Daily Signal, "How a Pro-Choice Democrat Responded When Asked ‘Were Your Children Human Beings’ Before Birth?"

Watch, "Hey, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Were Your Children Human Beings Before They Were Born?"

Fanatical Palestinian Slams Car Into Bus Stop, Jumps Out and Hacks Israeli to Death (VIDEO)

Leftists support this terrorism and murder in the name of social justice.

At Hot Air, "Video: Palestinian terrorist runs over Israelis, hacks one to death."

The video's here.

Monstrous evil.

But that's the left for you.

Introducing the 'Democratic Socialist' Party

From David Harsanyi, at the Federalist.

PREVIOUSLY: "The S-Word — Socialism — Frightens a Lot of Americans."

Also, "Democrat Debate: America Now Has an Openly Socialist Party."

Palestinian Posing as Journalist Stabs Israeli Soldier with Knife (VIDEO)

At Weasel Zippers, "Palestinian Posing as Journalist With ‘Press’ Logo Stabs Israeli Soldier."

Mets' Daniel Murphy Steals 3rd Base, Sucking the Life Out of Dodgers' World Series Hopes (VIDEO)

I frankly didn't know what the heck happened.

But the Dodgers pulled the defense to the right and nobody covered third base after Zack Greinke walked left-hander Lucas Duda.

The play-by-play announcers noted how the crowd at Dodger Stadium was shocked silent. It was a definite turning point and the Dodgers never recovered.

The New York Times' headline captures it perfectly, "Daniel Murphy's Steal Caps Another Lost Dodgers Season."

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Did the Dodgers outsmart themselves right out of a title?"

The 2015 Coat Guide

At Amazon, Shop Fashion - Women's Coats & Jackets.

Plus, from Marc Thiessen, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack.

And ICYMI, Sean Naylor, Relentless Strike: The Secret History of Joint Special Operations Command.

The S-Word — Socialism — Frightens a Lot of Americans

Not the Democrats. They love socialism.

At USA Today:

If Bernie Sanders were to win the Democratic presidential nomination, his chances of actually making it to the White House are somewhere between zero and nothing.

That, at least, is the view of some political observers. One of the reasons for their pessimism is Sanders’ political ideology: He’s a self-described "Democratic Socialist."

And the S-word frightens a lot of Americans.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in December 2011, shortly after the Occupy Wall Street protests, which highlighted the growing wealth gap between the rich and the poor, found half of all Americans still had a positive view of capitalism, while 60% had a negative perception of socialism.

“Socialism is a far more divisive word (than capitalism), with wide differences of opinion along racial, generational, socioeconomic and political lines,” Pew said.

“Fully nine-in-ten conservative Republicans (90%) view socialism negatively, while nearly six-in-ten liberal Democrats (59%) react positively. Low-income Americans are twice as likely as higher-income Americans to offer a positive assessment of socialism (43% among those with incomes under $30,000, 22% among those earning $75,000 or more).”

A Gallup survey this summer found similar anti-socialist views among American voters, half of whom said they wouldn't vote for a socialist candidate.

It's not hard to see why this is. For many Americans the word "socialism" still carries the associations with authoritarianism that it acquired during the Cold War. That explains why some opponents of Obama's Affordable Care Act were calling it the same thing Ronald Reagan called Medicare in 1961: "socialized medicine." Combine those negative Cold War associations with the fact that a significant portion of the American electorate wants to shrink government, limit spending, and cut taxes, and you realize that Bernie Sanders has his work cut out for him if he's going to proudly wave the socialist flag...

Keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Democrat Debate: America Now Has an Openly Socialist Party."

Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died…Twice!

From Michelle Malkin:

It’s deja screwed all over again.

In the fall of 2013, our family received notice from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado that we could no longer keep our private health insurance plan because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).”

We liked our high-deductible preferred provider organization plan that allowed us to choose from a wide range of doctors. But Obamacare wouldn’t let us keep it. Reluctantly, and after great bureaucratic difficulty, my hubby and I enrolled in an individual market plan with Rocky Mountain Health, which offered a much narrower provider network than the Anthem PPO plan we had before the feds snuffed it out.

Thanks to “reform,” our two kids’ dental care was no longer covered, and we had our post-Obamacare insurance turned down at an urgent care clinic — something that had never happened before.

This summer came another bombshell.

In August, we were informed of the “discontinuation of your Rocky Mountain Individual and Family plan effective December 31, 2015.”

Over the past month, we have received several bold-faced notices alerting us that “IMPORTANT ACTION IS REQUIRED: YOU MUST CHOOSE A NEW INDIVIDUAL & FAMILY PLAN TO MAINTAIN YOUR HEALTH COVERAGE IN 2016.” The clock is ticking: open enrollment begins Nov. 1.

The coerced choices are pretty damned crummy. Individual market PPOs have evaporated. We are being shoved once again toward the Obamacare government health insurance exchange vortex known as Connect for Health Colorado (which should really be called “DISconnect from Health Colorado). Or into a narrow regional HMO.

So much for “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,” eh, Mr. President?

Obama lied and our health plan has now died — twice...

Keep reading.

It's a terrible law. ObamaCare has screwed Americans across the board, and for what? The rate of uninsured isn't much better than before the law went into effect, despite the enormous costs and social dislocation. See Fox News, "Despite Health Reform, 32.3 Million Are Uninsured."

PREVIOUSLY: "ObamaCare Deductibles Set to Surge as High as $6,500."

'13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi'

I saw the trailer out a couple of months ago, but never posted. But now here comes the New York Times with an analysis of the film's impact on the presidential race.

See, "Timing of Movie About Benghazi Attack Could Test Clinton in Iowa Caucuses."

The movie's based on the book by Mitchell Zuckoff, 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi.

Behind the Scenes with Bathing Beauty Charlotte McKinney (VIDEO)

Watch, via Vanity Fair.

'Yes Means Yes' Invades High School Campuses in California

I saw something somewhere on the new "yes means yes" law being rammed down the throats of high school students, but now it's at the New York Times.

See, "For Teenagers, Sexual Consent Classes Add Layer of Complexity to Difficult Subject":

SAN FRANCISCO — The classroom of 10th graders had already learned about sexually transmitted diseases and various types of birth control. On this day, the 15- and 16-year-olds gathered around tables to discuss another topic: how and why to make sure each step in a sexual encounter is met with consent.

Consent from the person you are kissing — or more — is not merely silence or a lack of protest, Shafia Zaloom, a health educator at the Urban School of San Francisco, told the students. They listened raptly, but several did not disguise how puzzled they felt.

“What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?” asked Aidan Ryan, 16, who sat near the front of the room.

“Pretty much,” Ms. Zaloom answered. “It’s not a timing thing, but whoever initiates things to another level has to ask.”

The “no means no” mantra of a generation ago is being eclipsed by “yes means yes” as more young people all over the country are told that they must have explicit permission from the object of their desire before they engage in any touching, kissing or other sexual activity. With Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature on a bill this month, California became the first state to require that all high school health education classes give lessons on affirmative consent, which includes explaining that someone who is drunk or asleep cannot grant consent.

Last year, California led the way in requiring colleges to use affirmative consent as the standard in campus disciplinary decisions, defining how and when people agree to have sex. More than a dozen legislatures in other states, including Maryland, Michigan and Utah, are considering similar legislation for colleges. One goal is to improve the way colleges and universities deal with accusations of rape and sexual assault and another is to reduce the number of young people who feel pressured into unwanted sexual conduct.

Critics say the lawmakers and advocates of affirmative consent are trying to draw a sharp line in what is essentially a gray zone, particularly for children and young adults who are grappling with their first feelings of romantic attraction. In he-said, she-said sexual assault cases, critics of affirmative consent say the policy puts an unfair burden of proof on the accused.

“There’s really no clear standard yet — what we have is a lot of ambiguity on how these standards really work in the court of law,” said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “The standard is not logical — nobody really works that way. The problem with teaching this to high school students is that you are only going to sow more confusion. They are getting mixed messages depending where they go afterward.”

But Ms. Zaloom, who has taught high school students about sex for two decades, said she was grateful for the new standard, even as she acknowledged the students’ unease...

Yes, grateful. Because leftists are always grateful for more chances to destroy people's lives.

Still more.

Inside Zimbabwe's Business of Big-Game Hunting (VIDEO)

From CBS News This Morning, "Zimbabwe announced this week it would not charge a Minnesota dentist who hunted a popular lion. But the killing of Cecil the lion has brought worldwide attention to trophy hunting. Critics say the controversial practice is full of corruption."

Philippe Verdier, Top Weatherman at France Télévisions, Fired for Questioning Climate Change

At Telegraph UK, "France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change":

Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions, the country's state broadcaster, reportedly sent on "forced holiday" for releasing book accusing top climatologists of "taking the world hostage."

Every night, France's chief weatherman has told the nation how much wind, sun or rain they can expect the following day.
Now Philippe Verdier, a household name for his nightly forecasts on France 2, has been taken off air after a more controversial announcement - criticising the world's top climate change experts.

Mr Verdier claims in the book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data.

In a promotional video, Mr Verdier said: “Every night I address five million French people to talk to you about the wind, the clouds and the sun. And yet there is something important, very important that I haven’t been able to tell you, because it’s neither the time nor the place to do so.”

He added: “We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

His outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air starting this Monday. "I received a letter telling me not to come. I'm in shock," he told RTL radio. "This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated."

The book has been released at a particularly sensitive moment as Paris is due to host a crucial UN climate change conference in December...

Still more.

Charles Krauthammer: Bernie Sanders Helped Hillary Clinton Win Democrat Nomination (VIDEO)

Krauthammer makes it sound like Hillary's nomination's a done deal. I have no doubt, but this is interesting, especially in how all the Democrats circled the wagons to protect the party from the Republicans.

From Megyn Kelly's last night:

Blonde Beauty Elle Evans for Playboy

At Egotastic!, "CARL'S JR. BLONDE HOTTIE ELLE EVANS BUTT NAKED FOR PLAYBOY."

She's the beautiful hot babe in the new Carl's Jr. advertisement, "Tex Mex Bacon Thick Burger 'Border War' Video."

Casey Batchelor for Zoo Today (VIDEO)

Watch, "Casey Batchelor's sexy selfie strip shoot!"

Democrat Debate: America Now Has an Openly Socialist Party

From Jim Geraghty, at National Review, "The Debate Lesson: America Now Has an Openly Socialist Party":

Sure, this batch of candidates sounded like a bunch of loons. They contended socialism is mostly about standing up to the richest one percent and promoting entrepreneurs and small business; climate change is the biggest national security threat facing the nation; college educations should be free for everyone; all lives don’t matter, black lives do; Obama is simultaneously an enormously successful president in managing the economy and the middle class is collapsing and there’s a need for a “New New Deal” which is in fact an Old Old Idea, considering how FDR called for a Second New Deal in 1935. The audience in Nevada applauded higher taxes, believes that Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to answer any more questions, supports the complete shutdown of the NSA domestic surveillance program, and that Obamacare benefits should be extended to illegal immigrants. There are kindergarten classes with more realistic assessments of cost-benefit tradeoffs than the crowd watching this debate at the Wynn Las Vegas.

So yes, the candidates sounded like hard-Left, pie-in-the-sky, free-ice-cream-for-everyone, Socialist pander bears. But they do so because that is what the Democratic Party’s primary voters demand. Don’t blame them; blame the party rank-and-file that craves these promises, rhetoric, and worldview...

Keep reading.

Image Credit: The People's Cube.