Maybe Hillary should call Bernie her “93% amigo socialista”

Over the last few days, many Democrats have expressed concerns about Senator Sanders. They are basically saying that Bernie Sanders is a socialist and not electable, as we heard from Senator McCaskill.

Nevertheless, are they really that different? Here are the voting records, according to Derek Willis:

“Hillary Rodham Clinton is a liberal Democrat on domestic matters, and Bernie Sanders is a socialist. They voted the same way 93 percent of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate.

In fact, from January 2007 to January 2009, Mrs. Clinton, representing New York, voted with Mr. Sanders about as often as she did with the like-minded Democrats Ron Wyden of Oregon and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.”

So what is the difference between them? Not much! 93% is a pretty big number.

To be fair, this is only a 2 year sample but let me repeat that 93% is a big number.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Cuban-Americans and Mexican-Americans? Two Wings of the Same Bird?

Hispanic Heritage Month

In interviews conducted by the Washington Post in wedding chapels and casinos … Mexicans who make up so much of the workforce said it would be far more meaningful to elect the first Mexican American president than the first Latino. Many said they would vote for a non-Latino over a Cuban American. In two days of interviews, not a single Mexican said he or she supported Rubio or Cruz.

Which brings me to the point of questioning the viability of the term “Hispanic/Latino” by the Federal Government. Specifically, if a Mexican-American gets a supervisory position in the federal sector, and he/she gets to choose between a Mexican-American and a Cuban-American applicant with the appropriate qualifications, will he/she choose a Mexican-American or a Cuban-American? Most of us understand that the idea of applicants having “equal qualifications” is impossible.

To read the Washington Post article, click on https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/01/10/32d20f8e-b4bc-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202

Obama to anti-US thugs: “You’ve got a friend”

dictators

2016 is off to a remarkable start vis-a-vis U.S. foreign policy.

In less than a week, Iran and Saudi Arabia are threatening to go to war, Afghanistan has come alive after being quiet for a while, and North Korea exploded whatever they exploded.

Let’s add Cuba to the list.

Senator Rubio is asking the State Department for an explanation, as reported by The Miami Herald:

“The fact that the administration, including you, have apparently tried to withhold this information from the congressional debate and public discussion over U.S.-Cuba policy is disgraceful,” Rubio wrote to Roberta Jacobson, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Jacobson starred in the Cuba negotiations, and Rubio has been blamed for stalling her nomination to be U.S. ambassador to Mexico.

“While your bureau is not the primary entity within the State Department handling these issues, you oversee U.S. policy toward Cuba and interactions with Cuban officials,” Rubio wrote. “Thus, the fact that members of Congress are reading about Cuba’s possession of a U.S. missile in the newspaper rather than from you or other State Department officials is astounding and inexcusable.”

The Obama adminisration withehld information from Congress about the Iran nuclear deal, or the famous “side deals” negotiated around the legislature.

Now it appears that they did not come clean with Congress over the Cuba deal.

Again, it’s a great time to be an anti-US thug out there.   They have a friend in President Obama.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

The New York Times, covering Rubio, decides that experience matters

467_600

(My new American Thinker post)

It’s time for another article by The New York Times versus Senator Rubio.  Who else would be so negative against Cuban Americans?

Maybe the folks at The New York Times think that Marco can beat Hillary.   Yes he can, according to a series of polls.   Rubio beats Clinton in the RCP average of polls: he is up 2 points!

The New York Times is now saying that Senator Rubio is like then-Senator Obama of 2008.

The article calls him “The Republican Obama”.

In other words, the newspaper has discovered that experience matters in a presidential candidate.

Of course, the analysis is silly because Marco Rubio got to the US Senate with more political experience: Rubio started as a City Commissioner for West Miami before being elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2000, and then was elected Speaker in November 2006. He had successfully served in the Florida legislature as House leader, whereas Obama was a back-bench state senator from a safe seat.

Also, Senator Rubio has developed a reputation as a serious person on foreign policy.   Does anyone remember anything that Senator Obama did in Washington or Springfield, Illinois?

I wonder if The NY Times’ editorial page will write an editorial saying that endorsing a first term Senator Obama with zero executive experience was a mistake?   They should, after questioning Senator Rubio’s experience for president.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

So they are going to enroll a million Hispanics to vote?

(My new American Thinker post)

We understand that Hispanics groups (financed by Mr. Soros) will work to add a million voters to the rolls:

Immigrant rights activists have vowed to sign up 1 million immigrants — mostly Mexicans — for citizenship and then quickly register them to vote in time to punish Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans at the polls in November for their harsh rhetoric.

The advocates say the new voters could make a difference in the presidential race, where most of the Republican field has tacked to the right in word and policy, and in key Senate races in Illinois and Florida, where Republicans will be reaching to hang on to critical seats.

So Hispanics are once again going to show up and vote Democrat?  How has that worked out over the years?

In 2008, Hispanics were a major factor in giving then-senator Obama the keys to the White House.  He walked into the presidency with 60 votes in the U.S. Senate and a nice majority in the House.

Again, how did that work out?  “No muy bien,” or not very well.  Democrat majorities did not pass immigration reform or the DREAM Act, as President Obama promised.

Anyway, the idea is to enroll Hispanics to punish Mr. Trump.

I agree that Mr. Trump often speaks too broadly, whether he is talking about criminals crossing the U.S.-Mexico border or keeping Muslims out of the country for a while.

To be fair, Mr. Trump has identified problems, but his solutions are not sensible, such as shipping back 11 million illegal immigrants.  How is he going to do that?

So it’s understandable that some Hispanics are offended.  Most of the illegals in the U.S. are not rapists or criminals.  They are here because someone is hiring them, and the immigration authorities are not going after the employers.

At the same time, shouldn’t Hispanics be equally offended with President Obama and Democrats?  After all, what’s worse?  A party that tells you what you want to hear to get your vote, or a guy who speaks before thinking through what he says?

They are both bad.

Last but not least, maybe Hispanics should punish Democrats by considering alternatives to a straight party voting.  Why don’t they try that first?

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.