THE PARTY OF ROOSEVELT, TRUMAN, AND KENNEDY – NOT – AT 12:48 P.M. ET:  What is wrong with these nuts?  Are they so afraid of the Marxist missionaries in their party that they can't stand up to them...just once?  Consider, from Townhall:   

A resolution honoring the brave men and women of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who enforce our laws and keep us safe, passed in a 244-35 vote. Thirty-four Democrats voted against the measure, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) joined them. Over 130 Democrats decided to vote “present.”

The original plan was to take up House Democrats’ abolish ICE legislation. Democrats responded by saying they would vote against the bill, denying the GOP the ability to paint them as extremist, while easily defending their “no” vote to progressives as a consequence of political theater. They also planned on focusing on family separations, another issue that’s becoming a thorn in the side of Republicans. So, the GOP decided to push a support ICE measure instead (via The Hill):

In a 244-35 vote, the measure was approved, with 18 Democrats voting to back ICE and 34 voting against the resolution.Another 133 Democrats voted "present," which their leadership had urged the rank-and-file to do.  They did so to protest what they argued was a political stunt designed to distract the media and the public from Congress’s failure to enact immigration reforms, including efforts to address the ongoing separation of migrant families on the U.S.-Mexico border.

“This is a very sad day,” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a floor speech, pivoting to the controversy surrounding the separation of immigrant families at the border.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) had initially wanted to bring to the floor a measure sponsored by several liberal Democrats that would have abolished ICE.

Make no mistake; abolish ICE is still an issue the progressive Left wants to push. More Democrats are joining the chorus that’s rapidly becoming a litmus test for candidates. At the same time, more than a few are more than aware that this isn’t really a winning issue. It’s good for deep blue enclaves that elect democratic socialists, but not so much in Middle America and swing districts. It refocuses the debate on security, where the GOP is in the driver’s seat.

COMMENT:  In 1992, while running for president, Bill Clinton had what was thereafter labeled a "Sister Souljah moment."  Sister Souljah, an African-American performer, had made some racially charged comments about whites that any reasonable person would have regarded as way over the top. 

The black vote was critical to the Democratic Party, but that fact had made the party too willing to accept extremist behavior from some members of the black community.  Clinton, who was trying to move the Democrats back to the center, saw Souljah's comments as a means to do just that.  At some political risk he denounced her, establishing himself as the candidate who would stand up to extremism.

The Dems today need a Sister Soujah moment.  Some major Democrat has got to have the guts to stand up to the so-called "progressives," who are really regressives.  They yearn for the 1960s.  If they are not resisted, they will drive the party to extinction.

In fact, I'd imagine some reasonable Democrats are already mulling the idea of a new party.  More Kennedy, less Obama. 

July 19, 2018