Team Moonbat and Cankles

It is my contention that the Left is fine with throwing the 2016 election if only to be done with Hillary Clinton. If a true believer were to step into the race, like say Elizabeth Warren, then we would see the Left and its enablers make a full court press to keep the White House in the hands of the Cult. After all, there could be several Supreme Court openings.

But, that’s not happening so for now the liberal media will subtly point to the failings of Clinton and her campaign.

Over the last few months, Harold M. Ickes, a longtime ally of Hillary Rodham Clinton, has helped organize private meetings around the country with union leaders, Clinton backers and Democratic strategists. The pressing topic: Who will step up to be the Democrats’ megadonors in the 2016 presidential race?

Republican contenders have already secured hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments from a stable of billionaires, including a Wall Street hedge fund executive, a Las Vegas casino magnate, a Florida auto dealer, a Wyoming investor and, of course, the Kansas-born billionaires David H. and Charles G. Koch. But none of the biggest Democratic donors from past elections — for example, the Chicago investor Fred Eychaner, the climate-change activist Tom Steyer and the entertainment mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg — have committed to supporting Mrs. Clinton on nearly the same scale.

“No one has stepped forward as the savior,” said Matt Bennett, a longtime Democratic consultant in Washington.

A big part of the Progressive mythology is to believe that a secret cabal of billionaires is working to thwart Progressives. When you look at the figures, you see that about 60% of the rich guy money is going to Democrats. Most of the rich guy money going to the GOP is for globalist, open borders stuff that no sane person would call “conservative.”

But, the take away here is that the big donors of the Left are keeping their powder dry for now. The excuse is hilarious:

In planning sessions and one-on-one meetings with donors, Mr. Ickes, who is a Priorities USA board member, and other Clinton supporters are discussing how to raise as much as $300 million for Democratic outside groups. That is almost twice as much as Democratic super PACs and other outside groups spent to help re-elect President Obama in 2012, when conservative super PACs far outspent liberal ones.

This ambitious goal will require the emergence of a new class of at least 20 Democratic donors who can give $5 million or even $10 million each. Mr. Ickes said recruiting them would not be easy.

Our side isn’t used to being asked for that kind of money,” Mr. Ickes said. “If you asked them to put up $100 million for a hospital wing, they’d be the first in line.

It’s things like this that should remind normal people that the Left is not stocked with reasonable people with bad information. These people are nuts. They truly believe the lunacy they spout and no amount of reasoning is going to change their beliefs.

The hurdles begin with the candidate. While Mrs. Clinton has committed to meeting personally with potential super PAC donors, people close to her say she has not yet grappled with the kind of big-donor courting that has framed the early months of the Republican race.

She is also navigating the intricate rules on what a candidate may do to help super PACs, which, since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, can raise unlimited funds from individuals and corporations but may not “coordinate” with candidates. Fearful of violating the rules, Mrs. Clinton plans to limit her direct appeals to donors.

Yeah, the people who have spent the last twenty years breaking every Federal law regarding campaign financing are now suddenly scrupulous about the minor details of fundraising. The only way someone can write that paragraph is as satire or severe mental illness. My goodness. Just the other day it was revealed that Clinton sold off 20% of the nation’s uranium supply for cash to her “foundation” which is a giant slush fund for Clinton Inc.

This is the way theocracies operate. Objective reality is hammered and shaped to fit dogma, to the point of absurdity. If a normal person were in the room when this article was discussed and they made mention of the scandals, everyone would leave the room. Before long someone from HR would call the normal in and poof! They’re a non-person at the NYTimes.

That’s not to say the agit-prop organs of the Cult of Modern Liberalism will fully support Clinton. Theirs is a more subtle game. They will avoid outright denunciation because Clinton is not a heretic. She’s just a crook and a loser. Instead, they will talk about how the true believers, for some reason, are just not that enthused about Hillary. That way they can let events take their course, while still waving the flag of Team Moonbat.

3 thoughts on “Team Moonbat and Cankles

  1. “people close to her say she has not yet grappled with the kind of big-donor courting”
    The problem with Hil is, deep down, she believes she is owed all this as tribute. It’s why she has no problem grinding people down after she’s through using them, because, after all, if she can’t use them, they’re useless, right?

  2. This country is not quite Argentina yet. Clinton’s inevitability is possible to think of when she hasn’t done any interviews or speeches yet, but she is a mean, nasty old lady of dubious sexual orientation without a shred of charm or likability. She and Bill are getting old, and they are used to shaking people down pretty aggressively. Billionaire donors know what the deal is but they have huge egos and need too see a little ass-kissing before they pay up. She just can’t do that.

    The disgust reaction of the American people is well attenuated, but putting this evil hag up as our new Dear Leader still isn’t going to sit well with them. People could fool themselves about Obama, at least he appeared smart and normal, but Hilary is just a freak. Americans understand and accept freaks in their roles in the legal and educational establishments- HRC could be a man-hating family court judge, or a man-hating social science professor- even congressman from a progressive district- but executive office is supposed to be held by presentable people, and she is not presentable.

    Why the hell did Bill marry her anyway? I suspect he saw a talent for behind the scenes ruthlessness and total loyalty that covered his weak spots. But Lady MacBeth doesn’t get to be the king after MacBeth retires.

    • P.S. Z-man, what the hell is a “hoffkaktor”? IF you meant to use some German word there, I’m telling you, that ain’t it.

      Typo. Fixed now. The word is hoffaktor.

Comments are closed.