Tammy Bruce: The left's 'identity politics' hypocrisy

Sen. Kamala Harris

Courtesy of California Sen. Kamala Harris, we now have a bit of a hint of the new approach we can expect by the progressives who now control the Democratic Party — focus on identity politics but don’t call it that.
In other words, they will recycle the age-old leftist approach of lying to voters about who they are while vowing to punish those who dare to expose them.
All of this became clear at last week’s “Netroots Nation” political activism conference, which CNN described as “The three-day gathering of thousands of progressive activists amounted to a rejection of warnings from the Democratic establishment that their calls for single-payer health care, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and other progressive priorities would alienate moderate and Republican voters who are otherwise inclined to vote against Trump — both in November’s midterm elections and in the 2020 presidential primary.”
When you’ve lost CNN …
Ms. Harris, widely believed to be eyeing a presidential run, is doing what good progressives do — she engaged in promoting identity politics at the conference, and then told everyone that the phrase “identity politics” was a pejorative.
“Now, I am aware that some people would say that what I just said is plain ‘identity politics.’ But, I have a problem, guys, with that phrase, ‘identity politics.’ ‘Cause let’s be clear, when people say that, it’s a pejorative. That phrase is used to divide and it is used to distract …,” Breitbart reported.
As a friend of mine noted, Ms. Harris‘ new approach is to insist that identity politics doesn’t divide us, but calling it identity politics does.
Ms. Harris‘ rhetoric is important as it reveals that she and her likely mentor, former President Barack Obama, have realized the American people have rejected the disaster of liberalism, which relies on dividing and conquering. They, however, remain committed to the disaster their philosophy delivers, but they don’t care; their work remains to obfuscate and punish those who challenge them.
Rising Democratic party star, democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, most famous for not understanding economics, the southern border, or the Israeli-Palestinian issue, was even more blunt about the truth of the new Democratic agenda. About the importance of identity politics she told the Netroots crowd: “We can say that a Muslim man can be the first governor … the first Muslim governor, in this country, in the Midwest. And we don’t have to be afraid of some other that won’t vote for us, because we know that 10 years ago they voted for Barack Hussein Obama.”
No doubt some progressives like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, believe they’re standing up for people to no longer be consigned to the margins, to finally be recognized as whole people and worthy of recognition. Yet their rhetoric relies on subjecting their perceived opponents to the very “otherness” they say they’re fighting.
There were also no actual policy prescriptions at the conference. Promising “free” stuff to everyone — free health care, free education — abolishing ICE and immigration laws, aren’t policies. They’re empty prescriptions for disaster and chaos.
We can look to the 20th century for the result of so-called leaders who promise absurd things for votes, but it’s best to just look south to Venezuela for today’s example of the cancer of so-called progressive governance.
Oh sure, there’s complete equality in medical care — no one has any. And there’s food for all, but Venezuelans have also found that you can eat your neighbor’s dog only once, and the zoo eventually runs out of animals.
For Hillary Clinton, relying on identity politics didn’t. It also reminds us that “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me” remains relevant. After eight years of Mr. Obama’s economic and foreign policy disasters, being fooled twice was rejected by the American people.
In fact, a new survey from Independent Women’s Voice found when asked if someone will support a candidate because of their sex, 83 percent say gender makes no difference, and only 10 percent will support a female because she is a woman.
That’s good news. While much has been written about the need for more women in government, something worth applauding, it is encouraging that the American voter is rejecting identity politics. This further explains Ms. Harris‘ (and watch Mr. Obama to echo this) effort to ban the phrase but not the action.
As Americans we love underdogs, disruption, and breaking new ground. If the Obama years reminded us of anything, it’s that policy matters, for the country and for our families. Democrats are going to find that out, again, in the midterms, as Americans vote for real policies that improve peoples lives, not for a return to identity politics, contrived divisions and perpetual outrage.
This column originally appeared in The Washington Times.
Tammy Bruce, president of Independent Women’s Voice, is a radio talk-show host, New York Times best-selling author and Fox News political contributor.

ICE employee continued posting pro-Clinton messages despite warnings, Office of Special Counsel says

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrest foreign nationals during a targeted enforcement operation, Feb. 7, 2017.  (Associated Press)

An employee of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agreed to resign this week after admitting she posted more than 100 social media messages during work hours or on agency property in 2016, urging people to vote for Hillary Clinton.
The disclosure came in a news release from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC).
The agreement between the employee and the OSC includes a five-year ban from working in the federal government, the statement said.
The posts were considered a violation of the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits most government employees from engaging in most political activities while on duty, the release said.
The woman continued the behavior despite being approached by ethics watchdogs, the OSC said.
“When a federal employee emphatically and repeatedly engages in political activity while on duty or in the workplace, OSC takes that very seriously,” Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner said. “This employee thumbed her nose at the law and engaged in vocal partisan politics both with her colleagues and on social media.

“This employee thumbed her nose at the law and engaged in vocal partisan politics both with her colleagues and on social media."
- Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner

“Considering her knowledge of the Hatch Act and continuing disregard for the law, this employee’s resignation and debarment from federal service are proportionate disciplinary actions. This case serves as an important reminder that federal employees must be mindful of the Hatch Act’s prohibitions, especially given the upcoming midterm elections.”
Most federal employees are allowed to engage in political activities during their personal time.

Hotly contested Ohio race gets closer after hundreds of uncounted votes are found

President Trump's endorsements may give close victories to Ohio House candidate Troy Balderson and Kansas gubernatorial hopeful Kris Kobach; Kristin Fisher reports on the election results.
The nail-biter playing out in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District got even closer Wednesday after 588 uncounted votes were found in a suburb of Columbus, according to county officials.
The ballots were tallied and Democrat Danny O’Connor gained 190 votes on Republican Troy Balderson. The GOP candidate, who was endorsed by President Trump, currently leads by 1,564 votes.
The Franklin County Board of Elections said in a news release that the newly discovered ballots had not been “processed into the tabulation system,” and the issue was corrected.
O’Connor, who is from Franklin County, celebrated the news by tweeting red sirens and informing his followers that he is confident he will soon be declared the winner. He asked for donations to continue to fight that the votes are “counted fairly.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that 3,435 provisional ballots and 5,048 absentee ballots will be counted Aug. 18, ahead of an Aug. 24 deadline. Ohio requires a recount if a candidate wins by less than half a percentage point.
The winner takes the U.S. House seat previously held by Republican Pat Tiberi, who resigned in January.
The early results were considered a major win by Republicans who insist November’s “blue wave” will turn out to be a ripple.
Democrats, who appeared to come up just shy in another special election, considered O’Connor’s turnout a victory in itself. They point to the fact Trump won the district by 11 percentage points in 2016. The district has had a Republican representative for the last three decades.
"It's one more piece of evidence amidst a lot of others that this is a good environment for Democrats, and it provides some opportunities to the party in the fall," Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Trump claimed credit for his late push to give Balderson the slight edge, but Gov. John Kasich also backed the candidate who is running for his old seat.
Balderson, a state senator, and O’Connor, the Franklin County recorder, want to complete the term of a Republican who retired in January. The race tests voter sentiment before the general election in November, when Balderson and O’Connor will battle again for the full two-year term.
Balderson celebrated his victory late Tuesday night and told supporters that he’s ready to get to work in Congress. He says, “America is on the right path and we’re going to keep it going that way.”

Michael Goodwin: Why it's time for Trump to play his ace in the hole

U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, U.S. July 29, 2018. REUTERS/Eric Thayer TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RC14CA639A30

You return from a great vacation and POW — reality hits like a punch in the nose. And that’s not counting the hassle of New York airports and traffic.
The pain begins when you remember that the hapless Jeff Sessions is still the attorney general of the United States. It sharpens with the realization that Rod Rosenstein, officially Sessions’ deputy but really the boss of the Justice Department and FBI, continues to get away with the biggest partisan heist of modern times.
Rosenstein is guilty of three main sins. One, he gives his spawn, special counsel Robert Mueller, virtually unlimited time, scope and budget to target anybody who worked for President Trump’s campaign or administration. As the ongoing trial of Paul Manafort illustrates, the tactic involves throwing the kitchen sink of charges with the aim of terrifying defendants so they will be more inclined to spill any possible beans on Trump in exchange for leniency.
The zealous approach — and exorbitant legal fees involved for defendants or witnesses — serve as deterrents for anyone who might consider public service. And although there is still no indication the president did anything wrong, the search for a crime to pin on him creates a cloud over everything he does and could influence the midterm elections.

Sarah Jeong New York Times Cartoons

Kansas GOP governor primary too close to call; Kobach, Colyer send supporters home

Hours after the polls closed in Kansas on Tuesday night, the state was still awaiting the results of the GOP primary nomination in the heated race between Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and incumbent Gov. Jeff Colyer.
So both candidates decided to send their supporters home for the night.
The race was still too close to call and results were still trickling in from the state's most populous county in the Kansas City area — where Colyer initially was leading.
The Kobach-Colyer race was considered a key test of whether President Trump's late endorsement would prove decisive for Kobach.
Trump on Monday endorsed Kobach with a Twitter message of support, calling him a "fantastic guy" who would "be a GREAT Governor."
The current governor - who took on his role in January after Gov. Sam Brownback left state politics to join the Trump administration - raised more money than Kobach, received the National Rifle Association's endorsement, committed to his pro-life views and earned support from Kansas political legend Bob Dole.
An early supporter of Trump's candidacy and the former chair of the president's now-shut down federal commission on voter fraud, Kobach is best-known nationally for his hardline stance on illegal immigration and for advising the Trump administration on immigration, non-citizen voter registration and the 2020 Census.

State Sen. Laura Kelly

The state's Democratic nomination went to State Sen. Laura Kelly, who defeated four other candidates in the primary. The 68-year-old has served 14 years in the Kansas Senate and is the top Democrat on the budget committee.

Trump-backed Shuette wins GOP nod for governor in Michigan

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican candidate for governor, speaks during a campaign stop in Lansing, Mich., July 31, 2018.  (Associated Press)

State Attorney General Bill Schuette won the Republican nomination for governor of Michigan on Tuesday night, defeating three other candidates vying to fill the seat to be vacated by conservative Gov. Rick Snyder.
Schuette was endorsed by President Trump, who tweeted his congratulations to Schuette following the victory.
"Congratulations to Bill Schuette. You will have a Big win in November and be a tremendous Governor for the Great State of Michigan. Lots of car and other companies moving back!" the president wrote.
As for the Democratic primary, Gretchen Whitmer, a former legislative leader, won the party's nomination in the gubernatorial race.
She earned the nomination by defeating Shri Thanedar, a chemical-testing businessman, and Abdul El-Sayed, an ex-Detroit health director who was vying to become the country's first Muslim governor.

More online ugliness: NY Times writer compared Trump and Hitler

Sarah Jeong

'MediaBuzz' host Howard Kurtz weighs in on the increasing difficulty of defending the New York Times for hiring Sarah Jeong, a writer with a history of racist and anti-Trump tweets, while Facebook, Apple and other tech giants are perfectly comfortable banning Alex Jones.
Their cases could not be more different. But it's getting increasingly difficult to defend the New York Times for hiring a writer with a history of racist and anti-Trump tweets, while Facebook, Apple and other tech giants are perfectly comfortable banning Alex Jones.
The debate around Sarah Jeong, the Times' newest editorial writer, initially focused on her Twitter postings denigrating and mocking white men. But critics have found equally troubling tweets since then.
First there was the discovery of "F--- the police" and "cops are a--holes." How does a major American newspaper defend that?
The Times, and Jeong herself, initially said she regrets the white men-are-"bull----"-and-"dogs" tweets, but was imitating the online hate she was drawing as an Asian-American woman.
I didn't buy the explanation, but felt a bit of sympathy for Jeong as the latest victim of a social media mob demanding her firing. As is all too common in these matters, conservatives have led the charge against Jeong, just as liberals have spearheaded the online opposition against such conservative writers as Kevin Williamson (hired and then quickly unhired by the Atlantic over his past comments such as equating abortion and murder).
But the latest Jeong tweets, noted by The Washington Times, are as beyond the pale as attacks on white men and police officers.
Jeong has tweeted that "Trump is Hitler," "Trump=Hitler," "trump is basically hitler," and "Was Hitler as rapey as Donald Trump?"
How is it even remotely acceptable to compare the president of the United States to a Nazi who was one of history's greatest mass murderers? The Times would never hire a writer who hurled charges like that against a Democrat. So there is a reeking double standard here.
The paper, which declined comment yesterday, has said, among other things, "we had candid conversations with Sarah as part of our thorough vetting process, which included a review of her social media history." The view at the Times is that there's an orchestrated campaign against Jeong by people with an agenda and the company doesn't want to fan the flames. That's understandable, but the toxic nature of the tweets has ensured that this is not a one-day story.
One contrast: When the editorial board recently hired and unhired writer Quinn Norton, it was over tweets that were hostile to gays, not white people in general. So there is a line for the Times—it's just that, somehow, Jeong didn't cross it.
In the aforementioned Atlantic, National Review's Reihan Salam tries to explain the Jeong world view:
"Many of the white-bashers of my acquaintance have been highly-educated and affluent Asian American professionals. So why do they do it?"
He says it’s often glorified trolling, "the most transgressive thing you can get away with saying without actually getting called out for it. In this sense, it's a way of establishing solidarity: All of us in this space get it, and we have nothing but disdain for those who do not. And some may well be intended as a defiant retort to bigotry."
Salam argues that especially for Asian-Americans, "embracing the culture of upper-white self-flagellation can spur avowedly enlightened whites to eagerly cheer on their Asian American comrades who show (abstract, faceless, numberless) lower-white people what for."
That still seems to me like an intellectual way of justifying not a "defiant retort to bigotry," but plain old bigotry.
Andrew Sullivan says that "#cancelblackpeople probably wouldn't fly at the New York Times, would it? Or imagine someone tweeting that Jews were only 'fit to live underground like groveling goblins' or that she enjoyed 'being cruel to old Latina women,' and then being welcomed and celebrated by a liberal newsroom. Not exactly in the cards.”
As a member of a minority group, Sullivan says, Jeong is deemed "incapable of racism," and that's why she "hasn't apologized to the white people she denigrated or conceded that her tweets were racist. Nor has she taken responsibility for them."
As for Alex Jones, I'm getting a lot of pushback from conservatives who say it's an assault on the First Amendment for Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify to ban him from their hugely popular platforms. But it has nothing to do with the First Amendment, as these are private companies who are deciding what content they will allow.
There is a free speech question, of course, and Facebook and Twitter have in the past discriminated against conservatives, and they acknowledge they have a problem. But the case against Jones isn't based on his political views; it’s aimed mainly at his propagation of conspiracy theories, such as that the horrific Newtown school massacre never happened.
Jones still has an online show; his speech hasn’t been suppressed, though it's been curtailed by these Big Tech giants. But it would be a mistake to cast the Infowars founder, who blames a "yellow journalism campaign," as being punished for just being on the right.
And yet it's not hard to understand why conservative critics can't believe that Sarah Jeong emerged unscathed.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.