That weird silence you get from the Democrats on the Honduras caravan

As television screens fill up with images of the 7,000- to 10,000-strong Honduran migrant army snaking its way up through the belly of Mexico, and President Trump issues warnings that they not cross into the U.S., one group of people, well known for otherwise enjoying grandstanding, has been weirdly silent: Democrats.  Fox News has certainly noticed:

Democrats appear to be remaining silent on the issue of the caravan of thousands of immigrants on the march from Central America and unwilling to get into a public debate with President Trump since the midterms are just weeks away.

Where's Sen. Chuck Schumer to weep some blubbery tears for the migrants?  Where's House minority leader Nancy Pelosi to fill us in on the state of their souls?  Where's the phony rhetoric from ex-president Obama about unskilled, illiterate, and non-English-speaking aliens being an "asset" to our country instead of a drain on its finances?  Where's Sen. Bernie Sanders advising us they'll be great socialist voters?  Where's Hillary Clinton to tell us they "are citizens" or something of that sort?  Where's Rep. Luís Gutiérrez to blame America for the whole thing?  Where's Kamala Harris with her love for the cameras?

Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.

This draws me to think they might just be running scared.  The nonstop coverage of the migrant march, run by a Chavista socialist group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras, (which features lots of links to the Venezuelan-financed Chavista press) and which has drawn huge panoramic camera shots across the nation's television sets of an army of migrants marching to the U.S. and its vast benefit packages, simply cannot be a good thing for them ahead of the midterms.  It's already well known that migrant visuals of the Middle East's vast hordes overtaking Europe strongly affected 2014's midterms, flipping both the House and Senate to the Republicans.

It seems to be a rare case of where the press's interests and the Democrats' interests don't coincide.  The migrant march photos, such as this screen grab from Fox News:

...are great for television ratings, and Fox News in particular seems to be scarfing them up.

Democrats, by contrast, and some of their more sycophantic stations, not so much. They are instead attempting to change the money topic to the Saudi killing of Saudi citizen and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi, a topic that doesn't really concern America, as well as their "Medicare for All" campaign promise.  Sorry, doesn't quite grab attention the way a visual of a vast invading army of military-aged young men heading to our homeland in what the president calls a "national security" issue does.

That's about as bad for their electoral prospects as anything, given that they are trying to persuade us they're reasonable moderates and denying that they're a mob. The photos of the migrant hordes has got to have them running scared.

I've seen this pattern in all the ads being run by Democrats in California for the local races here.  Democrats are refusing to talk about any immigration topic here, despite this being the elephant in the room regarding California's financial footing and despite their flood of ads addressing everything else, particularly global warming and saving the planet.  The visuals remind voters of just what they are promising to midwife more of.

Investor's Business Daily has another take on the topic, and it's a well written editorial, suggesting that Democrats are silent because they actually like this sort of thing:

What's truly sad is that the increasingly far-left Democratic Party can't bring itself to say anything meaningful about or even to criticize the illegal horde approaching our border.  Why say anything?  A border clash, they feel, will be bad for the GOP.

But it's also bad for America. Democrats, in the heat of their election campaigns, often insist "we're not for open borders," or words to that effect.  Yet, everything they do, from sanctuary cities to demonizing ICE to likening those who oppose illegal immigration to Nazis, suggests they want open borders.

And why shouldn't they?  The people in the caravan, once in the U.S., will mostly occupy the fringes of society.  If past immigration is any guide, they'll be poor and overwhelmingly dependent on welfare.  A study based on 2012 Census data found that 51% of all immigrants, legal and illegal, relied on one or more welfare programs.  That compares to 30% for the native-born population.

As the the [sic] architects of our welfare system, Democrats have the most to gain from open borders and the new Democratic votes that would bring.  As such, their repeated insistence they don't support open borders rings hollow.

Maybe so.

But I smell fear in that silence, too – the fear of dozens and dozens of visuals of invading hordes and nothing being done about it, with the full knowledge that it scares voters and obscures the "Mister Moderate" image they have been trying to convince us of.

Either way, they're being silent and should be forced to let us know what they really think.  If the press won't ask, the voters must. No matter which way it is, it won't be good for their electoral prospects at this midterm.

As television screens fill up with images of the 7,000- to 10,000-strong Honduran migrant army snaking its way up through the belly of Mexico, and President Trump issues warnings that they not cross into the U.S., one group of people, well known for otherwise enjoying grandstanding, has been weirdly silent: Democrats.  Fox News has certainly noticed:

Democrats appear to be remaining silent on the issue of the caravan of thousands of immigrants on the march from Central America and unwilling to get into a public debate with President Trump since the midterms are just weeks away.

Where's Sen. Chuck Schumer to weep some blubbery tears for the migrants?  Where's House minority leader Nancy Pelosi to fill us in on the state of their souls?  Where's the phony rhetoric from ex-president Obama about unskilled, illiterate, and non-English-speaking aliens being an "asset" to our country instead of a drain on its finances?  Where's Sen. Bernie Sanders advising us they'll be great socialist voters?  Where's Hillary Clinton to tell us they "are citizens" or something of that sort?  Where's Rep. Luís Gutiérrez to blame America for the whole thing?  Where's Kamala Harris with her love for the cameras?

Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.

This draws me to think they might just be running scared.  The nonstop coverage of the migrant march, run by a Chavista socialist group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras, (which features lots of links to the Venezuelan-financed Chavista press) and which has drawn huge panoramic camera shots across the nation's television sets of an army of migrants marching to the U.S. and its vast benefit packages, simply cannot be a good thing for them ahead of the midterms.  It's already well known that migrant visuals of the Middle East's vast hordes overtaking Europe strongly affected 2014's midterms, flipping both the House and Senate to the Republicans.

It seems to be a rare case of where the press's interests and the Democrats' interests don't coincide.  The migrant march photos, such as this screen grab from Fox News:

...are great for television ratings, and Fox News in particular seems to be scarfing them up.

Democrats, by contrast, and some of their more sycophantic stations, not so much. They are instead attempting to change the money topic to the Saudi killing of Saudi citizen and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi, a topic that doesn't really concern America, as well as their "Medicare for All" campaign promise.  Sorry, doesn't quite grab attention the way a visual of a vast invading army of military-aged young men heading to our homeland in what the president calls a "national security" issue does.

That's about as bad for their electoral prospects as anything, given that they are trying to persuade us they're reasonable moderates and denying that they're a mob. The photos of the migrant hordes has got to have them running scared.

I've seen this pattern in all the ads being run by Democrats in California for the local races here.  Democrats are refusing to talk about any immigration topic here, despite this being the elephant in the room regarding California's financial footing and despite their flood of ads addressing everything else, particularly global warming and saving the planet.  The visuals remind voters of just what they are promising to midwife more of.

Investor's Business Daily has another take on the topic, and it's a well written editorial, suggesting that Democrats are silent because they actually like this sort of thing:

What's truly sad is that the increasingly far-left Democratic Party can't bring itself to say anything meaningful about or even to criticize the illegal horde approaching our border.  Why say anything?  A border clash, they feel, will be bad for the GOP.

But it's also bad for America. Democrats, in the heat of their election campaigns, often insist "we're not for open borders," or words to that effect.  Yet, everything they do, from sanctuary cities to demonizing ICE to likening those who oppose illegal immigration to Nazis, suggests they want open borders.

And why shouldn't they?  The people in the caravan, once in the U.S., will mostly occupy the fringes of society.  If past immigration is any guide, they'll be poor and overwhelmingly dependent on welfare.  A study based on 2012 Census data found that 51% of all immigrants, legal and illegal, relied on one or more welfare programs.  That compares to 30% for the native-born population.

As the the [sic] architects of our welfare system, Democrats have the most to gain from open borders and the new Democratic votes that would bring.  As such, their repeated insistence they don't support open borders rings hollow.

Maybe so.

But I smell fear in that silence, too – the fear of dozens and dozens of visuals of invading hordes and nothing being done about it, with the full knowledge that it scares voters and obscures the "Mister Moderate" image they have been trying to convince us of.

Either way, they're being silent and should be forced to let us know what they really think.  If the press won't ask, the voters must. No matter which way it is, it won't be good for their electoral prospects at this midterm.