[BU's FB sock] He's the current front-runner for my vote next time...(Two 'likes', BTW.)
Like · Reply · 2 · July 10 at 8:37pm
[Some guy] Next time why not now?
Like · July 10 at 9:44pm
[BU's FB sock] As soon as the primaries come to my state - I don't get a lot of say...(Some doink posted a pic of Stephen Hawking captioned "Drifting away from your Bull[poop]" -and screw it - no inappropriate unpleasantness with strangers welcome on planet BU. I quickly found out how to block him.)
Like · July 10 at 9:46pm
[BU's FB sock] Classy.
Like · July 10 at 11:49pm
[BU's FB sock] 25 years experience straddling both houses of Congress on top of nine years executive office as the (GOOD at it) mayor of Burlington Vermont? Why couldn't we have had anyone nearly as qualified running the last two times?-Which [Some guy] 'liked'.
Like · Reply · 1 · July 10 at 9:20pm
That there's some real Clinton fatigue - or is it her obviously calculating way as a candidate that makes it far too clear that she wants it too bad and can't be trusted? Or all of the above?
I'm one of those Hillary haters. I cross party lines to vote against her. She just spikes my blood pressure every time I see her on TV. She seems one of the most insincere people I've ever seen. The woman who refused to give her healthcare task force staff enough hours to qualify for healthcare. Power-hungry and untrustworthy.We think a lot alike. I recall actually defending the real George Bush to someone presumably left of me back in the day - "He's not that bad", "He has some good points" and tepid stuff like that, but defense nonetheless.
Well, you get the idea.
I don't want another Clinton or Bush in the race ( and I admired George the elder for his career of public service ) . Bring any of them back is bringing back old boy staffers.
Pretty sure I never heard of Mark Everson, but your endorsement carries weight with me...
I'm talking about legitimate reformers. I don't know if I want any of them to actually become president, so much as bring their ideas to the campaign and debates. If Everson is appointed secretary of the Treasury, that's a win.AHHH, so THAT'S where I'd gotten my vague impression that Walker was a chimp.
I'm sure you'll hear more about Walker, likely in terms of messiah or anti-Christ. I watched his announcement speech, and it was refreshing to see a fellow give the entire thing without a teleprompter. I suspect he is Jeb's worst nightmare, or will be. Walker is easy to misunderestimate.
The trouble is his Baptist Bundle of views. Kinda strong on the pro-life/sanctity of marriage stuff. Enough to write off the gays and lots of women. Probably not enough to stop him from getting the Republican nomination. When it comes to the middle east, he sounds like an articulate version of Santorum. That scares me, but that might be another thread.
But the ugliness of his candidacy is one of the few things to look forward to...
A Note About Our Coverage Of Donald [Sleezebag]'s 'Campaign'http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-note-about-our-coverage-of-donald-trumps-campaign_55a8fc9ce4b0896514d0fd66 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-note-about-our-coverage-of-donald-trumps-campaign_55a8fc9ce4b0896514d0fd66)
The Huffington Post
Ryan Grim Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post Danny Shea Editorial Director, The Huffington Post
Posted: 07/17/2015 | Edited: 07/17/2015 02:07 PM EDT
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com//asset/scaleFit_630_noupscale/55a8fcc81900002600b86edf.jpeg)
Donald [Sleezebag] gestures while speaking surrounded by people whose families were victims of illegal immigrants on July 10, 2015 while meeting with the press at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, California, where some shared their stories of the loss of a loved one. The US business magnate [Sleezebag], who is running for President in the 2016 presidential elections, angered members of the Latino community with recent comments but says he will win the Latino vote. AFP PHOTO / FREDERIC J. BROWN (Photo credit should read FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images)
After watching and listening to Donald [Sleezebag] since he announced his candidacy for president, we have decided we won't report on [Sleezebag]'s campaign as part of The Huffington Post's political coverage. Instead, we will cover his campaign as part of our Entertainment section. Our reason is simple: [Sleezebag]'s campaign is a sideshow. We won't take the bait. If you are interested in what The Donald has to say, you'll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and The Bachelorette.
My Ugly American ignorance, then and fault - but the question stands. Did Kevin Rudd kill your dog mid-2011? I'm seriously curious, not asking to attack.
Now, what was with all the politics for a while there? Something had definitely made you angry and had it on your mind for several months running. Really asking.
Ugly American here - no idea who the Devil in question is...
Maybe it was something like the reason I left WPC.
I wanted to know how the rest of the guys were weathering the Great Recession.
QuoteMaybe it was something like the reason I left WPC.
I hope i wasn't part of the problem. :(
[Sleezebag]'s not going to last through the first primary - they're spelling his name right right now, is all. He's no Romney, and all the rest are better men. ALL.
They're making a bullcrap horserace story outta this. It won't last.
He's no Romney - he'll be laughed out of the first debate.
Dunno; it's early.
I'll put up €1,000 of my own fake forum money, at 10-1 odds, that he does badly when the first debate does happen, if he even lasts until said debate.
I'll also say that if he's around by the time the primaries start going, and they are OPEN primaries...watch out...a lot of democrats might go vote for him just to mess with the Republicans.
As for a debate winner, I'd say go by the next Fox poll after the debate. If [Sleezebag] loses his number 1 position, he loses big.
Also...Rusty, I couldn't agree more on the Clinton-Bush comment. With 20 out of the last 28 years being dominated by those two families, it is definitely time for a change!
Not so sure that he would run. [Sleezebag]'s ground teams are virtually non-existent. He would have to have party support to mount any kind of an effective run. Even Perot had a fairly well organized ground team.I guess it depends on why he's running, doesn't it?
Just found a list of 2016 presidential candidates (http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/). I didn't realize there were also quite a number of Democratic opponents. And then all those others and independents. Has one of those two latter groups even ever achieved a seat or position or something on the federal level?
I meant on the Senate or Congress level, so Sanders seem to fit my question.
How are things on the state level? Are their State governments who don't solely consist of Democrats or Republicans?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/fox-debate-cleveland-announcement/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/fox-debate-cleveland-announcement/index.html)
"Washington (CNN)—The wait is over.
Fox News said Tuesday that Republican presidential candidates Donald [Sleezebag], Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich will all appear on the dais Thursday for the first prime-time debate of the primary season.
The seven other major declared candidates -- Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore -- will appear at a debate earlier Thursday evening.
"
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/fox-debate-cleveland-announcement/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/fox-debate-cleveland-announcement/index.html)
"Washington (CNN)—The wait is over.
Fox News said Tuesday that Republican presidential candidates Donald [Sleezebag], Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich will all appear on the dais Thursday for the first prime-time debate of the primary season.
The seven other major declared candidates -- Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore -- will appear at a debate earlier Thursday evening.
"
*shudder* Carly Fiorina is back on the political scene after her failed attempt at winning a U.S. Senate seat of California in 2010.
I cared so much that I spent the time hunched forward squinting while I edited 8pt. .css code. Rusty will tell us.;lol
I see [Sleezebag] gets the lead sound bite on my evening news...This does not come as that great of a surprise since Donald [Sleezebag] is currently the leading candiate for the GOP party. . .
Cthulhu Announces He’s Running For President, Promises To Eliminate ISIS By Destroying Reality
ZACK ZAGRANIS JULY 12, 2015
Cthulhu emerged from the black depths of the Pacific Ocean and proceeded to answer questions about hot button issues such as gun control, Obamacare, and how to handle the growing threat of ISIS.
Though the aquatic deity’s presence drove most of the reporters insane, a few were able to stave off the madness long enough to report that Cthulhu’s plan to handle ISIS involves unraveling the very fabric of reality. “Now that’s how you handle terrorists!” said FOX News commentator Bill O’ Reilly who was covering the conference by satellite. “Just wipe ’em all out of exist-” O’Reilly started to continue before the otherworldly timber of Cthulhu’s voice caused his head to burst like a rotten melon hitting pavement.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper managed to ask the ancient entity what his thoughts were on health care before Cthulhu’s answer—he favors a universal system where everyone dies—caused him to melt into a puddle of viscous fluid.
Cthulhu pleased conservatives and liberals alike when he promised to end both abortions and gun related casualties by turning everyone on Earth into pulpy heaps of charred flesh and sinew. The Great Cthulhu was oddly silent on the subjects of marriage equality and race relations, however it can be assumed that Cthulhu’s plans to annihilate all life in the universe is on an equal opportunity basis.
Despite heavy casualties, the Cult Of Cthulhu considers the press conference a success and plans are underway for Cthulhu to embark on a national speaking tour starting with New Hampshire. Many cities in the Granite State have begun evacuating their citizens in preparation.
I guess he's now my preference.
So, instead of the 'Yes we can!' motto last time, the mainstay will be 'No I'm not!' this time? ;lol
If they really hit that hard, it MIGHT actually work. ESPECIALLY against Clinton, who is as close to the embodiment of a sleasy career politician as you can get. (and don't get me wrong, I'm not totally against a sleasy politician. Sometimes that's what you need)
No surprises there.
It's beginning to sound like I lost...
Interesting Uno analysis.
FOX is dead-set against him, man. Think about that.
When you've lost Murdoch so badly his mouthpiece goes after you in the first debate, you've lost, on the right.
FOX is dead-set against him, man. Think about that.
Though the media is universally vilifying now. That can shape the masses in a hurry.That should also tell people something. When the entire media says one thing I think the opposite is probably true.
It's possible, God help us, to agree with [Sleezebag]'s positions and still believe he's a horrible [feminine washing]decent people should have nothing to do with, let alone vote for.
I'm uncertain I care who wins honestly. But I want to see the Republican party filled with cuckservative Rhino traitors
destroyed and a real conservative party put in its place. [Sleezebag] is an unrepentant Alpha male and its the reason he's hated so much
and he might be the one to finally break the two party system.
Who else, as examples, would you see in this new Real Conservative party?Someone thats actually conservative would be nice. Someone that doesn't
Everyone conservative pundit is right: [Sleezebag] is not a "real conservative." He doesn't have much in the way of concrete policy positions. He's donated heavily to Democrats. His position on immigration seems to be, "Build a wall, kick them all out, then let them back in." In my opinion, he'd be a lousy President. But he doesn't bow and scrape. And Republican voters are looking at the looming wreckage of the country, and they've had it with bowing and scraping.
The base doesn't want someone to apologize to liberals for not being feminist enough. They want someone to attack our accusers. And every single time [Sleezebag] has been attacked from the left he responds with verbal sucker-punches. At any given point, he always seems about a muscle spasm away from grabbing his attacker by the hair and pounding his face into the table until it's a mess of blood, teeth, and tears. This is like a breath of fresh air to everyone who has watched John Boehner weep and mince about for the last few years. [Sleezebag] did all but call Megyn Kelly a hysterical [complaint or disagreeable woman] who needs to go back to the kitchen. That made him stronger. Attacking him for offending the sacred precepts of feminism doesn't hurt him because that's what we want.
In other words, we don't want someone with all of his policy ducks laid in a row so much as we just want someone to punch back twice as hard. At this point, the only way for any other candidate to get on [Sleezebag]'s level is to call Jon Stewart a smug, self-righteous, dishonest sonofabitch on live TV to his face.
I enjoyed that.
-Rusty, I should tell you that I think Rand is George Jr. to his dad's Real George Bush...
Schooling von is, obviously, not going to happen overnight
I know you're Libertarian, Rust, and he probably is as close as you're going to get in our lifetime, but lil' Rand strikes me as just a Reagan Republican occasionally throwing on Daddy's robes and claiming to be Jedi Grand Master when he's really only a common Sith.
I think I'll vote for a third party candidate.
If I am reading the context behind this post correctly, than vonbach is calling most of us undereducated ;no.QuoteSchooling von is, obviously, not going to happen overnight
Heh. Thats funny I'm thinking the same thing about most of the people here.
He's calling us hopelessly naïve - I should think he's educated enough to know educated when he sees it.If I am reading the context behind this post correctly, than Vonboch is calling most of us undereducated ;no.QuoteSchooling von is, obviously, not going to happen overnight
Heh. Thats funny I'm thinking the same thing about most of the people here.
He's calling us hopelessly naïve - I should think he's educated enough to know educated when he sees it.
cuckservativesTime to stop using this term.
[Sleezebag]’s job was to look presidential. He needed to play the part of the adult in the room. Instead, he behaved like the narcissistic bully his critics already knew him to be. He left with a very minor bump, but ultimately isn’t going to be able to go the distance because of his very high negatives.
[Sleezebag]’s appeal is simple. His supporters ignore, or even defend, his offensive behavior because they feel an affinity toward him. The far right wing of the Republican Party is now so tired and resentful of being told that their social viewpoint – their Truth -- is “offensive” that they mistake Donald [Sleezebag] for a truth-teller because he is subject to the same condemnations. [Sleezebag] also appeals to all those who, in Peter Beinart’s words, mistake politics for emotional vindication. They’ve concluded that what the Obama administration lacks is heart. This is why they know that the Secretary of State, although supported by dozens of aides and thousands of staff, was fleeced by the Iranians. [Sleezebag] has correctly been labeled the first “post-issues” candidate. His supporters want to hear and feel truth; they no longer trust when they are “told” truth.
We, the People, also have a nasty habit of conflating material riches with fitness to govern even though many smart, wealthy people are temperamentally unsuited to statecraft (I’m thinking of you, Steve Jobs) and also many wealthy people who inherited either all of their fortune or enough of it to get them started (that’s Donald).
Quotecuckservatives
Time to stop using this term.
Build a wall along the border with Mexico? Okay. Who’s going to pay for it?It would be cheaper than paying welfare to 30 million plus illegal immigrants. It wouldn't be that hard to build either. Make the Democrats pay for it they are the one trying to import a permanent Democratic voting bloc.
* [Sleezebag] and his misogynistic comments play right into the Democratic propaganda meme "The War on Women". The lack of condemnation on the part of Republicans, and the polls that say more Republicans agree with [Sleezebag] about it all being "political correctness" than disagree with his remarks, don't bode well for Republican White House aspirations.
1.) Because it's just annoying.QuoteQuotecuckservatives
Time to stop using this term.
Why its accurate. They look after every interest other than that of their base. Cuckoldry.
Quote* [Sleezebag] and his misogynistic comments play right into the Democratic propaganda meme "The War on Women". The lack of condemnation on the part of Republicans, and the polls that say more Republicans agree with [Sleezebag] about it all being "political correctness" than disagree with his remarks, don't bode well for Republican White House aspirations.
Kowtowing to SJW bullies doesn't work. They're never satisfied and will never be satisfied with anything you do.
Caving in to bullies doesn't work it, just makes them bolder. [Sleezebag] is treating them the way they deserve.
You cant out leftist a leftist.
It would be cheaper than paying welfare to 30 million plus illegal immigrants. It wouldn't be that hard to build either. Make the Democrats pay for it they are the one trying to import a permanent Democratic voting bloc.
Kowtowing to SJW bullies doesn't work. They're never satisfied and will never be satisfied with anything you do.
Caving in to bullies doesn't work it, just makes them bolder. [Sleezebag] is treating them the way they deserve.
You cant out leftist a leftist.
Illegal immigrants do not receive welfare to the extent you imply -- even when we think of welfare in very broad terms. In Texas, for example, illegal immigrants contribute more in labor value than they consume in services.Of course Illegals get welfare. Thats why they come here. Illegals contribute nothing they are a massive drain on the system thats all. As far as building a wall its simple either a wall gets built and the illegals removed or the USA turns into South Africa.
"Import a permanent Democratic voting bloc?" Leaving aside the fact that illegal immigrants can't vote (and no, voter fraud isn't a major aspect of elections in the U.S. today), ."
Of course Illegals get welfare. Thats why they come here. Illegals contribute nothing they are a massive drain on the system thats all.
As far as building a wall its simple either a wall gets built and the illegals removed or the USA turns into South Africa.
Yes they do vote. Everyone knows this.
Of course Illegals get welfare. Thats why they come here. Illegals contribute nothing they are a massive drain on the system thats all.
Having spent a good 20 years of my life working alongside illegals, both at jobs that didn't require proof of legality, and at jobs that DID (thus some illicit activity was required for them to work there at all), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. Granted, my experience is anecdotal, but if half the people in the country legally had the same work ethic, there would be a lot less need for welfare.
The Democrats steal votes its how they get elected.
They get elected because they are a majority.
Wisconsin has photo ID laws now, so it's way harder to cheat. Pennsylvania adopted some photo ID laws, but I think they got struck down by the courts.Yes because if people actually had to show ID at polling places the Democrats would never win another election.
Of course Illegals get welfare. Thats why they come here. Illegals contribute nothing they are a massive drain on the system thats all. As far as building a wall its simple either a wall gets built and the illegals removed or the USA turns into South Africa.
Yes they do vote. Everyone knows this. As for vote fraud of course there is vote fraud. Just look at Ron Paul.
The Democrats steal votes its how they get elected.
QuoteThey get elected because they are a majority.
Lol. No they are not. the get elected because of he archaic gerrymandered electoral college system
that puts all the power in the cities and minority bloc votes. In other words welfare for votes. Outside of blue counties, mostly the big cities the entire country is Republican. Democracy works until people figure out that you can vote yourself money from the public funds. Its why were supposed to have a Republic.QuoteWisconsin has photo ID laws now, so it's way harder to cheat. Pennsylvania adopted some photo ID laws, but I think they got struck down by the courts.
Yes because if people actually had to show ID at polling places the Democrats would never win another election.
QuoteThey get elected because they are a majority.
Lol. No they are not. the get elected because of he archaic gerrymandered electoral college system
that puts all the power in the cities and minority bloc votes.
What is new about politicians protecting the voter composition in a specific district? I hear this particular issue arises after almost every census in the last thirty or more years.
These same children grew up in a culture that was (and still is) becoming more politically polarized. Republicans and Democrats have never particularly liked each other, but survey data going back to the 1970s show that on average, their mutual dislike used to be surprisingly mild. Negative feelings have grown steadily stronger, however, particularly since the early 2000s. Political scientists call this process “affective partisan polarization,” and it is a very serious problem for any democracy. As each side increasingly demonizes the other, compromise becomes more difficult. A recent study shows that implicit or unconscious biases are now at least as strong across political parties as they are across races.
Okay this thread in the last couple of pages has been a bit confusing to a non-American. Democrats are left and Republicans right..... right? So where do the major players stand on the spectrum?The Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same political system.
I saw von refer to [Sleezebag] out-lefting a leftist, but isn't he on the right?What I was saying was [Sleezebag] essentially doesn't cave in to the left.
Von comes across as a strong nationalist
Okay this thread in the last couple of pages has been a bit confusing to a non-American. Democrats are left and Republicans right..... right? So where do the major players stand on the spectrum? I saw von refer to [Sleezebag] out-lefting a leftist, but isn't he on the right?
Interesting Bernie fansite compiling his CV: http://feelthebern.org/ (http://feelthebern.org/)
Wouldn't it be nice if all candidates had that much background of proven governance experience and accomplishment to organize information about and make available?
Wouldn't it be nice if all candidates had that much background of proven governance experience and accomplishment to organize information about and make available?
Interesting Bernie fansite compiling his CV: http://feelthebern.org/ (http://feelthebern.org/)
In business, as a CEO.How much homage, *donkey* snorkeling, and bribery must a person offer to the major political parties of this country in order to become President, Senator, or House Representative? Luck has very little to do with elections.
I heard she did really well in the losers' debate, but I'm not even looking at anyone without government experience. Pay Your Dues. We've had really horrible 'luck' lately with under-qualified presidents. Pay. Your. Dues.
In business, as a CEO.
The Powerful vs. [Sleezebag]#.Vci4GT77ets.twitter]http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/the-powerful-vs-[Sleezebag]#.Vci4GT77ets.twitter (http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/the-powerful-vs-[Sleezebag)
The powerful always win.
Splice Today
Noah Berlatsky Aug 10, 2015, 10:25AM
(http://assets.splicetoday.com/uploads/posts/photos/18105/large_rs_560x415-150616092441-1024.Donald-[Sleezebag]-Runs-President.jl.061615.jpg)
Powerful people are in fact powerful. Ergo, when Donald [Sleezebag] pisses off powerful people, this is bad for Donald [Sleezebag].
That seems like a pretty straightforward argument. But pundits love to be counterintuitive, and so various people are in fact making the counterintuitive argument that [Sleezebag] helps himself by making the powerful hate him. Thus Jeet Heer on Twitter tells the "elite media & political class" that "all the things about [Sleezebag] that make you cringe are what his base loves about him." Josh Marshall adds "base Republican politics is about the appeal of rule breaking and grievance. I don't think [Sleezebag] will lose playing to those." GOP elites can cut off [Sleezebag]'s head, but whenever they do, two hair-pieces grow back in its place.
It's certainly true that the GOP has made a fetish out of anti-establishmentarianism. As a result, they've opened up space for unqualified candidates to use their lack of qualifications as a selling point. Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, Ben Carson, etc. etc. They all had their polling spurts and their moment to gorge on publicity, even though none were remotely acceptable to the party.
[Sleezebag], with his reality television brand, his money, and his flare for the flamboyantly outrageous, has made a bigger splash than any of these little trumplets. But is he really qualitatively different? Has he truly found a way to defy political gravity? Will [Sleezebag]'s campaign reshape the face of the Republican party—by, for example, centering anti-immigrant policies, or by making the other candidates look weak and unPresidential?
I'm skeptical, largely because, again, powerful people are actually powerful. [Sleezebag]'s reckless bluster, and his refusal to make any effort to court party elites, has already cost his campaign badly. He's been frozen out by the Koch brothers, who refused to let him speak at an annual grass-roots summit, and also won't let him purchase vital data and analytics services that they control. Erick Erikson of Redstate disinvited [Sleezebag] from his conservative activist event last week, citing [Sleezebag]'s attacks on Fox News' Megyn Kelly.
Perhaps most tellingly, [Sleezebag]'s attacks on Kelly led his campaign manager Roger Stone to quit ([Sleezebag] says he fired him, for what it's worth.) Stone said in a memo, "Unfortunately, the current controversies involving personalities and provocative media fights have reached such a high volume that it has distracted attention from your platform and overwhelmed your core message." In other words, the battles [Sleezebag] has chosen to pick with party elites have damaged his campaign and made his manager abandon ship.
[Sleezebag] is still doing well in polls. But political scientists have established pretty clearly that polls a year before a presidential election mean little. Party endorsements are much more predictive of who wins. Polls mostly tell you who has name recognition and who is in the news. Which is why [Sleezebag] can say horrible things about Mexicans or veterans or Megyn Kelly and still have his poll numbers go up. Any news is good news—if you're running to get high poll numbers, rather than running for the Republican nomination.
If you are running for the party nomination, though, you need an organization. You need access to data. You need party activists. You need endorsements from people who can connect you to party networks and resources. You need a get out the vote operation; you need call lists. You need donors (yes, even [Sleezebag] needs donors). You need media that won't just mention your name, but will tell people to vote for you.
If [Sleezebag] were a decent politician, he might have been able to turn his flair for publicity into a movement that could have affected the campaign. He might have pushed the GOP to the right on immigration for example (though it's quite far to the right already.) But he's chosen to be a clown-show, and now most of the media coverage of him, by left and right (check out the National Review on [Sleezebag]) is about how he's a clown. His poll numbers will probably stay high for a while, because, again, he's in the news. But without party actors and party elites, there's no way for him to convert those poll numbers to actual influence, relevance, or votes.
This is perhaps the real significance of [Sleezebag]. He hasn't changed the rules of politics, but he demonstrates how the Republicans have fooled their voters (and for that matter, many liberal pundits) into thinking that the rules of politics have changed, or should change. The myth of the pure populist poisons Republican politics, not because it means [Sleezebag] will win, but because it means that every GOP politician ends up pretending to be [Sleezebag], just a little. Refusal to compromise has become a default goal in itself, which makes it difficult for Republicans to offer any real policy proposals (they're still working on the health care plan, I understand.)
It would be nice to imagine that [Sleezebag] will scare the GOP into changing. But I doubt that will happen either. [Sleezebag], who blusters about his own influence, doesn't understand or respect power enough to do anything, or get anything done, either for ill or for good. He's a decent entertainer, perhaps. But he's an ineffectual demagogue.
Note that the quoted material does the same thing Huffington Post said it was going to do; not cover The Pig. It is too much to hope that whorey Fox news will keep it up, but when they agree with HuffPo about ANYthing at ALL, that's really interesting, isn't it?
We already knew that they both agree that the current two-party political system is a good thing, and that media bias is ok.I know no such thing as to the first part, and believe it indicates a lack of knowledge/understanding of what Ms. Huffington is about (besides founding a rather skeevey leftist news site). -She thinks the system is nasty and borked beyond belief, I assure you.
We already knew that they both agree that the current two-party political system is a good thing, and that media bias is ok.I know no such thing as to the first part, and believe it indicates a lack of knowledge/understanding of what Ms. Huffington is about (besides founding a rather skeevey leftist news site). -She thinks the system is nasty and borked beyond belief, I assure you.
In fact, I'm pretty sure almost anyone at Fox would say the same. They just profoundly disagree about what parts are evil and ruining the whole thing.
That's more like being opposite, as you were trying to point out.
Bakrama had to take his window of opportunity when it was there, but the lack of dues paid/experience qualifying has shown in his tepid presidency, I think, for all that his greater problem is trying to be conciliatory in the face of implacable intransigent (Nazi) opposition.
...
I do not enjoy the childish squealing of the secret (if that) racist/selfishness/nazi crap-talk party when a Democrat gets in, and I'd love to see the party cough up someone less polarizing - the thing that moderate Obama should have been if he'd been perceived publically as the centrist compromiser he is (when we needed a populist firebrand cleaning house of Nazis - we got the worst of all worlds with him).
All republicans who have not explicitly denounced the excesses of the Cheney Occupation are simply out of the question for any office under any conditions -
...
Thoughts? Like anyone out there for President and why?
You know, Man, I found that thread and thought it would be an interesting read but this first post...
It seems that nowadays you can't express an opinion right of socialism without being labelled a nazi.
Against gay marriage? NAZI!
Against illimited immigration? NAZI!
Defend the right to self-defense? NAZI!
Against social spending? NAZI!
People talking like that just appear excessive and ridiculous and, of course, untolerant to the extreme. Not to say oblivious to facts: why talk with someone like that then?
And now I'll keep on reading...
GO. AWAY.No.
Fox News Unleashes Angry Anchors on ‘Totally Out of Control’ Donald [Sleezebag]https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/fox-news-unleashes-angry-anchors-totally-control-donald-163519555.html (https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/fox-news-unleashes-angry-anchors-totally-control-donald-163519555.html)
The Wrap
Jordan Chariton August 25, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/J0BTVnIk8GNvLYPMiUG3Og--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjE4O2g9NDA4/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/TheWrap/Fox_News_Unleashes_Angry_Anchors-a8d5a507e6dce1836146008cffb07ad0)
Fox News Channel unleashed its anchors on Tuesday to fight back against Donald [Sleezebag]’s renewed criticisms of star anchor Megyn Kelly.
“He is totally out of bounds reigniting that fight,” Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade said on Tuesday’s show.”I don’t know if he expects to get ratings out of that, or poll numbers, but he’s not going to be successful. “You can not, you should not, keep going after her.”
Kilmeade also called [Sleezebag] “totally out of control” (probably a comment that won’t help keep [Sleezebag] as a regular phone guest on the morning show).
Sean Hannity, Geraldo Rivera, Bret Baier, Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino took to Twitter to directly and indirectly tell [Sleezebag] to cool it with the Kelly attacks.
[Sleezebag] live-tweeted during “The Kelly File” on Monday night, criticizing the Fox star, who had just returned from vacation. He also retweeted tweets that called her a “bimbo.”
The [Sleezebag]–Fox News feud begun after [Sleezebag] went off on Kelly following the network’s GOP presidential debate, calling her questions unfair and suggesting she was menstruating during the debate.
The anchors’ breaking their silence is the first of what’s likely to be a strong, coordinates response from Fox News and network chairman Roger Ailes.
The network hasn’t yet formally made a statement on [Sleezebag]’s renewed attacks on Kelly.
Geraldo Rivera
When did character flaws become a strength? What level of degeneracy has this country reached? ???QuoteGeraldo Rivera
uh oh. they pulling out the big guns.
"Any Press is Good Press."
I think this defines the [Sleezebag] campaign to date. AND IT SEEMS TO BE WORKING. You are going to have to nail him down on WHAT, exactly, he plans to DO. Build a wall, make jobs, etc etc etc. Yeah, how you gonna do that? How you going to handle foreign affairs when you can't even hold a diplomatic conversation with anyone who disagrees with you?
Nail him down on those, he seems to be immune to the character flaws. In fact, they seem to be STRENGTHS to the general public.
When did character flaws become a strength? What level of degeneracy has this country reached? ???
When did character flaws become a strength? What level of degeneracy has this country reached? ???
Suppose FOX decided to ignore him. Even going as far to list him in their poll questions as "other".
Do you think he could win the Republican nomination?
How you going to handle foreign affairs when you can't even hold a diplomatic conversation with anyone who disagrees with you?This is 90 % of his popularity. The more the media bully, whine and play their stupid little the stronger he gets.
This is 90 % of his popularity. The more the media bully, whine and play their stupid little the stronger he gets.
Because he isn't scared of them and doesn't apologize to them. The more he does this the more powerful he gets.
Repeat: it's the people who decide what information to pass to the public he's making enemies of.
Donald [Sleezebag]: I don't want David Duke's endorsement;lol
Politico
By Brianna Ehley | 8/26/15 6:55 PM EDT | Updated 8/27/15 1:02 AM EDT
(http://images.politico.com/global/2015/08/26/150826_donald_trump_2_gty_629_956x519.jpg)
BIRCH RUN, MI - AUGUST 11: Republican presidential candidate Donald [Sleezebag] speaks at a press conference before delivering the keynote address at the Genesee and Saginaw Republican Party Lincoln Day Event August 11, 2015 in Birch Run, Michigan. This is [Sleezebag]'s first campaign event since his Republican debate last week. (Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
Donald [Sleezebag] says he isn’t interested in the endorsement of David Duke, the anti-Semitic former Ku Klux Klan leader who praised the GOP presidential hopeful earlier this week on his radio show.
“I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement,” [Sleezebag] said during an interview with Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. He added: “I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.”
Asked whether he would repudiate the endorsement, [Sleezebag] said “Sure, I would if that would make you feel better.”
Duke sang [Sleezebag]’s praises on his radio show last week — calling him the “best of the lot” of GOP contenders. Duke isn’t the only white supremacist expressing support for [Sleezebag]. The New Yorker reported earlier this week that the white-nationalist website VDARE touted [Sleezebag] as “the first figure with the financial, cultural and economic resources to openly defy elite consensus.”
[Sleezebag], however, doesn’t appear to be concerned that he’s attracting these kinds of fans.
“A lot of people like me,” he said. “Republicans like me, liberals like me. Everybody likes me.”
Read more: -doesnt-want-david-duke-endorsement-121784.html#ixzz3k2Mscq8S]http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-[Sleezebag]-doesnt-want-david-duke-endorsement-121784.html#ixzz3k2Mscq8S (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-[Sleezebag)
I agree. I'm not asking the media to care about what they say to THEM. How is he going to negotiate with Mexico or China. Neither of which he's not exactly building bridges with, and both of which are rather key partners. This might be too nebulous a concept for the general public, though.
We don't need either country. We can build our own things and pick our own vegetables.
WalMart? Yeah, I've got issues with WalMart myself.The small business owners often lose in the long run to larger chains because of the efficency of scale that the larger chains have over the smaller business owner(s).
*Locking illeagal alien cleaning crews in the store at night.
*Here (before Obamacare ) wages were low enough that WalMArt workers got their health insurance through Medicaid.
* In the county where I first lived, WalMart came in. They engaged in predatory pricing, selling below their cost, or so my cousin once removed told me. He was a CPA who worked for them for a time. That's a good deal for the consumers, right? It put the locally owned department stores and some of the groceries and strip mall specialty stores out of business. Thing is, I don't know that WalMart is still selling below cost, now that they have a monopoly. Nobody has deep enough pockets to start a new local department store to keep them honest.
Now another store might come in if the market were large enough, but until there's room for both WalMart and say Target, for example, who wants to come in, spend the capital, and have to compete with WalMart going predatory again? The rural people are sort of hostages. They can shop at WalMart, or drive to another county.
WalMart has an evil streak.
Becoming self-reliant is never easy, but it usually has merit.
Why keep Wal-Mart open? It's evil.
It put the locally owned department stores and some of the groceries and strip mall specialty stores out of business. Thing is, I don't know that WalMart is still selling below cost, now that they have a monopoly.This why we used to have laws against monopolies.
If they could only find a way to keep the stores up to snuff after she left it would be wonderful. Unfortunately, she's one of those rare lead from the front types that are oh so difficult to duplicate.
No, I'm sure she's one of those types who keeps employees with considerate treatment. -Also, she pretty much lives in the store.
Carson hasn't criticized [Sleezebag]. In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" in August, Carson insisted he isn't trying to "catch" [Sleezebag].
"What I am doing is steadily getting the message out, and connecting with the American people," he said. "And they are responding."
Carson will likely roll out policy ideas in the coming weeks. But the most immediate focus for his campaign is the next debate, hosted by CNN and set for September 16 in Simi Valley, California. While the goal of the first debate was for Carson to simply look like a credible presidential candidate, now that he is firmly in the top tier, he must offer more.
READ: Donald [Sleezebag]: No attacks on Ben Carson, Ted Cruz -- yet
Carson seized on momentum from the first debate, flooding the airwaves in Iowa and New Hampshire for two weeks with radio and television ads with Carson speaking directly to the camera.
"Our children face a very harsh future, unsustainable debt. Future generations will suffer," Carson said in the ad. "Washington is broken. The political class broke it. Please join me."
In Iowa, he has hosted a series of "family festivals" in three cities, featuring pony rides, popcorn and entertainment. Some 6,000 people showed up to the small scale fairs that doubled as political events.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2009/11/19/the-roots-of-political-correctness/
Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. Its history goes back not to the 1960s but to World War I. Before 1914, Marxist theory said that if a major war broke out in Europe, the workers of every country would join together in a revolution to overthrow capitalism and replace it with international socialism. But when war came, that did not happen. What had gone wrong?
Two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so “blinded” the working class to its true (Marxist) class interests that Communism was impossible in the West until traditional culture and Christianity were destroyed. When Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik government in Hungary in 1919, one of his first acts was introducing sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that destroying traditional sexual morals would be a major step toward destroying Western culture itself.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Herbert Marcuse translated the abstruse work of the other Frankfurt School thinkers into books college students could understand, such as Eros and Civilization, which became the Bible of the New Left in the 1960s. Marcuse injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now that generation’s ideology. We know it as “multiculturalism,” “diversity” or just Political Correctness.
That is the dirty little secret of Political Correctness, folks: it is a form of Marxism. If the average American knew that, I suspect Political Correctness would be in serious trouble.
That article is a good example of just why [Sleezebag] is doing so well. People in this country
have a fond remembrance of the times when we had freedom of speech and association.
Political correctness is communist cultural marxism.
If only we had a candidate who was anti-political-correctness and willing to describe the system how it is, and didn't have [Sleezebag]'s flaws...
People in this country
have a fond remembrance of the times when we had freedom of speech and association.
Political correctness is communist cultural marxism.
Someone doesn't remember McCarthyism...
QuoteSomeone doesn't remember McCarthyism...
Yes I do. MyCarthy was right. Most of the were communists.
Just take a look at today, communists are in charge.
Being a communist is not against the law.
[winces]
No, I want the Pig banned from public
Not officially, of course; what Geraldo said about OJ after he got away with it - shun him. Everyone avoid him, refuse to speak to him, do not do business with him. -You'll note that I avoid saying his name. Everyone can play.No, I want the Pig banned from public
That would be a horrible precedent.
Being a communist is not against the law.
McCarthyism was a period when the government actively attempted to censor speech and stop freedom of association. So, you know, my irony-meter just broke.
It certainly failed.
Bernie Sanders joins a picket line in Cedar Rapidshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/04/bernie-sanders-joins-a-picket-line-in-cedar-rapids/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/04/bernie-sanders-joins-a-picket-line-in-cedar-rapids/)
The Washington Post
By John Wagner September 4 at 10:26 PM
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa -- Sen. Bernie Sanders, who's been a fierce voice for the working class on the presidential campaign trail, put some action behind his words Friday, joining a picket line outside a factory here.
Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, marched with workers at the Penford Products plant, which produces potato starches, and where the union that represents them is locked in a bitter contact dispute with a new out-of-state owner.
"We are sick and tired of the war against working families," Sanders told scores of workers who gathered in a park next to the plant following the informational picket.
Echoing his lines on the campaign trail, Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, decried "corporate greed," adding: "That's what we're seeing here. ... We have got to stand together and tell this company that greed is not acceptable."
Workers at the plant, represented by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union Local 100G, are on the job without a contract but are threatening to strike if a deal is not reached with the new owner, Ingredion Inc.
Sanders's involvement in the local dispute comes as he and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, are fighting for support among labor unions in Iowa and nationally.
Several of the participants in the picketing late Friday afternoon said Sanders's presence was a reminder of his authenticity on labor issues. Sanders has marched in solidarity with aggrieved workers throughout his career in politics, which includes stints in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and as mayor of Burlington, Vt.
"Bernie has shown that it's not about talking the talk,"Chris Eby, Local 100G president, told the gathering Friday. "It's about walking the walk."
As they awaited Sanders's arrival, the picketers cycled through several chants, including, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the war on workers has got to go." Sanders was handed a sign when his car drove up and took his place in the line.
The event, which came amid a three-day swing for Sanders in the first presidential nominating state, was still fresh on his mind when he appeared at a rally at nearby Coe College in Cedar Rapids on Friday evening.
"What is going on here is exactly what has been going on all over the country," Sanders said, suggesting the labor dispute was among the reasons the country needs "a political revolution."
[Sanders draws more than 2,500 to Iowa stop — tops for this presidential cycle so far]
The rally, which college officials estimated drew 2,000 people, was one of the largest this cycle in Iowa. The largest to date remains a Sanders rally in Council Bluffs in July that was said to have attracted 2,500 people, including many from just across the state line in Nebraska.
Sanders's current Iowa trip, which began Thursday, is his first since a new poll showed him drawing close to Clinton in the state.
Bernie Sanders joins a picket line in Cedar Rapids
QuoteBernie Sanders joins a picket line in Cedar Rapids
Bernie Sanders is never getting near the white house.
As soon as the black lives matter protestors took over his event
and forced him off his own podium he was done.
Just drop out and get it over with.
...You being such a careful thinker w/o bias, I'll be sure to take your word for it...
And your being rude, condescending and arrogant.These particular comments appear whenever BUncle and vonbach start discussing issues that are political in nature.
QuoteBernie Sanders joins a picket line in Cedar Rapids
Bernie Sanders is never getting near the white house.
As soon as the black lives matter protestors took over his event
and forced him off his own podium he was done.
Just drop out and get it over with.
Bernie at least has the message,Bernie is done. All anyone has to do is play that clip of him getting
The Republicans however have basically anointed [Sleezebag] barrring Jeb Bush pulling out some card or [Sleezebag] really messing up which will not happen.
You were doing so well until you brought up Bakrama.
moderateModerate?! How on earth can anyone call Barry Sotoro moderate.
I once asked a friend of mine why people single out Walmart for hate when Target is practically identical. He replied, "Target's a little bit more expensive. And it has better aesthetics. Most liberal causes are about aesthetics." As my friend is very liberal himself, I thought that was kinda funny.
Srsly, though. Why does Walmart get so much more hate? I don't know a lot about the facts of the controversy, this is open curiosity on my part.
Even though there is just as much crime and drugs in the 'burbs and the country clubs,
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
Feel the Bern… Sanders Leads Hillary by 9 in New Hampshirehttp://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/feel-the-bern-sanders-leads-hillary-by-9-in-new-hampshire/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/feel-the-bern-sanders-leads-hillary-by-9-in-new-hampshire/)
Socialist Bernie Sanders jumped ahead of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.
The Vermont Socialist now leads the embattled former Secretary of State by 9 points.
The Gateway Pundit
Jim Hoft Sep 6th, 2015 12:20 pm
(http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/sanders-free-stuff.jpg)
NBC News reported:QuoteBernie Sanders has jumped out to a nine-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and he’s gained ground on her among Iowa voters in the Democratic presidential race, according to a pair of brand-new NBC News/Marist polls.
In New Hampshire, the Vermont senator gets the support of 41 percent of Democratic voters, Clinton gets 32 percent and Vice President Joe Biden gets 16 percent. No other Democratic candidate receives more than 1 percent.
Back in July’s NBC/Marist poll, Clinton was ahead of Sanders in the Granite State by 10 points, 42 percent to 32 percent, with Biden at 12 percent.
Without Biden in the race, Sanders’ lead over Clinton in the current survey increases to 11 points, 49 percent to 38 percent.
There is a reason the Repubs want no abortions
QuoteThere is a reason the Repubs want no abortions
Yes the reason is abortion is murder and should be treated as such.
I once lived with a guy who was decidedly one of those Reagan Southern Baptists, which makes him sound worse than he was - he proved actually worth arguing with occasionally. I asked him once, and he wasn't the first I've asked, "Why do Republicans want to save all the fetuses and kill all the convicts?" He shot back instantly with the closest to a good answer to that one I've ever gotten - "Why do liberals want to save the guilty and kill the innocent?"
Neither position is exactly christlike y'know.
Years later, in a renfair participant parking lot, I saw a car copiously bumper-stickered with both anti-death penalty AND anti-abortion stuff. I agree wholeheartedly with neither, but I poked around and found the owner and shook his hand - it's a consistent position -which you almost never see on those issues- and people who've thought for themselves are to be encouraged. Good for him. ;nod
For that matter, every time a sexually-active woman with an IUD has her period?
IUDs cause fertilized eggs to not attach to the uterine lining, or be rejected or something. It's an induced semi-natural miscarriage/abortion that washes out with her period.
If you don't know for sure when God attaches a soul and it becomes a person, you sorta have to assume either conception or birth, yes? QED.
That's moral compromising, isn't it? It's an induced abortion, and it's murder if you think a fertilized egg is a person. Is it moving the goalpost for your own convenience to come up with a soul-attachment ANYwhere in the middle?
You'll find my stance on pretty much EVERYTHING religiously based is it shouldn't be against THE LAW.I believe I tried to more-or-less say that a few posts up. If you're convicted that something's wrong, persuading others of it is your moral duty - and far more effective than laws, frankly, if you pull it off.
Against my personal religion/code/etc DOES NOT mean I should advocate that it be against THE LAW. My belief in my right to practice my own religion is only as strong as my belief in YOUR right to practice YOURS. Therefore I have no qualms being, sometimesl literally, devil's advocate in defending someone's right to do something I might find "sinful".
You'll find my stance on pretty much EVERYTHING religiously based is it shouldn't be against THE LAW.
Against my personal religion/code/etc DOES NOT mean I should advocate that it be against THE LAW. My belief in my right to practice my own religion is only as strong as my belief in YOUR right to practice YOURS. Therefore I have no qualms being, sometimesl literally, devil's advocate in defending someone's right to do something I might find "sinful".
Same goes for free speach.
If you truly believe in Freedom of Religion/Speach, you are REQUIRED to defend the right of those that use it in ways you find repugnant.
As for the Death Penalty:
Legally, it's horribly broken right now, I'll happily concede. I don't think the argument to do away with it because thou shalt not kill is valid. The argument that it costs more than life with no parole is countered by my one appeal and death following verdict counter. This brings it back into the realm of deterrent it was originally meant for, and is hella lot cheaper than life/no parole. In fact, I'd argue there should be no life/no parole and a hell of a lot more executions. I don't see the reasoning behind life/no parole as anything other than making someone get warm fuzzies based on their religion. Society benefits none that I can see. Makes no sense to give convicts room and board when hunger is still an issue. I'd be happy going so far as modifying the old joke into "feed the convicts to the hungry" as a potential solution if hunger REALLY becomes a crisis...
As for Abortion:
Soul/etc is an invalid argument legally.
The heartbeat is as good an indicator as any arbitrarily chosen criteria, though I'd say note heart fully formed as above.
don't think the argument to do away with it because thou shalt not kill is valid.
Quotedon't think the argument to do away with it because thou shalt not kill is valid.
Its "though shalt not murder" not though shalt not kill. Murder is the killing of the innocent.
Killing of those guilty of capital crimes is not only lawful in the Bible its required.
Life sentences aren't just for violent sociopaths, they're for people caught in the convergence of 3 strikes and you're out/ the war on drugs.
Are we all comfortable with my observation that there are people in this world better off not in this world and the world better off without? Unforgivably bad people are a thing.
It's rather political, stemming from Walker's ( can we call it extreme?) position on abortion.Depends on whether they love America and its principals. Cruz and Huckabee claim they do, but they don't seem to love the Constitution of the United States of America - and it's far from just them, in the last 15 years. It's a package deal, knuckleheads.
It also kinda weaves into the county clerk from Kentucky who was just released from jail today, in the presence of Mike Huckabee and Cruz ( I think ). Her lawyer is asserting that the marriage licenses issued in her absence are invalid. The Governor says the opposite.
Her supporters claim it's a matter of religious freedom.
If a county clerk were denying marriage licenses to all women without Birkas, because they offended the clerk's religious beliefs, would the same people support her?
Or would they say the clerk was abusing their office to impose their religious beliefs upon the public, in clear violation of the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment?
But we are wealthy enough
I cannot condone that.
And we aren't failing to cure homelessness and hunger because we're skint. We can afford it, all right.
America and its Constitution: It's a package deal, knuckleheads.
I believe I'll post this on stupid Facebook and see if I can't start something...
Playing now, the Ben Carson showhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/playing-now-the-ben-carson-show-128746591126.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/playing-now-the-ben-carson-show-128746591126.html)
Yahoo Politics
Matt Bai National Political Columnist September 10, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/12su6JzHOkT7ZpwNY6XqBQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzQ3O2lsPXBsYW5l/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/6682d3eb84658a87c47c550cdeddb877bdd7649d.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson became an overnight hero to conservative commentators and activists. (Photo: Ross D. Franklin/AP)
One of my least favorite journalism clichés is what I like to call the trick lead. That’s the one where the crafty writer starts a piece by making you think he’s talking about one thing, when really he’s talking about another.
The well-liked vice president badly wanted to run, but everyone knew the boss was behind his anointed successor, and the party was closing ranks fast.
Joe Biden in 2015? No! It was Charles Fairbanks in 1908!
You know, that kind of thing.
But if I actually were the kind of writer who would begin today’s column with a trick lead, it would go something like this:
The political neophyte has now surged to the top of the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he’s defying the expectations of pundits and establishing himself as a serious threat for the Republican nomination.
Donald [Sleezebag]? No! I’m talking about Ben Carson!
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/ceaFoplHaUhQovtNESgG9w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MTkx/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/6cdad63e5bb08c99fba1ddcb031ba9ce4f3501e6.gif)
If you haven’t been paying close attention to the non-[Sleezebag] Republican field this year — maybe because it’s a little like studying a “Where’s Waldo?” poster where everyone kind of looks like everyone else, except that no one is actually Waldo — then let me enlighten you.
Carson is a flat-out genius (even if he doesn’t believe in evolution). Raised by a single mother in Detroit and educated at Yale, he went on to medical school and became, at 33, the chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins. Not long after, he led a team of doctors in the first-ever operation to divide twins who were joined at the head. Then he turned the spelling bee world upside down by successfully implanting the brain of an Oxford professor in the skull of a fourth grader.
OK, that last part is entirely made up. But you know he could if he really tried.
Carson has never held elective office, or even run. But as the legend goes, in 2013 he spoke at one of these National Prayer Breakfasts in Washington, where he denounced the health care law and liberal government generally while standing just a few feet from President Obama, and overnight he became a hero to conservative commentators and activists.
Heeding their call, he jumped into the presidential field last May and is now in second place and gaining on [Sleezebag] in Iowa. If you made me guess today, I’d say he probably wins the caucuses.
Oh, one other thing, in case you didn’t know: Carson is African-American.
It’s hard to square this with the Republican Party you hear about if you watch cable news (otherwise known these days as “[Sleezebag] TV”) or hang out much with urban liberals. Conservative ideologues are supposed to be race-baiting and enraged, fueled by nativism, resentment and a deep loathing of our first black president, who they insist is a Muslim.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Wm3bwWlvrrNaob23Qzwozg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzYwO2lsPXBsYW5l/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/9e5240b4c4ecc30db33b85689121ebb122d1fd09.jpg)
A Carson supporter holds copies of his books as he speaks during the Iowa State Fair. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Yet here is Carson, surging into second place in virtually all-white primary states, surpassing Jeb Bush and leaving archconservative candidates like Scott Walker and Rand Paul in the dust. And he’s not at all angry. While [Sleezebag] just about writhes with insecurity and calls everybody in politics an idiot, Carson projects an easy confidence and barely speaks above a whisper.
So how do we explain Carson’s appeal?
It’s not as if he has some incredibly creative agenda. Reading through the positions on Carson’s website is like spending a few hours at an amusement park called “Banal Land.” He’s pro-life, pro-balanced budget, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage. On the one issue where he’s less than a reflection of accepted dogma, Carson supports a guest worker program for immigrants, which should hardly endear him to conservatives.
Carson doesn’t pretend to know very much about governing or foreign affairs in particular. His campaign manager, Barry Bennett, told the New York Daily News: “The man is a world-renowned brain scientist. … I think he can memorize a list of world leaders.” Which is kind of like Bobby Jindal saying, “Hey, I’m a Rhodes scholar. I’m pretty sure I can figure out how to surgically separate a couple of brains.”
Nor has Carson done anything special to seize his moment, in the way that Newt Gingrich took over the debate stage four years ago. For whatever reason, Carson was barely given a chance to speak at the first debate last month, and his only memorable moment came when he pointed that out.
No, what makes Carson compelling to a lot of people, clearly, is the power of his personal narrative. As I’ve written a few times recently, we live in a moment when, as the social critic Neil Postman predicted exactly 30 years ago, politics has merged fully into entertainment, when characters and story arcs have supplanted expertise and worldviews.
Much like candidate Obama, who cast himself at the center of an inspiring docudrama in 2008, Carson is running as the embodiment of a story we still like to tell ourselves about America — a story about enduring opportunity and equality, the triumph of parenting and will over circumstance and prejudice.
It’s the kind of stuff that makes for an emotional TV movie. In fact, it did! TNT aired “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story” back in 2009. It starred Cuba Gooding Jr., of “Jerry Maguire” fame. Show me the cerebral cortex!
And in this way, Carson isn’t actually all that different from [Sleezebag], really. Their presentations bear no resemblance, but their appeal is rooted in the same cultural shift. [Sleezebag] is reality TV, explosive and unscripted. Carson is a miniseries, evocative and reaffirming.
There’s a danger in attaching such significance to inexperienced politicians, as we’ve learned. Obama spent too much of his presidency improvising a governing philosophy and figuring out how to deal with vast bureaucracies and recalcitrant adversaries. As much as Democrats may hate to hear it, the truth is that someone with more political experience would probably have found his footing a lot sooner.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/meKcYu1sHwhauW6f93WDDA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9Mzg3O2lsPXBsYW5l/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/695c390f9a0913aa568b687404ff7b28ab8d42f7.jpg)
Carson is running as the embodiment of a story about the triumph of parenting and will over circumstance and prejudice. (Photo: Charlie Riedel/AP)
Carson seems like a good guy and a great mind, and if one of my kids ever needed brain surgery, I’d bang down a thousand doors just to get in a room with him. But that doesn’t mean I want him rushing to the Situation Room when some terrorist group in Pakistan makes off with a nuclear weapon.
And yet it’s hard to blame voters for seeking some inspiration, and some authenticity, when all these governing-ready politicians seem so much the opposite. It’s hard to begrudge them their penchant for a moving story when all they get from the leading establishment types, too often anyway, are platitudes and artifice.
It was embarrassing to watch this week as Hillary Clinton’s campaign aides, speaking to the New York Times’ Amy Chozick, laid out a methodical plan for her to be more spontaneous, without a hint of irony. “I can have a perfectly fine life not being president,” Clinton herself told ABC’s David Muir, which must have sounded bizarre to voters who consider lives with healthy families and stable careers to be a lot more than perfectly fine.
Candidates like Clinton and Bush have to be more than humanistic renderings of long résumés and safe policies meant to shore up one constituency or another. In the age of narrative politics, the governing candidate has to tell a story that resonates, too — about how the country can look in 20 years, about the sometimes wrenching choices we’ll have to make to get there, about how you transcend bitterness and entrenched ideology.
Carson’s narrative may not have a whole lot to do with governing the country. But, you know, at least it’s real.
Okay, somebody tell me WTF is going on with Huckabee? I always had the impression that he wasn't all that bad. Has he had a stroke, or is he gone full-McCain/desperate hooker and cynically courting the outright bigots, or fooled me all along, or what?
He told someone on the radio today that the Dred Scott decision was still the law of the land. -So stupid, ignoramus, right of David Duke, pandering like a [prostitute]TO the David Dukes who like the Pig, all of the above, what?
Okay, somebody tell me WTF is going on with Huckabee? I always had the impression that he wasn't all that bad. Has he had a stroke, or is he gone full-McCain/desperate hooker and cynically courting the outright bigots, or fooled me all along, or what?
He told someone on the radio today that the Dred Scott decision was still the law of the land. -So stupid, ignoramus, right of David Duke, pandering like a [prostitute]TO the David Dukes who like the Pig, all of the above, what?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=960579800650484&set=pb.100000954193838.-2207520000.1441898404.&type=3&permPage=1 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=960579800650484&set=pb.100000954193838.-2207520000.1441898404.&type=3&permPage=1)Okay. Posted to facebook. Not that I have many contacts, but some of my friends & family do. I'll keep you advised of the response.
I'd like to do more versions with 'love its Ideals' (-Liberty- -Equality- -Freedoms- etc), but that starts making it too easy to pervert to the opposite of my meaning; I'm not about to feed the Statists -and their ignorant dupes- who are the problem.
Oh lovely. NPR just mentioned that it's Still Dead Day. Let us not discuss it, but I was sick of that in 2003 2001. Couldn't turn on the TV for about a week in September for years.
FEC Implements One-Year Break Between All Presidential Terms As Reprieve For Weary Nationhttp://www.theonion.com/article/fec-implements-one-year-break-between-all-presiden-51295 (http://www.theonion.com/article/fec-implements-one-year-break-between-all-presiden-51295)
The Onion Vol 51 Issue 36 September 11, 2015
(http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5130/5/16x9/1200.jpg)
FEC officials say Americans will even receive a recuperative 12-month break in between the terms of a reelected president.
WASHINGTON—In an effort to address the frustration, fatigue, and utter despair felt by voters, the Federal Election Commission issued a directive Friday that mandates a break of one full year between each presidential term as a respite for the weary American people.
After enduring a presidential campaign cycle that can exceed two years, as well as ceaseless media coverage of whichever politician is currently occupying the nation’s highest post, citizens become so tired and depressed that, according to FEC officials, a president-free period of 12 months must be built into the calendar so the electorate has sufficient time to recover.
“The complaint we receive most frequently from voters is that they feel completely drained going through presidency after presidency without any kind of break,” said FEC chair Ann M. Ravel, explaining that the ideal for many citizens would be a year’s reprieve from all presidential press conferences, any photograph taken inside or outside the White House, or ever hearing the word “president” spoken aloud. “These off years will allow Americans to rest and regain their bearings before having to endure another four-year cycle of the same old photo ops, talking points, and stalemates with Congress.”
“That’s something that, we believe, everyone who has cast a presidential ballot has earned,” Ravel added.
Because it is too late to spare citizens from the campaign already in progress, government sources confirmed that the first year-long hiatus will take place in the year 2020. At that time, the FEC will ensure the Oval Office remains completely empty and will put a stop to all fundraising, polling, public speeches, reporting, opinion pieces, punditry, direct-mail solicitations, and television ads relating to any president or presidential candidate for 365 consecutive days.
Across the country, beleaguered and despondent Americans voiced their support for the FEC’s decision, saying they have spent their whole lives staring at an unending parade of faces of actual or would-be commanders-in-chief, with nowhere to turn to escape their slogans and carefully manicured personas. Many expressed hope that a year of recuperation will allow them not only to mentally recover somewhat, but also to steel themselves for the four years of State of the Union addresses, executive orders, and general presidential news coverage that will follow.
“Seeing all these TV and newspaper reports about whatever the current president just did or might do, hearing months and months of speculation about whether some guy’s gonna run or not—it will be the most amazing thing in the world to have a break from all that,” Columbus, OH resident Caroline Helling said. “I would love, absolutely love, to stop hearing a candidate’s sound bite on loop in the media, then hearing the other side overreacting and denouncing the sound bite, then seeing all the thinkpieces that come out about the overreaction, then having to go through the same [poop]all over again the next day.”
“It’ll be great to just power through the next few years and make it to this time off,” she continued. “As far as I can see, the only downside is that it’s going to be really hard to go back to having a president after we get a year away from it.”
Kent McNamara, a 52-year-old registered voter from Seattle, told reporters that when the Founding Fathers set forth the powers of the executive branch in Article Two of the Constitution, they never intended for the American presidency to become “this [intercourse gerund]exhausting for everybody.”
“You know, even when I like the president, I still need a break from all the bull[poop]that surrounds him,” McNamara said. “The automatic backlash to everything the president says, the manufactured scandals, the opposition’s refusal to let him accomplish anything worthwhile because they don’t want his party getting credit for it—it’s pretty much just as annoying having a president I like as it is having one I hate.”
“Jeez, maybe one year isn’t enough,” he added.
The FEC confirmed that if the presidential program works well, it plans to reduce the number of days each Congress is in session to five per year, eventually phasing it out altogether.
God, those two Bossmen probably don't do as much harm as Rupert Murdock, but it's not for a lack of trying and loathesome causes/candidates and hundreds of millions invested.
We need to come up with a word for Robber Baron right-of-Hitler openly-corrupt naked-power-in-your-face politics of the Cheney/Murdock/Koch sort that won't make people as mad as when I call them Nazis like they deserve.
Bobby… What's His Name? That Guy Who Hates [Sleezebag]?#.VfLcs55Wdbw.twitter]http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/bobby-what-s-his-name-that-guy-who-hates-[Sleezebag]#.VfLcs55Wdbw.twitter (http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/bobby-what-s-his-name-that-guy-who-hates-[Sleezebag)
Jindal is the saddest Republican.
Splice Today
Noah Berlatsky Sep 11, 2015, 09:48AM
(https://splicetoday.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/posts/photos/18297/large_Screen_Shot_2015-09-11_at_9.54.35_AM.png)
Of all the sad Republican presidential candidates, Bobby Jindal’s the saddest.
Presidential candidates crave attention like flies crave fresh dung. Without news coverage, polls lag, and donors don't even know you exist, much less where to send you money. A presidential candidate without news coverage is nowhere. That's why Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry are nude Jello-wrestling each other for the privilege of standing next to a county clerk. Does either much care if Kim Davis goes to prison for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Of course they don't care. But they know someone is pointing a camera at Davis. They want to be in front of that camera, nude Jello and all.
Obviously, the main person in front of the camera these days is [Sleezebag]. When [Sleezebag] sees a camera a complex scientific process takes place involving the bilious gases in his gut and jowls and he expands and expands. That’s the power of [Sleezebag]. Once his inflated bulk has reached full Trumpness, there’s no room for anyone else to stand anywhere amidst the fumes and bluster. Better to be hit by a tree than befouled by the wake of a reality star.
So, what do you do if you're a piddling little presidential pipsqueak with no gas in your jowls? How can you [Sleezebag] the [Sleezebag]? The answer is clear. All the media cares about is [Sleezebag]. So provide them with [Sleezebag] content. The media will have to pay attention to you then.
The scheme is so obvious it's surprising that all the desperate GOP Lilliputians, from Christie to Kasich to what's-his-name, haven't tried it already. But Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal this week is giving it a go. Jindal’s been paddling around in the bottom bit of the bottom bit of the Republican field; in first debate back in early August, his poor polling relegated him to the second-tier runner up debate, where he was outshone by Carly "never-held-public-office" Fiorina.
So in a desperate bid for relevancy, Jindal’s gone on an anti-[Sleezebag] offensive. In the last 48 hours, he's called [Sleezebag] an "unstable narcissist," and mocked [Sleezebag]'s inability to pick a favorite Bible verse ("[Sleezebag] hasn't read the Bible because he's not in it"). Jindal's campaign manager rather bizarrely said, "Charlie Sheen is clearly Donald [Sleezebag]'s spirit animal," which doesn't make a ton of sense, but sure sounds mean.
I'm all for people elaborately insulting [Sleezebag], and Jindal's gambit seems sound. It's humiliating to sink to schoolyard taunts, but if you had any dignity, you wouldn't be running for president anyway. Jindal's pugnacious piffle is getting a lot of press, and if only [Sleezebag] will respond in kind, the Louisiana governor is in with a chance to get those poll numbers up and sneak into the adult-table debate. You can't blame a guy for trying.
Here's the sad part, though. Check out this Business Insider link about Jindal insulting [Sleezebag]. Notice the headline? It reads, "Rival campaign says Charlie Sheen is Donald [Sleezebag]'s 'spirit animal.'" Or this post from the same publication: "Rival unloads on 'egomaniacal madman' Donald [Sleezebag], says he hasn't read the Bible 'because he's not in it.'"
"Rival campaign." "Rival unloads." Business Insider’s editorial has apparently decided that Jindal is so irrelevant, so unknown, that putting him in the headline would just confuse readers. They know who [Sleezebag] is—and that's all they need to know. Jindal can leap up and down, he can call [Sleezebag] out, and what does he get for his trouble? He gets headlines identifying him only as [Sleezebag]'s "rival." He could be Ted Cruz or Lawrence Lessig for all the newspaper cares.
Other publications have deigned to mention the word "Jindal" in their headlines. And thanks to their generosity, the man may get a polling boost out of this stunt, and good for him. But there's something painfully apropos about those Business Insider stories. Bobby Jindal, governor of a whole honking state, is currently running, not for President of the United States, but for that heady position: Rival to Donald [Sleezebag].
It's not within an order of magnitude ugly enough to begin to reflect their hatefulness.
They support every anti-progress, anti-tolerance, anti-freedom measure you can find out there faintly on the outskirts of the mainstream. Cheney is Cheney. Murdock has made his fortune spreading trash, sleeze and lies, and nothing but. The Koch brothers threatened their employees with massive layoffs if Obama was reelected, which should be a felony. All do everything they can to undermine democracy. They are the enemies of freedom and they are the friends of greed, corruption and coercion.
I think I already answered that in the first sentence quoted, elaborated in the rest.
But look at it this way: Robber Baron is a rather shopworn historical term with virtually zero visceral power left. Nazi or Fascist don't have that problem -and make no mistake; all these fellows are all for the power of the state as long as it doesn't get between them and money, and Cheney in particular did actual entry-level fascism while in power- but Godwin and Vishniac, y'know?
Robber Baron is pretty accurate and covers a lot of it, but rather impotent. I don't want to Break The Roolz of the Innerwebs, and I don't want to be that guy shouting fascist all the time. I'd like to have a happy medium that doesn't set off bullcrap alarms so quickly.
Also, Bill Gates is a Robber Baron
but not a statist. The term completely leaves out that these fellows in question are about money first and last, but thrilled to have their personal values, or at least the values of their followers, legislated as Manditory in between so long as it doesn't conflict with the $Prime Directive$.
Many of the positions not interfering are pretty extreme.
Gates is an overt monopolist, the most central defining characteristic of a Robber Baron when they could manage a monopoly
-That's good communications theory about reviving Robber Baron; words only mean what we think they mean. For that matter, were I a celebrity with widespread influence, or at least mass media access, just trying to append a "fascist-leaning" connotation to "The 1%", almost a contemporary equivalent of Robber Baron, would have promise.
I think that visceral element is crucial, though, to a nobody trying to start something on stupid internet social media and failing to even get any cooperation from liberal friends - one Libertarian so far, and that's it.
-How about dropping the Fascist part and thinking of a something that means Bigots and Tyrants in one instantly-recognizable word? It would leave the nationalism out, but otherwise cover it...
[ninja'd - hold on]
Hey, I should clarify a bit of hyperbole I've indulged in recently. The Democratic party is a sad, sad piece of crap, and I wouldn't really destroy the Republican party if I could snap my fingers and do it that easily. It is the nature of the universe that without opposition, the Democratic party almost instantly becomes The Man, corrupt, horrible, coercive/oppressive and even more appallingly incompetent. I'm from an area solidly Democratic before Reagan, and I know.
I just want to shame and undermine the Bigots and Tyrants, and push that hateful un-American bullcrap completely out of the mainstream conversation, in actual purpose.
And shame and subvert the tens of millions of foolish dupes they've tricked into supporting issues against their own self-interest. That part's super-key; I could never talk Cheney, Murdock or the Kochs into anything, but money isn't real power if you can't buy supporters with it.[ninja'd - hold on]The goal shouldn't be to shame and undermine the bigots and tyrants, but to shame and undermine the aspects of the system that cause corrupt, horrible, and oppressive groups to so easily take power.
Hey, I should clarify a bit of hyperbole I've indulged in recently. The Democratic party is a sad, sad piece of crap, and I wouldn't really destroy the Republican party if I could snap my fingers and do it that easily. It is the nature of the universe that without opposition, the Democratic party almost instantly becomes The Man, corrupt, horrible, coercive/oppressive and even more appallingly incompetent. I'm from an area solidly Democratic before Reagan, and I know.
I just want to shame and undermine the Bigots and Tyrants, and push that hateful un-American bullcrap completely out of the mainstream conversation, in actual purpose.
Multiquoting is great for clarity, but also means instant eye-glazing wall of text, and a lot of extra work on this software. I'll try to at least respond in order.Many of the positions not interfering are pretty extreme.
Not interfering with what?QuoteGates is an overt monopolist, the most central defining characteristic of a Robber Baron when they could manage a monopoly
I don't think so; as I see it, the most central defining characteristic of a robber baron was the lack of morals and corrupt behavior, not the monopolisticness per se.Quote-That's good communications theory about reviving Robber Baron; words only mean what we think they mean. For that matter, were I a celebrity with widespread influence, or at least mass media access, just trying to append a "fascist-leaning" connotation to "The 1%", almost a contemporary equivalent of Robber Baron, would have promise.
But "the 1%" really isn't a contemporary equivalent of "Robber Baron", since by its origin it is clearly based only on how wealthy someone is and not how ethical they are in the pursuit and usage of such wealth. Once you use mathematical terminology, there isn't much room for connotation and spin.QuoteI think that visceral element is crucial, though, to a nobody trying to start something on stupid internet social media and failing to even get any cooperation from liberal friends - one Libertarian so far, and that's it.
I think the visceral element is crucial, but does not have to come directly from your terminology.Quote-How about dropping the Fascist part and thinking of a something that means Bigots and Tyrants in one instantly-recognizable word? It would leave the nationalism out, but otherwise cover it...
It really wouldn't, since the big problem with Cheney and co isn't that they're tyrants (they're pretty low-key as far as tyrants go) or that they're bigots (they're probably just playing to bigots, and even that not all that hard), but that they're crooks and subverting the political system. That's why "robber barons" is so good; it pretty much explicitly says "crooks", and it references the last group to subvert the political system that way.
The thing is, we still have checks on the Federal government (the legislative and judicial branches, regular and mostly open elections). As such, we are, as a nation, in a position to fix the situation in a way that we wouldn’t were this a fascist state. Am I optimistic about this? Not really. But if I say the current situation is tantamount to fascism then I’m altogether discounting the possibility of civic action, which would get me off the hook from doing anything short of fomenting revolution. -See more at: http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/09/superman-on-trial/#comment-197901 (http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/09/superman-on-trial/#comment-197901)
http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2015/09/11/nearly-a-third-of-americans-could-imagine-supporting-the-military-overthrowing-the-federal-govt/
Nearly A Third Of Americans Could Imagine Supporting The Military Overthrowing The Federal Gov’t
For many Americans, a coup in which the military seizes control of the federal government is starting to seem like a refreshing alternative to the existing administration, according to a new poll.
http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2015/09/11/nearly-a-third-of-americans-could-imagine-supporting-the-military-overthrowing-the-federal-govt/
Nearly A Third Of Americans Could Imagine Supporting The Military Overthrowing The Federal Gov’t
For many Americans, a coup in which the military seizes control of the federal government is starting to seem like a refreshing alternative to the existing administration, according to a new poll.
(https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-1/p50x50/10423695_829753723746300_4381716151352311034_n.png?oh=0f53fbf81fc783cae097a8c3bb4c4f11&oe=565E6AEA&__gda__=1453387916_1b022da00d463a0ac7185ff08ff5fe14) Bernie Sanders (https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders?fref=nf);b;
16 hrs ·
I came here today because I believe that it is important for those with different views in our country to engage in civil discourse. It is harder, but not less important, to try and communicate with those who do not agree with us and see where, if possible, we can find common ground.
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/11990524_901191599935845_1833344462520385965_n.jpg?oh=c9187f4333a6e288985ca33a8d806081&oe=56A9557B)
Socialists always rub her the wrong way. She's worried she can't bring herself to vote for anybody.I must agree that I do not want Bush or Clinton as president. The maximum number of presidents with the same last name has historically only totalled two.
I'm thrilled that the next president might not be a Clinton or Bush.
I figure Bernie would get a Republican Congress, and wouldn't be able to do much harm.
Lindsey Graham shines at undercard debatehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/politics/lindsey-graham-republican-debate-performance/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/politics/lindsey-graham-republican-debate-performance/)
CNN
By Manu Raju Updated 9:53 PM ET, Wed September 16, 2015
(CNN)—The Lindsey Graham show turned up in Simi Valley, California, during tonight's CNN Republican presidential debate.
After a flat performance in August at the first GOP debate, the South Carolina senator lit up the crowd at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library during CNN's undercard debate, lashing his opponents with sharp barbs and dropping zingers that brought roars of approval.
"That's the first thing I'm going to do as president: We're going to drink more," he said.
Graham also trashed Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton in eyebrow-raising terms.
"Where the hell were you" during the Benghazi, Libya, attacks, Graham fumed when he was asked about his past praise for Clinton.
The performance quickly earned Graham praise on social media, in much the same way Carly Fiorina impressed the audience during last month's debate.
He was no more charitable with some of his Republican rivals, saying he was "sick of hearing" fellow Sen. Ted Cruz calling for defunding Obamacare while President Barack Obama was in office and certain to veto such legislation.
He ridiculed Donald [Sleezebag] as "a cartoon character" who gets his foreign policy from the Cartoon Network.
And he even took digs -- repeatedly -- at fellow second-tier candidates, including former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.
"I don't remember the Santorum plan when I was in the Senate," Graham said, referring to Santorum's immigration plan.
"We need to win -- we need to win fighting for Americans. We need to win fighting for the workers in this country," said Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator.
"In my world, Hispanics are Americans."
Whether his sharp tongue will help boost his chances is far from certain. But it could give at least a small lift to the South Carolina Republican, who has won three terms in the Senate in no small part due to his folksy campaign style.
Graham, who has championed comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship, brought the crowd to roars when he said: "Strom Thurmond had four kids after age 67. If you're not willing to do that, we need to come up with a new immigration system."
The [Sleezebag] supporters here seem unmoved.
"I wish he wouldn't say crazy stuff, but he's the guy to vote for."
;nutz;
So... if [Sleezebag] gets elected, I am wondering about this wall bettween the US and Mexico. Is this going to be some kind of world wonder? Is it going to have casinos?
Scorecard: How the GOP candidates fared in their 2nd debatehttp://news.yahoo.com/scorecard-gop-candidates-fared-2nd-debate-072543923--election.html (http://news.yahoo.com/scorecard-gop-candidates-fared-2nd-debate-072543923--election.html)
Associated Press
By THOMAS BEAUMONT 6 hours ago
SIMI VALLEY, California (AP) — Here's a look at how the eleven Republican candidates for president participating in the main-event debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Southern California fared on Wednesday night.
____
DONALD [Sleezebag]
The clear target of many of his rivals. Also challenged by the debate's moderators to demonstrate proficiency on foreign policy and national security. Challenged by Carly Fiorina for his recent comments about her appearance, and by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for attributing Bush's support for an immigration overhaul to his wife's Mexican heritage.
____
JEB BUSH
Tried unsuccessfully to elicit apology from [Sleezebag] for comments about his wife. Came on strong toward the end. Won one of the few big applause moments, when he countered a criticism from [Sleezebag] of his brother, former President George W. Bush, with the line: "He kept us safe."
___
CARLY FIORINA
Critical of [Sleezebag]'s business dealings, but got ensnared in a comparison of professional records. In her first prime-time debate, Fiorina stood out, vocally asserting her ideas on foreign policy. Memorably said "women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. [Sleezebag] said," responding to a question about [Sleezebag]'s critique of Fiorina's experience.
___
SCOTT WALKER
Was among several candidates who went after [Sleezebag] early in the debate, attacking him for projects that went into bankruptcy. The attack fell flat amid the vocal back-and-forth between the two. Walker was quiet during much of the second half of the debate, and echoed Marco Rubio during an opportunity to distinguish himself late on climate change.
___
MARCO RUBIO
Largely stayed out of the fray with [Sleezebag]. Demonstrated fluency on foreign and economic policy. Continued to season his comments with his family history as the son of a Cuban immigrant.
___
MIKE HUCKABEE
Hewed close to his social conservative base, stayed away from [Sleezebag] attacks, but also went 45 minutes without being asked a question. Insisted he would require Supreme Court nominees be abortion opponents, and defended the Kentucky county clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples.
___
TED CRUZ
Cruz held close to his tea party base by promising to "rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal," railing against federal funding for Planned Parenthood and calling his support for the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts a mistake in light of his decisions that upheld the 2010 federal health care law.
___
BEN CARSON
The popular retired neurosurgeon notably questioned [Sleezebag]'s assertion that childhood vaccinations were a contributor to autism. He, too, was challenged by moderators to demonstrate foreign policy fluency, but was also notably left out of the questioning about the trustworthiness of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
___
RAND PAUL
Standing at far stage right, Paul had the best line of the night on the Iraq war and the fight against the Islamic State. "If you want boots on the ground, and you want them to be our sons and daughters, you got 14 other choices. There will always be a Bush or Clinton for you, if you want to go back to war in Iraq."
___
JOHN KASICH
Like Rubio, tried to steer clear of [Sleezebag] attacks. Promoted compassion for drug offenders, recommended Mother Teresa be enshrined on U.S. currency and touted and projected a cheerfulness "where everybody's actions make a huge difference in changing the world."
___
CHRIS CHRISTIE
Kept his focus on middle class voters, memorably criticizing Fiorina and [Sleezebag] arguing over the business resumes, saying struggling Americans "could care less." Projected a law-and-order image: the former prosecutor opposed legalizing marijuana when some called it a state issue.
The Republicans will never actually go through with that, you know.Either they start paying attention to their base or they wont get elected. Its why [Sleezebag] is running. Its that simple.
Cheap labor that will do anything, put up with anything, and has no power to resist anything, being a phone call away from jail and a bus trip?What are you kidding? this isn't the 50's. Nowadays they practically throw welfare at them.
Be careful/diplomatic if you choose to discuss this issue...Theres no way to please liberals. They simply don't want to hear it from my experience.
Mentioning liberals
Also, anyone who thinks Mexican are lazy don't know anything about Mexicans. Those people WORK.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/71-of-illegals-with-kids-collect-welfare/
INVASION USA
71% OF ILLEGALS WITH KIDS COLLECT WELFARE
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/why-is-it-that-illegal-aliens-get-free-food-stamps-health-insurance-and-pay-no-taxes/
Why is it that Illegal Aliens Get Free Food Stamps, Health Insurance and Pay No Taxes?
Written by James Hirby | Fact checked by The Law Dictionary staff
Americans who are struggling to survive due to high unemployment and low wages may be asking why illegal aliens receive benefits from state and federal governments. Federal law does prevent illegal aliens from receiving benefits meant for American citizens. The only benefit that illegal aliens are allowed is emergency medical care.
Just because illegal aliens are not legally entitled to these benefits does not mean they do not apply for them. Yes. It is true that illegal aliens have received grants, professional accreditations, loans, WIC, disability, public housing, college educations, food stamps, unemployment benefits, and tax credits from state and federal agencies.
Mentioning liberals in reply to a caution to watch your step on a subject connected to something you'd best avoid is a grave error, young man. Strike one.
Also, anyone who thinks Mexican are lazy don't know anything about Mexicans. Those people WORK.
QuoteMentioning liberals
Like I said liberals just don't want to hear differing opinions.QuoteAlso, anyone who thinks Mexican are lazy don't know anything about Mexicans. Those people WORK.
No they don't they are parasites living off the american taxpayer. Its the reason they come here.Quotehttp://www.wnd.com/2015/08/71-of-illegals-with-kids-collect-welfare/QuoteINVASION USA
71% OF ILLEGALS WITH KIDS COLLECT WELFAREQuotehttp://thelawdictionary.org/article/why-is-it-that-illegal-aliens-get-free-food-stamps-health-insurance-and-pay-no-taxes/QuoteWhy is it that Illegal Aliens Get Free Food Stamps, Health Insurance and Pay No Taxes?
Written by James Hirby | Fact checked by The Law Dictionary staff
Americans who are struggling to survive due to high unemployment and low wages may be asking why illegal aliens receive benefits from state and federal governments. Federal law does prevent illegal aliens from receiving benefits meant for American citizens. The only benefit that illegal aliens are allowed is emergency medical care.
Just because illegal aliens are not legally entitled to these benefits does not mean they do not apply for them. Yes. It is true that illegal aliens have received grants, professional accreditations, loans, WIC, disability, public housing, college educations, food stamps, unemployment benefits, and tax credits from state and federal agencies.
http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
Thirteen years after welfare reform, the share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.
Among the findings:
In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.
Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
She's the only politician I hate. I try to be up front about that.
Listen to/read her statements about her foolish private e-mail account. Mia Culpa? Apologize? Neva! Hedge. Obfuscate. Trivialize. Joke.
Weasel. Weasel. Weasel. The lawyer can't help herself.
She's no Truman Democrat.
And Green - I swear my dog could give the Pig a good fight in the general. People say lots to pollsters 16 months out; when it's time to vote, most want somebody qualified and smart, Cheney's mouthpiece notwithstanding - who wasn't elected anyway. The Bosses want Jeb, besides, Mylochka says, and bets against the backroom boys are for suckers...
Only somewhat, I said, Rusty. I look at the same things, and do see a weasel, but don't feel as strongly about it.
I went from loving her as First Lady -I'm sure you felt otherwise- to hating her as a senator, to thinking she did well with Secretary of State - I think I put a finger on the last nicely at lunch just today; "she was Secretary of State while she was Secretary of State; not running for president."
Now, where I get REALLY down on her is personal loyalty. The Pig might be a better friend to have -I said might- than her and her husband, who have created all their problems with professional Clinton haters by leaving a trail of broken, betrayed 'friends' behind them wherever they've gone for their entire political lives. They'd throw you under a bus soon as look at you. Nixon could have gotten away with everything if he hadn't shown the PERSONALLY admirable quality of loyalty to his people when he found out they'd done a bad thing. Never happen to one of the Clintons - on a personal behavior level, they lose more points with me for that than he does for his inexcusable sexual acting out. They are just no-good trash when it comes to rewarding loyalty with loyalty.
-But on the other hand, she did Nixon one better than the Checkers speech when she put Whitewater to bed as much as ever possible by going into a roomful of reports and answering questions until they ran. out. of. questions.
About. WHITEWATER. I think you have to respect the balls to do that, and the virtuosity to make it work.
I do not like her personally, or her (weasel) style as a candidate - and devoutly wish she would go home. Maybe try to set up as a political kingmaker/consultant grooming people like Elizabeth Warren and keep her hand in, but her mouth and face out. But I'm not completely without respect for her.
And Green - I swear my dog could give the Pig a good fight in the general.
I like Sara Palin's stubbornly proud shrill ignorance and utter lack of qualification or any inclination to EVER learn
I like Sara Palin's stubbornly proud shrill ignorance and utter lack of qualification or any inclination to EVER learn
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com//asset/scalefit_550_400_noupscale/55c50bf31d00002f001443a3.jpeg)
I really try to be a fair person, so I want to say something positive and true about Mrs. Palin: her finest moment, as far as I'm aware, was the vice presidential debate with Biden - when she walked over to greet him at the beginning, looking all tiny and wasp-waisted in her dark dress, BTW, and asked him "Is okay if I call you Joe?" - I don't think she knew the mics would catch that, and it was pure adorable charm and win. She also kinda sorta won that debate, benefitting from very low expectations, by not humiliating herself. She had a good night that night.
(Biden actually has some of the same/simular strengths and weaknesses as Palin, but on an entirely different level as a politician/public servant, and going the distance with him was a real accomplishment.)
I also have to walk back something I said about her the week after the election: "The silly [censored] is already running for president." -Turns out that she didn't really know just what she was running for -running for (the anti) Oprah, if anything- but did figure out at some point that her celebrity was a bully pulpit for her political beliefs, but that she was in way over her head as a candidate/office-holder at any substantial level, or she'd have actually run for some office since. -So, some points for that.
Ohmygod! Like, what?I was thinking about the term "Valley Girls" plus trash except as you might find it in Alaska :) . . .
I assume it's some Alaska reference to the Wasilla area...
Ohmygod! Like, what?
I assume it's some Alaska reference to the Wasilla area...
NeoCons, TheoCons, and CEOConsWe might have ourselves a real winner in that last. ;b;
vonbach- Buncle and I have discussed that before, and have agreed that he's a sell-out, not the man his father was, not the disposition to be president. That's probably why he took a nose-dive in the polls.Ron Paul went to the wailing wall thats enough.
here's what I think of Senator McCain.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/07/21/john-sidney-mccain-iii-patriot-or-trader/
Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is no chance he would have been accepted into the prestigious naval flight training program over far better qualified officers. On his way to becoming a North Vietnamese ace, the aviator lost 3 expensive aircraft on routine, non-combat flights. Little was made of all that, because he was, you know, the son and grandson of admirals.
John McCain’s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies.
Investigators and survivors took the position that John McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany.
John McCain’s 5½-year stay at the Hanoi Hilton (officially Hoa Loa Prison) has ever since been the subject of great controversy. He maintains that he was tortured and otherwise badly mistreated. One of many who disagree is Dennis Johnson, imprisoned at Hanoi and never given treatment for his broken leg.
He reports that every time he saw McCain, who was generally kept segregated, the man was clean-shaven, dressed in fresh clothes, and appeared comfortable among North Vietnamese Army officers. He adds that he frequently heard McCain’s collaborative statements broadcast over the prison’s loud speakers.
On October 26, 1967, John McCain’s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. The fractures of 1 leg and both arms were reportedly due to his failure to tuck them in during ejection. According to U.S. News & World Report (May 14, 1973),
John McCain didn’t wait long before offering military information in return for medical care. While an extraordinary patient at Gi Lam Hospital, he was visited by a number of dignitaries, including, to quote John McCain himself, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the national hero of Dienbienphu.
vonbach- Buncle and I have discussed that before, and have agreed that he's a sell-out, not the man his father was, not the disposition to be president. That's probably why he took a nose-dive in the polls.
I don't think he said the word Israel once all night.
With a field of 14 candidates- wouldn't it be great to have an alternative to NeoCons, TheoCons, and CEOCons?
BTW he's also well known for being a lunatic. Literally insane. As in he starts screaming about nuking Russia
or Iran and throwing fax machines at staffers. He got on air once and started singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
Its the reason he wont ever be allowed to be president.
Its simply too dangerous.
Quotehere's what I think of Senator McCain.
Ah yes songbird McCain. Thats what the vets call him. He should be hung for treason.
Its well known that he cooperated with the enemy at that time.
He was also responsible for the USS Forestall fire that killed 167 people.
He had to be transferred to another ship to avoid getting lynched.
The only reason he wasn't hung is his daddy was an admiral.Quotehttp://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/07/21/john-sidney-mccain-iii-patriot-or-trader/
Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is no chance he would have been accepted into the prestigious naval flight training program over far better qualified officers. On his way to becoming a North Vietnamese ace, the aviator lost 3 expensive aircraft on routine, non-combat flights. Little was made of all that, because he was, you know, the son and grandson of admirals.
John McCain’s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies.
Investigators and survivors took the position that John McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany.
Feel free to hate the guy, but don't blame him for the Forrestal Tragedy.
Perhaps he did this sometime.
http://criminalstate.com/press/Chapter4.pdf
Campaign Staffers Making Progress Conditioning Hillary Clinton To Replicate Emotionshttp://www.theonion.com/article/campaign-staffers-making-progress-conditioning-hil-51320 (http://www.theonion.com/article/campaign-staffers-making-progress-conditioning-hil-51320)
The Onion
NEWS September 16, 2015 Vol 51 Issue 37
(http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5133/5/16x9/1200.jpg)
Staffers test Clinton’s emotional responses by reading through a list of triggering phrases such as “rising unemployment,” “first in their family to graduate college,” and “devastated by a tornado.”
BROOKLYN, NY—After several months of diligent effort, staff members working on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign confirmed Wednesday they have made significant progress in conditioning her to convincingly recreate and convey a limited spectrum of emotions.
According to aides who drill the Democratic frontrunner for several hours each day on her emotional responses to a variety of stimuli, Clinton can now effectively exhibit concern, mild excitement, and incredulity. Intensive training is reportedly still underway on some of the more challenging-to-produce emotions, such as polite interest and personal warmth.
“The headway Hillary has made is really encouraging, especially when you consider what we started with,” said staffer Cheryl Dumás, who later added that when she began working with Clinton, the candidate was only able to fluctuate between stony neutrality and terrifying anger. “We’re very proud that she can now display a virtually indistinguishable facsimile of empathy. It’s the result of a behavioral modification technique in which we rigorously reinforce any approximations of compassion that happen to flash across her face while she listens to the concerns of voters.”
“We’re hopeful that she’ll have a functional range of 11 or even 12 emotions by the time the early primaries roll around,” Dumás added.
In her current program of operant conditioning, Clinton is reportedly shown a series of images—such as a widow crying at her spouse’s funeral, a family opening presents on Christmas morning, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich—designed to induce specific emotional responses, and depending on the appropriateness of her subsequent facial expressions and other body language, she is either rewarded or punished.
Staffers said they began the process by slowly and painstakingly pairing a correct reaction with a correct stimulus. They reportedly first trained the former secretary of state to reproduce a “happy” emotion by repeatedly showing her a photo of a small child playing with a kitten and then rubbing a soft cloth on her face while physically holding her mouth in the shape of a smile until, eventually, she could display a passable simulacrum of joy.
“There are definitely some crossed wires, like how she nods and applauds after hearing the story of a family that lost their home to foreclosure,” campaign consultant Allison Stevens said. “But it’s just a matter of time and patience. When she gets a response wrong, we spritz her in the face with cold water from a spray bottle, and when she gets one right, we let her work on her memoirs for a little bit or call her ‘Madam President’ in soothing tones—she loves that.”
“She also really likes Luna Bars,” Stevens continued. “She’ll do just about anything for a Luna Bar!”
Staff members acknowledged that Clinton would be subject to extremely rapid regression if she were not conditioned with absolute consistency. They told reporters they didn’t want her to go back to the days when people she met on the campaign trail would voice their deepest worries and she would respond to each by loudly stating, “I am feeling empathy toward you.”
“There have definitely been some setbacks,” senior aide Tim Balducci said. “Yesterday, when a reporter asked for her thoughts on the surge in refugees crossing the Mediterranean, she panicked and rapidly cycled through the eight or so responses we’d equipped her with thus far before making a painfully stilted reply. We really hope to get that ironed out before the first debate next month.”
Other campaigns have taken note of Clinton’s progress and implemented similar programs, with Chris Christie’s staffers reporting this week that they have already had some limited success in training the New Jersey governor not to bite people or defecate on the floor.
QuoteCampaign Staffers Making Progress Conditioning Hillary Clinton To Replicate Emotionshttp://www.theonion.com/article/campaign-staffers-making-progress-conditioning-hil-51320 (http://www.theonion.com/article/campaign-staffers-making-progress-conditioning-hil-51320)
The Onion
NEWS September 16, 2015 Vol 51 Issue 37
(http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5133/5/16x9/1200.jpg)
Staffers test Clinton’s emotional responses by reading through a list of triggering phrases such as “rising unemployment,” “first in their family to graduate college,” and “devastated by a tornado.”
BROOKLYN, NY—After several months of diligent effort, staff members working on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign confirmed Wednesday they have made significant progress in conditioning her to convincingly recreate and convey a limited spectrum of emotions.
According to aides who drill the Democratic frontrunner for several hours each day on her emotional responses to a variety of stimuli, Clinton can now effectively exhibit concern, mild excitement, and incredulity. Intensive training is reportedly still underway on some of the more challenging-to-produce emotions, such as polite interest and personal warmth.
“The headway Hillary has made is really encouraging, especially when you consider what we started with,” said staffer Cheryl Dumás, who later added that when she began working with Clinton, the candidate was only able to fluctuate between stony neutrality and terrifying anger. “We’re very proud that she can now display a virtually indistinguishable facsimile of empathy. It’s the result of a behavioral modification technique in which we rigorously reinforce any approximations of compassion that happen to flash across her face while she listens to the concerns of voters.”
“We’re hopeful that she’ll have a functional range of 11 or even 12 emotions by the time the early primaries roll around,” Dumás added.
In her current program of operant conditioning, Clinton is reportedly shown a series of images—such as a widow crying at her spouse’s funeral, a family opening presents on Christmas morning, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich—designed to induce specific emotional responses, and depending on the appropriateness of her subsequent facial expressions and other body language, she is either rewarded or punished.
Staffers said they began the process by slowly and painstakingly pairing a correct reaction with a correct stimulus. They reportedly first trained the former secretary of state to reproduce a “happy” emotion by repeatedly showing her a photo of a small child playing with a kitten and then rubbing a soft cloth on her face while physically holding her mouth in the shape of a smile until, eventually, she could display a passable simulacrum of joy.
“There are definitely some crossed wires, like how she nods and applauds after hearing the story of a family that lost their home to foreclosure,” campaign consultant Allison Stevens said. “But it’s just a matter of time and patience. When she gets a response wrong, we spritz her in the face with cold water from a spray bottle, and when she gets one right, we let her work on her memoirs for a little bit or call her ‘Madam President’ in soothing tones—she loves that.”
“She also really likes Luna Bars,” Stevens continued. “She’ll do just about anything for a Luna Bar!”
Staff members acknowledged that Clinton would be subject to extremely rapid regression if she were not conditioned with absolute consistency. They told reporters they didn’t want her to go back to the days when people she met on the campaign trail would voice their deepest worries and she would respond to each by loudly stating, “I am feeling empathy toward you.”
“There have definitely been some setbacks,” senior aide Tim Balducci said. “Yesterday, when a reporter asked for her thoughts on the surge in refugees crossing the Mediterranean, she panicked and rapidly cycled through the eight or so responses we’d equipped her with thus far before making a painfully stilted reply. We really hope to get that ironed out before the first debate next month.”
Other campaigns have taken note of Clinton’s progress and implemented similar programs, with Chris Christie’s staffers reporting this week that they have already had some limited success in training the New Jersey governor not to bite people or defecate on the floor.
...As in "Hey; let's some of us stop spitting into the wind and stop dividing the has-any-sense vote."..
-Except - if I was advising Christy and actually wanted him to win, I'd tell him to hang in there as long as he can - the Pig seems to be immune to shooting himself in the foot
Christie tells National Guard leader to slim downhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/22/christie-tells-national-guard-leader-to-slim-down/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/22/christie-tells-national-guard-leader-to-slim-down/)
Associated Press Published September 22, 2015
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/christiegeneral2.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Sept. 28, 2014: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, left, and New Jersey Adjutant General Brig. Gen. Michael Cunniff, right, review troops during the New Jersey National Guard's annual Military Review in Sea Girt, N.J. (AP)
TRENTON, N.J. – Gov. Chris Christie wants the leader of New Jersey's National Guard to shape up.
The governor has given Air Force Brig. Gen. Michael Cunniff 90 days to slim down and meet his obligations.
The action comes after Christie's staff told The Washington Post that the governor was unaware the general had been reprimanded by the Pentagon about his weight and for repeatedly dodging physical-fitness tests.
The newspaper obtained the records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Christie declined a request for an interview.
"The Governor has expressed directly to the General that his failure to meet that standard or to provide notification of his formal reprimand is both unacceptable and disappointing," Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said in an emailed statement.
The governor has given Cunniff 90 days to slim down and "meet his obligations," Roberts wrote.
It was not clear how much weight the general must lose. Cunniff took a fitness test in November 2013, his first in more than three years. He flunked when his waist size was measured at 43.5 inches — 4.5 inches larger than what was allowed.
Cunniff declined an interview request. But the National Guard released a statement in which the general acknowledged he failed to meet the Air Force's fitness requirements in recent years.
"Many people struggle with weight control — I am not immune from this," the general said in the statement. "However, I do recognize that military members and leaders, like myself, are held to a higher standard. I take this matter seriously and am taking the necessary steps to remedy this issue," the general said.
Christie, who once called himself "the healthiest fat guy you've ever seen," secretly underwent weight-loss surgery in 2013. A band was surgically placed around his stomach to restrict how much food he could eat.
I've probably not been clear that I think Governor Christie looks pretty good standing in the back of the clown college this cycle...QuoteChristie tells National Guard leader to slim downhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/22/christie-tells-national-guard-leader-to-slim-down/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/22/christie-tells-national-guard-leader-to-slim-down/)
Associated Press Published September 22, 2015
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/christiegeneral2.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Sept. 28, 2014: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, left, and New Jersey Adjutant General Brig. Gen. Michael Cunniff, right, review troops during the New Jersey National Guard's annual Military Review in Sea Girt, N.J. (AP)
TRENTON, N.J. – Gov. Chris Christie wants the leader of New Jersey's National Guard to shape up.
The governor has given Air Force Brig. Gen. Michael Cunniff 90 days to slim down and meet his obligations.
The action comes after Christie's staff told The Washington Post that the governor was unaware the general had been reprimanded by the Pentagon about his weight and for repeatedly dodging physical-fitness tests.
The newspaper obtained the records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Christie declined a request for an interview.
"The Governor has expressed directly to the General that his failure to meet that standard or to provide notification of his formal reprimand is both unacceptable and disappointing," Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said in an emailed statement.
The governor has given Cunniff 90 days to slim down and "meet his obligations," Roberts wrote.
It was not clear how much weight the general must lose. Cunniff took a fitness test in November 2013, his first in more than three years. He flunked when his waist size was measured at 43.5 inches — 4.5 inches larger than what was allowed.
Cunniff declined an interview request. But the National Guard released a statement in which the general acknowledged he failed to meet the Air Force's fitness requirements in recent years.
"Many people struggle with weight control — I am not immune from this," the general said in the statement. "However, I do recognize that military members and leaders, like myself, are held to a higher standard. I take this matter seriously and am taking the necessary steps to remedy this issue," the general said.
Christie, who once called himself "the healthiest fat guy you've ever seen," secretly underwent weight-loss surgery in 2013. A band was surgically placed around his stomach to restrict how much food he could eat.
Do you realize we haven't had a fat president in [rolls eyes up mentally counting] about 80 years? (If you don't count Clinton having a bad month here and there, or Nixon's jowls.)I know that Former President Woodrow Wilson has the most degrees of any president in the history of our country.
We had NOTHING BUT fat presidents from Grant to Hover (with the exception of Wilson - Coolidge is a matter of opinion, I think) for almost 70 years straight...
Religious liberty: Ted Cruz’s conservative ‘rocket fuel’https://www.yahoo.com/politics/religious-liberty-ted-cruzs-conservative-rocket-129941620471.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/religious-liberty-ted-cruzs-conservative-rocket-129941620471.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Jon Ward Senior Political Correspondent September 26, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/1Y0_MLagGQ37.Iufmx9hpQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzYwO2lsPXBsYW5l/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/f0a81c13d49b22edf270d4a514828e29fc42fe14.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks during the Values Voter Summit, held by the Family Research Council Action on Sept. 25 in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana/AP)
To watch Ted Cruz speak at a gathering of religious conservatives in Washington Friday was to more fully grasp why the Republican senator from Texas could win the Iowa caucus next year.
In two words: religious liberty. Cruz has only one rival in the Republican field — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — who raises the issue as aggressively. But between the two of them, Cruz has a reputation as a fighter, having tangled repeatedly with GOP leadership in Congress on a host of issues since he was elected in 2010. And the grassroots wants a brawler.
Iowa conservatives, who make up a large percentage of caucus-goers, care deeply about the escalating fight over how religious liberty will be defined in America. They were galvanized earlier this month by the jailing of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and was held in contempt of court when she forbade other clerks to do so as well.
“It is rocket fuel,” said Bob Vander Plaats, a religious conservative leader from northwest Iowa, who was in D.C. for the annual Values Voter Summit. As Vander Plaats spoke with Yahoo News, Davis herself walked past down a hallway in the Omni Shoreham Hotel, surrounded by an entourage that included two people with small handheld video cameras. Davis, 50, was honored Friday night at the summit with a “Cost of Discipleship Award.”
The two-day Values Voter conference gathered together a number of ordinary Americans who have clashed with gay rights supporters.
Cruz, during a 15-minute speech Friday morning, whipped the audience into a state of nearly constant frenzy. He was most passionate, and the crowd was most exercised, when Cruz said in a thundering voice that he would stand against persecution of people of faith in the U.S.
“The third thing I intend to do on my first day in office is instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS and every other federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today!” he shouted, gesturing vehemently with an index finger pointed down at the ground.
The crowd leapt to its feet and sustained its standing ovation for nearly half a minute. The admiration of the Values Voter attendees for Cruz was most clear in the results of the conference’s straw poll. Cruz won the contest with 35 percent. The closest Republican presidential candidates were retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, with 18 percent, and Huckabee, with 14 percent.
Cruz has sought to appeal to Christian conservatives from the beginning of his presidential campaign. He announced his candidacy at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va, one of the most prominent evangelical colleges in the nation.
The Values Voter Summit, organized by Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council, has been focused on religious freedom for a few years. But the issue has taken on more urgency for religious conservatives after the Supreme Court made gay marriage the law of the land this past summer.
Before the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, there was already a growing list of cases in which Christians had refused to take wedding photographs, bake wedding cakes, or otherwise participate in nuptials involving gay couples. But after Obergefell, county clerks have become the latest battleground, as those who disapprove of gay marriage have refused to issue wedding licenses.
Davis’ is just the most public case, and both Cruz and Huckabee traveled to Kentucky to rally a crowd in her support on the day she was let out of jail. Davis agreed not to prevent other clerks from issuing licenses upon her release.
Incidentally, the Davis case has ended up in exactly the same compromise as conservatives and liberals ended up in Utah, only by a far more contentious route. The legislature in Utah passed a bipartisan law that allows county clerks to opt out of issuing wedding licenses to gays, as long as someone else can be found to perform the duty.
Some conservatives have criticized Davis, saying she went beyond exercising her own rights of conscience when she sought to prevent other clerks from carrying out their lawfully prescribed duties. Many believe she has hurt the cause of religious liberty rather than helping it.
“There was no need for Ms. Davis — or Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Cruz — to elevate this issue into a national fight Christians are destined to lose and, in this case, ought to lose,” wrote Peter Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Institute.
One attendee at the Values Voter conference, Larry Smith, 77, of Newport Beach, Calif., indicated he did not agree with Davis’ attempt to restrain her fellow county clerks from issuing licenses. But he still supported her and viewed the episode as a positive development on the whole.
“She has at least helped us focus on the issue,” Smith said.
Cruz and others like Huckabee know that many evangelicals — whatever their doubts about the details of the Davis case or Davis herself (she has been married four times and divorced three) — view the matter much like Smith does.
These politicians see the Davis case as a way to go on the offense in the debate and, perhaps more importantly, as a way to rally religious conservatives to their presidential candidacies. And this requires that they interpret Davis’ case as the potential fate of every Christian who has moral objections to homosexuality and gay marriage.
“Six months, a year ago, if I had come and said that a Christian woman was going to be thrown in jail, locked up in jail, for living her faith, the media would have dismissed me as ludicrous. That’s where we are,” Cruz said.
Cruz’s adroitness in talking about the fight over religious freedom was in stark contrast to Donald [Sleezebag]’s cluelessness about the matter. During a rambling 20-minute address, [Sleezebag] uttered six words about religious freedom, in what amounted to more of a non sequitur than anything.
“You know, freedom of religion, so important. We just don’t see it. You know, you take a look at a thing like the Iran deal,” [Sleezebag] said, and then digressed into a criticism of the Iran deal, never explaining what the connection was between the two issue.
[Sleezebag] was also loudly booed by the audience when he called Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., “a clown” and criticized his past support for comprehensive immigration reform.
Kim Bengard, 56, of San Clemente, Calif., dismissed [Sleezebag] as a pretender among the Christian conservatives and said he displayed no understanding of the fight over religious freedom.
“[Sleezebag] doesn’t get it. He’s not one of us,” Bengard said. “There wasn’t an excitement. I think the audience was more gracious than he was.”
[Sleezebag] received only 5 percent in the straw poll voting.
If [Sleezebag] loses steam — and while he still leads the field he has lost 6 points in the last week — no one is positioned to benefit more from a loss of support for [Sleezebag] more than Cruz is. Instead of criticizing [Sleezebag], he has aligned himself with the businessman, inviting him to a rally at the Capitol earlier this month to protest President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Both [Sleezebag] and Cruz have taken on Washington and positioned themselves as outsiders. But on religious freedom, the issue that is increasingly important to conservatives, there is a clear contrast between Cruz, the son of an evangelical pastor, and [Sleezebag]. And it’s a mark of Cruz’s orthodoxy as a conservative versus [Sleezebag]’s celebrity-based candidacy.
Cruz “is probably the one most people trust to do what he says he would do,” Vander Plaats said.
Before Cruz addressed the Values Voter audience, he attended a press conference organized by the Liberty Institute, a legal group that has defended Christians involved in legal disputes. The group’s leader, Texas attorney Kelly Shackelford, praised Cruz for being involved in religious liberty cases long before his political career.
“Before Sen. Cruz was ever thinking bout running for office … he was one of the best appellate attorneys in the country, and he was donating his time — literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of time — for religious freedom cases,” Shackelford said, noting their work together on legal proceedings around the case of the Mojave Memorial Cross.
Cruz stood with Navy chaplain Wes Modder, who was recently cleared by Navy Personnel Command in a case where he was accused of misconduct for counseling Marines against premarital sex and homosexuality, and with Liz Loverde, a New Jersey college student who said in 2014 that her high school forbade her to create a Christian club.
“These are real people,” Cruz said at the press conference. He spoke of a recent gathering in Iowa that he attended where a crowd of 2,500 heard from nine other individuals in religious liberty disputes. Cruz said the evidence is clear that Christians are being told they cannot exercise their faith.
“For every sneering media reporter who claims there are no threats, look in the eyes of these heroes, one after another after another, who simply stood for their faith and lost their jobs and faced persecution and faced death threats,” Cruz said.
“These threats are real. They’re growing. And yet we will stand and fight to defend our liberty. And I’ll tell you, the worse it gets the more of an awakening you’ll see,” he said.
Boehner unloads on the ‘false prophets’ in his party that have made his job a nightmarehttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/boehner-unloads-false-prophets-party-160127128.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boehner-unloads-false-prophets-party-160127128.html)
Business Insider
By Maxwell Tani 1 hour ago
(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/D6tOzMfLX768EoCp6_XM2g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Boehner_unloads_on_the_false-bff3611328125e63f24afa73ff0c01ac)
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio defends the work of the GOP during a brief news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 31, 2014 (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) did not attempt to disguise his displeasure with the hardliners in his own caucus that claimed credit for his stunning resignation.
"Face The Nation" host John Dickerson on Sunday asked Boehner about the conservative House coalition with which Boehner was constantly feuding, and whether they had unrealistic expectations.
"Absolutely they're unrealistic!" Boehner blurted. "But the Bible says beware of false prophets. And there are people out there spreading noise about how much can get done."
Boehner proceeded to list some of his accomplishments — including reducing the federal deficit and stopping major proposals to increase taxes. He noted that all were passed "over the last four and a half years with a Democrat president" — and that all were "voted against by my most conservative members because it wasn't good enough."
"Really? This is the part I really don't understand," he said.
One conservative member of Congress, in particular, came into Boehner's crosshairs Sunday — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
When Dickerson asked whether Cruz was a one of the "false prophets" to whom Boehner had referred, the speaker smiled and referred to comments he made at a fundraiser in Colorado earlier this summer. There, he reportedly dismissed Cruz as a "jackass."
Cruz was one of the chief architects of the 2013 government shutdown over the Affordable Care Act, as he lobbied many conservative members of the House to oppose the legislation that funded the federal government. Boehner referred to this effort on Sunday, calling the attempt a "fool's errand." And he suggested those behind it knew they were leading a futile effort.
On Friday, Boehner announced his intention to resign from Congress at the end of October. Though he said he had been planning to step down for quite some time, many saw the timing as a bid to avert another government shutdown.
This time, House conservatives have revolted over funding for Planned Parenthood, which they seeking to defund over a series of undercover videos detailing the organization's involvement in abortion-related fetal tissue research.
Despite his criticism of members of his caucus, the speaker stopped short of labeling his caucus as dysfunctional.
"I wouldn't call it dysfunction," Boehner said. "Disagreement, yes."
Clinton on email controversy: a 'drip, drip, drip' of revelationshttp://news.yahoo.com/clinton-email-controversy-drip-drip-drip-revelations-153829880.html (http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-email-controversy-drip-drip-drip-revelations-153829880.html)
Reuters
By John Whitesides 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Sunday the politically damaging "drip, drip, drip" of revelations about her use of a private email server is out of her control and she is unsure when the controversy might end.
Clinton, who has seen her lead shrivel in the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, said she has tried to be as open as possible and take responsibility for the email flap.
"It is like a drip, drip, drip. That's why I said there is only so much I can control," Clinton told NBC's "Meet the Press."
But asked if she could reassure nervous Democrats that no new email revelations would hit her campaign, she said: "I can't predict to you what the Republicans will come up with, what sort of charges and claims they might make."
Clinton compared criticism about her use of private email instead of a government account while she was secretary of state to the flood of controversies and Republican-led investigations that marked the presidency of her husband Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
"I have been involved from the receiving side in a lot of these accusations," Clinton said. "In fact as you might remember during the 90s there were a bunch of them. All of them turned out to be not true."
Clinton has apologized for the email set-up and said it was a mistake. She gave 55,000 pages of work-related emails to the State Department last year but eliminated about 30,000 emails she said were personal. On Sunday, she said she did not help her lawyers determine which ones to turn over.
"I did not want to be looking over their shoulder," she said, calling accusations she was trying to avoid transparency laws "ridiculous".
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll on Sunday found Clinton's lead over top rival Bernie Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has dwindled to 7 percentage points, 42 percent to 35 percent, amid the controversy.
Asked about the hit in polls, Clinton said "what I have tried to do in explaining this is provide more transparency and more information than anybody I'm aware of who has ever served in government."
The most recent revelation was a report on Friday about an email exchange with former CIA Director, retired Gen. David Petraeus, that she did not turn over, and which occurred before she said she had set up her personal account.
Clinton said the private server was already in her house because her husband had set it up after leaving office, and she just added her account to it.
"What we had available at the time was turned over," she said. "I wasn't that focused on my email server."
(Editing by Andrew Roche)
QuoteClinton on email controversy: a 'drip, drip, drip' of revelations
Reuters
By John Whitesides 2 hours ago
Asked about the hit in polls, Clinton said "what I have tried to do in explaining this is provide more transparency and more information than anybody I'm aware of who has ever served in government."
I have to agree that it's a reaching, non-story of an attack on her...
Has anything good she said ever gotten out? I don't even get the meat of this latest manufactured scandal.QuoteClinton on email controversy: a 'drip, drip, drip' of revelations
Reuters
By John Whitesides 2 hours ago
Asked about the hit in polls, Clinton said "what I have tried to do in explaining this is provide more transparency and more information than anybody I'm aware of who has ever served in government."
I have to agree that it's a reaching, non-story of an attack on her...
...and she doesn't say this braggadociously.
She brought it on herself by dragging her feet, making excuses, nit-picking words, then eventually turning over everything, acting like a lawyer instead of a statesman.
I don't think there's anything criminal at the root of it, although there probably are some unflattering candid glimpses of the Real Hillary saying things like "my boss is a doody head" "Show me a Harvard grad and I'll show you an arrogant ignoramus" "Israel is a pain in my butt" "Why are democratic donors so clingy and stingy?" "if we could only get these indifferent democrats to turn out at the polls like Republicans...", etc. and she doesn't want to shoot her candidacy in the foot with the truth.
Cruz talks about religious freedom when he means Christian supremacy.
If it were a Moslem county clerk denying marriage licenses to couples without beards and head scarves, we'd hear a different story from him.No muslims just set up child sex grooming gangs.
QuoteCruz talks about religious freedom when he means Christian supremacy.
Whats your point? This is a Christian country and it was founded as such.
No you cant have "religious freedom" in this country. Its just a euphemism
for destroying Christianity.QuoteIf it were a Moslem county clerk denying marriage licenses to couples without beards and head scarves, we'd hear a different story from him.No muslims just set up child sex grooming gangs.
I don't think you even show very good understanding of the Bible.Better than you apparently. The Bible is pretty clear on it.
No you cant have "religious freedom" in this country.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."
...QuoteI don't think you even show very good understanding of the Bible.Better than you apparently. The Bible is pretty clear on it.
Has anything good she said ever gotten out? I don't even get the meat of this latest manufactured scandal.
-You KNOW I'm not a fan - I just hold the professional Clinton-haters in even more contempt than the Clintons...
If she has any fans here they've never spoken up, you know.
I'm probably being politically naïve
I'm probably being politically naïve
I'm sure we ALL are guilty of that. I KNOW I am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0The Government Can. I've wanted to post this for awhile.
Its not my fault if you don't want to hear what the Bible says on the subject.
Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humanshttp://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans)
The New Yorker
By Andy Borowitz
(http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Borowitz-Earth-Endangered-by-Fact-Resistant-Humans-690.jpg)
Credit PHOTOGRAPH BY NASA EO/REX/FEATURES VIA AP
MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.
The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.
“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”
More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”
While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information en route from the auditory nerve to the brain. “The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified,” Logsdon said.
While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. “Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.
Actually, the Bible doesn't really say much about gay marriage per se. It says that male homosexuality is sinful, and therefore gay marriage is recognizing sin...but that gets into the question of how secular American law should interact with God's law...
Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1The Bible is pretty clear on it. Sorry felt I had to respond.
Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
The Bible is pretty clear on it. Sorry felt I had to respond.I won't sully the thread by getting deeply into it here. If you want a bible topic, I'm game.
QuoteActually, the Bible doesn't really say much about gay marriage per se. It says that male homosexuality is sinful, and therefore gay marriage is recognizing sin...but that gets into the question of how secular American law should interact with God's law...QuoteLeviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1The Bible is pretty clear on it. Sorry felt I had to respond.
Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
The Bible is pretty clear on it. Sorry felt I had to respond.I won't sully the thread by getting deeply into it here. If you want a bible topic, I'm game.
Fact is, those can be interpretted otherwise. In fact, there is no evidence whether it was considered a moral sin or an unclean act (and there is a BIG difference)
The ones you quote can be read as homosexuality is forbidden, prostitution is forbidden, or as group sex is forbidden, depending on who is translating and the message they want to put forward.
Factual correction; like pneumonia being misnamed because it's the same old monia that been around as long as lungs have, this is not a new strain at all - which is rather embarrassing to still have here in the future.
Are you talking about pneumonia or willful ignorance? :)
QuoteFact is, those can be interpretted otherwise. In fact, there is no evidence whether it was considered a moral sin or an unclean act (and there is a BIG difference)
No, there really isn't, in the Bible. What you characterize as "unclean acts" are also sins. The idea of "moral sin" external to "God said don't do it" is alien to the Bible.
QuoteThe ones you quote can be read as homosexuality is forbidden, prostitution is forbidden, or as group sex is forbidden, depending on who is translating and the message they want to put forward.
If they're translating straightforwardly, though, "male homosexuality is forbidden" is the most obvious meaning.
http://www.giveshare.org/BibleLaw/lawhandbook/index.htmlCertain things aren't supposed to be tolerated and homosexuality is among those things.
I know people that literally have gone back and translated the Bible word for word in the original languages. Heh.
Earning himself the equivalent in two phd s in the process. The Bible is pretty clear on the law and I have a compiled
handbook on it on pdf.Quotehttp://www.giveshare.org/BibleLaw/lawhandbook/index.htmlCertain things aren't supposed to be tolerated and homosexuality is among those things.
As is judging others.Theres a difference between judging and discerning. We are required to discern and carry out the the law.
I don't have to tolerate acts I find religiously offensive in my house or my church. However, I also cannot condemn those that believe differently and act on their beliefs on their own terms.
QuoteAs is judging others.Theres a difference between judging and discerning.
I don't have to tolerate acts I find religiously offensive in my house or my church. However, I also cannot condemn those that believe differently and act on their beliefs on their own terms.
QuoteFact is, those can be interpretted otherwise. In fact, there is no evidence whether it was considered a moral sin or an unclean act (and there is a BIG difference)
No, there really isn't, in the Bible. What you characterize as "unclean acts" are also sins. The idea of "moral sin" external to "God said don't do it" is alien to the Bible.
Many theologians agree the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the hebrew bible, where the scriptures above come from) has two very distinct categories ofsinevil. Uncleanliness/Ritual sin and Moral Sin. If you want me to start listing theologians, I will.
It is unclear which category homosexuality falls under, but is discussed alongside other unclean acts. My point is, if we're going to use the Pentateuch as our guide on homosexuality, why then are we not advocating for the full measure of it to be enforced as well?
If they're translating straightforwardly, though, "male homosexuality is forbidden" is the most obvious meaning.
toeyvah hee
We see above "Abomination" as the translation of Toeyvah.
Yet, elsewhere in the Pentateuch it is used to connote societally unacceptable behavior/a social taboo, and often translated as "offensive". Why the inconsistent translation?
Oh just FYI block hebrew wasn't invented until something like 600 A.D.
Real Hebrew is a very ancient language.
So, what does Silicon Valley think about Carly Fiorina?https://www.yahoo.com/politics/so-what-does-silicon-valley-think-about-carly-164258538.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/so-what-does-silicon-valley-think-about-carly-164258538.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Alyssa Bereznak October 01, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/3BVsVlt9d3h58tdO6OzeEQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/c1fb2b4aa43780f1e67d2d3d96cc4846/tumblr_inline_nvjtj87MKg1qchxpg_1280.jpg)
Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina at TechCrunch’s Disrupt conference in May. (Photo: Andrew Burton/Getty Images).
The San Francisco Bay Area has long been home to legends of failure and redemption, a place where business leaders are often encouraged to flounder before they can truly lead a company to IPO Valhalla. No surprise, then, that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina has taken to comparing herself to greats like Mike Bloomberg and Steve Jobs, both of whom stumbled in their fields before coming back as business-world icons.
Now Fiorina is attempting a similar turnaround in her campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, surging in national polls from the back of the pack to third place — right behind Ben Carson and Donald [Sleezebag] — on the heels of her winning performance in Simi Valley’s GOP primary debate. But scrutiny of her tenure at Hewlett-Packard has soared along with support for her, and critics have come out of the woodwork to ding her Bush-era performance as a Silicon Valley executive and paint her as out of touch.
The Washington Post reminded us that her HP contract included a clause agreeing to ship her 52-foot yacht from the East Coast to San Francisco. Writing in the New York Times, Wall Street executive Steven Rattner asserted that her “lack of public service or sustained business success makes Mrs. Fiorina unqualified for the nation’s highest office.” In Politico, Yale management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld described her as “one of the worst technology CEOs in history.”
The Valley is also raising questions about the relevance of her résumé in today’s startup-centric technology world, even as it’s become clear that she has a unique opportunity to become its biggest advocate in the campaign.
According to Julie Samuels, executive director of the San Francisco-based policy and tech group Engine, local technologists are hungry for a politician who understands the inner workings of the tech industry and can offer smart solutions to net neutrality, patent reform, immigration for skilled workers and business regulation.
But Fiorina — along with the rest of the GOP field — so far has disappointed startup owners by failing to vigorously address these topics.
“We haven’t seen a candidate from either party really resonate yet with the startup community,” Samuels told Yahoo News. “No one has really come in with big ideas to fix these big problems.”
In what little Fiorina has said about these issues, her opinions have not always been celebrated in the Valley. In May, during an interview at TechCrunch Disrupt, she vowed that as president she would “roll back” the new rules on net neutrality, despite the fact that FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s decision to block an Internet fast lane was widely popular within the tech community. In a 2014 piece in Forbes, she came out against patent reform, another issue for which many people in Silicon Valley are fighting. Fiorina has also taken a hardline stance on illegal immigration — without explaining how she would fix the complex visa application system that has kept tech companies from hiring much-needed high-skilled workers in the past.
Nor has she detailed plans on how to help a sector that entrepreneurs often complain is hindered by bureaucratic paperwork and unnecessary labor regulations.
As a result, many startup workers — who, according to Samuels, tend to have a libertarian mindset — have felt overlooked during the primary contest thus far. Garrett Johnson, a co-founder of the Republican policy and tech group Lincoln Labs, has hosted candidates like Fiorina, Rand Paul and Jeb Bush at events in the past, but says he still hasn’t heard many candidates speak directly to the problems affecting him and his fellow entrepreneurs.
“The last debate could’ve happened in the 1990s and no one would’ve known the difference,” Johnson told Yahoo News. “There was very little mention, if any, of the 21st century Internet economy.”
Without a comprehensive pitch for how to improve Silicon Valley, Fiorina’s tech experience has little relevance to workers who see her old firm as a relic of the past and revere the founders of today’s disruptive breakout companies, such as Evan Spiegel of Snapchat and Travis Kalanick of Uber.
“HP is an old, stale company,” Johnson said. “Silicon Valley is really focused on what’s hot and what’s next. I don’t think that she’s going to have a lot of street cred today because she was the CEO of HP in the late ’90s, early 2000s.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/6HwGDI2ClFu3eZkLpGK7Kg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/ec0bf0134661085a75aee534de0ae1b8/tumblr_inline_nvjtisSVFh1qchxpg_1280.jpg)
Fiorina rang a bell to virtually open the New York Stock Exchange from HP’s headquarters in 2002. (Photo: Chris Preovolos/AP Photo).
Fiorina’s experience as a technology-world leader may be a distant memory for many of the Bay Area’s best and brightest, but advocacy groups nonetheless hold out hope that she’ll recognize that speaking about issues affecting the tech community could earn her a long-term advantage over her competitors.
“A politician would be very smart on the Republican side to talk about what they could do for startups and entrepreneurs,” said Rich Tafel, the founder of the public policy training group The Public Squared and the gay conservative group Log Cabin Republicans. “They’re sort of struck by her silence on it.”
Reached for comment, Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager Sarah Isgur Flores defended her candidate’s dedication to small businesses.
“Carly has a track record of challenging the status quo and will continue to be a vocal opponent of crony capitalism that crushes the entrepreneurs and small and community businesses that create two-thirds of the new jobs in this country,” she said.
Though Fiorina’s performances in the last two debates have showcased her skill at telling her story, making a case and selling it, her time at HP has left her with an unfavorable reputation in the Valley that she’ll need to overcome if she wants to become its standard-bearer, according to Vivek Wadhwa, co-author of the book “Innovating Women,” a collection of essays on women’s rising role in the tech industry.
“When I was interviewing women and researching who to feature in my book, I was surprised at the negativity that everyone expressed about her,” Wadhwa told Yahoo News.
Tafel credits that feedback to irritation that Fiorina has made herself out to be a business-world leader. Despite her comparisons, her professional path hasn’t been like that of local legend Jobs, as she was never asked to return to the helm of a company and hasn’t held a major role in the tech industry since 2005.
“She wasn’t a great business leader, and the fact that she’s running on that bothers them,” Tafel said. “It’s one thing to not do great in a tech company; it’s another thing to say that’s your bragging point.”
Thus far, Fiorina’s strategy for the primary race has been to appeal to a deeply conservative base, especially social conservatives, while emphasizing her list of accomplishments as a business leader.
But Silicon Valley’s tech employees remain hopeful that when the time comes for her to differentiate herself from the pack, she’ll apply her knowledge as a tech CEO to address real problems plaguing their community.
“If she fails to make that connection and tell that story, it’s a disservice to her campaign,” Johnson said.
HP Employees Won’t Give Carly Fiorina a Dimehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/30/hp-employees-won-t-give-carly-fiorina-a-dime.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/30/hp-employees-won-t-give-carly-fiorina-a-dime.html)
The Daily Beast
Patricia Murphy09.30.158:55 PM ET
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/09/30/hp-employees-won-t-give-carly-fiorina-a-dime/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/48123303.cached.jpg)
John G. Mabanglo/AFP/Getty
Out of the thousands of people she worked with, why are only two giving Fiorina a reportable amount of cash?
The employees at Hewlett-Packard, where Carly Fiorina was CEO for six years, don’t seem interested in seeing their old boss become commander-in-chief.
Of the 302,000 employees at the company, not one has given a reportable amount to help Fiorina fund her 2016 presidential campaign, according to the campaign’s most recent FEC filings, which lists all donations over $200. HP’s corporate leadership also doesn’t seem keen on the idea of Fiorina in the White House. Among the 12-member board of directors, just one, Ann Livermore, has given a donation above that threshold.
Also missing from the donor list are current CEO (and former GOP gubernatorial candidate) Meg Whitman, any members of the senior leadership team, and all but one member of the HP Board during Fiorina’s tenure there from 1999 to 2005. Tom Perkins, a venture capitalist and former board member who voted to fire Fiorina in 2005, has since had a change of heart and donated $25,000 to CARLY for America, the super PAC supporting her.
The lack of early financial support from almost anyone associated with Hewlett-Packard is hard to square with Fiorina’s own description of her achievements there. While she acknowledges the “tough choices” she had to make as CEO, Fiorina aggressively defends her six-year run as a time when she transformed the company from an aging dinosaur into a market leader.
“We doubled the size of the company,” she told the audience at the recent CNN debate. “We quadrupled its topline growth rate. We quadrupled its cash flow. We tripled its rate of innovation.”
But Fiorina failed to explain during the debate that the company doubled in size because she pushed HP to merge with Compaq in 2001. That merger led to a company with two times the revenue, but only half of the value.
Fiorina also laid off 30,000 HP employees, moved thousands of jobs to China and India, and was fired by the board after a period so tumultuous that some disgruntled employees continue to refer to her as “Chainsaw Carly” or “Carly Failorina.” Her severance package was worth an estimated $42 million.
Interviews with HP employees during and after Fiorina’s leadership reveal a deep and simmering well of discontent 10 years after she left the company.
Dean Soderstrom, a sales operations manager at HP from 1999 until his retirement in 2015, said he saw feelings for Fiorina among rank-and-file employees sour quickly after she took over.
“Right from the get-go with Carly, it seemed like it was a two-class company. It was her and the rest of us,” Soderstrom said. “Many of her employees were very disenchanted by her. When she was let go, I think for the right reasons, there was a lot of singing ‘Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead.’”
To Soderstrom’s point, Fiorina’s first year at HP not only included an immediate overhaul of the company’s famous corporate culture, widely known in Silicon Valley as “the HP Way,” but also instant celebrity status for Fiorina, who was the first woman to lead a Fortune 20 company. She appeared on the cover of more than 40 magazine covers in her first year, had her portrait hung in the company’s Palo Alto lobby next to the founders, and bought a Gulfstream IV for her travels. The previous CEO, Lewis Platt, famously flew coach.
“I don’t care if she’s a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. I would not support her for president,” Soderstrom said. “I would not give her two cents.”
Another former employee, who is now a CEO in Silicon Valley, and did not want his name used, said he would never consider supporting Fiorina for president and knows of none of his former co-workers who would. “My thoughts are no employee would donate to her campaign, ever,” he said. “She is a terrible leader, really, really bad. As bad as they come.”
A current employee, who also asked that his name not be used, said he felt HP never recovered from the changes Fiorina made. “HP is still not a happy place to work. It’s pretty much been a disaster for years, but I think Carly set the tone.” The company recently announced another round of 30,000 layoffs and a restructuring that will split the massive company into two smaller units.
Peter Burrows, the author of Backfire: Carly Fiorina’s Battle for the Soul of Hewlett-Packard, who covered Fiorina’s tenure at HP and remains in touch with current employees, said Fiorina started at HP with high hopes among staff that she would change the company, making it more relevant and nimble. Instead, she became the symbol of its demise.
“Everybody at HP knew the company needed to change and she sounded like she had the answers,” Burrows said. “That faded pretty quickly because it became clear that it was not translating into action and it began to seem empty.”
As her time at the company went on, the company’s performance sank, and layoffs were implemented, Burrows said people inside HP and throughout Silicon Valley began to put the blame for the company’s failures on the once high-flying Fiorina, an opinion that persists to this day.
“Most people think that she did not improve the company, that she made the company the company weaker, that she tore away some of its strengths,” Burrows said. “She had a small but incredibly loyal core group around her, but she lost the vast majority of employees.”
The Fiorina campaign did not respond to several requests for comment on this article.
I did recall, after posting that, seeing a story last year about him losing control of some or all of his prominent Atlantic City businesses and being mad his name was still on them while they were crumbling/miss-run/going under. -So he's at least done some major ventures as partnerships or something.
For the rest - seemed obvious. Fox does a lot of people's thinking for them. He's not a real candidate. I'd hate to back my assertion with my life -which is what it might come to if I'm wrong; the stakes are the highest possible- that too much power and money is against him even on 'his own side' for him to win --- but Oh. MY. GOD. I hope I'm right.
If he comes to an understanding with the Kochs and Murdock when all their preferences give up, we are all in (this-will-be-the-finger-on-The-Button-and-I've-read-The Dead Zone) trouble.
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
[Sleezebag] has discovered one thing all the other politicians have forgotten.
The common folk all the others ignore. And its probably going to see him
get to the white house. :D
I will admit I am truly enjoying the [Sleezebag] steamroll. The more they attack the more they try to ignore him the
stronger he gets. ;lol
Not so clear...if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, he can fight [Sleezebag] on the "common folk" ground...
The last two polls have him getting stronger, then weaker. I suspect one of them is wrong.
A Conundrum for Jeb Bush: How to Use George W.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/us/politics/a-struggling-jeb-bush-may-lean-on-george-w-in-south-carolina.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/us/politics/a-struggling-jeb-bush-may-lean-on-george-w-in-south-carolina.html?_r=0)
The New York Times
By JONATHAN MARTIN and MATT FLEGENHEIMER OCT. 4, 2015
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/05/us/05bush-web01/05bush-web01-master675.jpg)
Jeb Bush spoke with a reporter at Rice Energy in Canonsburg, Pa., last week. The question of how to use the candidate’s older brother, George W. Bush, is an agonizing one for the campaign. Credit Jeff Swensen for The New York Times
GREENVILLE, S.C. — With Jeb Bush struggling to connect with some Republican activists, his campaign has begun exploring whether to bring in the person it thinks may be best equipped to give him a boost with skeptical conservatives: his brother George W. Bush.
The 43rd president is a very popular figure among Republican voters and could deliver a needed jolt to his brother’s sluggish campaign.
Advisers to Jeb Bush in this crucial early primary state have asked national campaign officials in recent weeks to send in George Bush, 69, who so far has appeared only at private fund-raisers, to vouch for his younger brother on the campaign trail.
The request for reinforcement underlines the growing urgency that backers of Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, feel as other candidates vault ahead of him by stirring the passions of the party’s base.
But the question of how to use the candidate’s older brother is an agonizing one for the campaign. While dispatching George Bush to a state like South Carolina could shore up his brother’s standing with conservatives, and remind voters there of a political family they still admire, it could also underscore the impression that Jeb Bush is simply a legacy candidate at a time when voters are itching for change.
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/05/us/05bush-web02/05bush-web02-articleLarge.jpg)
George W. Bush, center, campaigned with his father, George Bush, in New Hampshire in 2000. The younger former president has so far only appeared at private fund-raisers for Jeb Bush. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
What is more, given the former president’s unpopularity among many in the broader electorate, joint appearances by the brothers could provide irresistible footage for Democratic attacks against Jeb Bush if he wins the Republican nomination. The continued instability in the Middle East, in particular, could remind voters of George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and make joint images of the Bush brothers potent fodder for the opposition.
“It may ruin the race for him down the line, but it could win the race here,” said Katon Dawson, a former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party.
Still, in this heavily conservative state, which delivered crucial primary wins both to George W. Bush and to his father, the first President George Bush, there is a growing view that Jeb Bush needs to embrace his older brother.
“I do think he’s an asset, and we need him down here — and Barbara, too,” said Sally Atwater, a Republican activist here, referring to the brothers’ mother.
Ms. Atwater, the widow of Lee Atwater, a strategist for the first President Bush, added of the family: “Folks have a relationship with these people already. That’s important. And you need to play off of that.”
Tim Miller, Jeb Bush’s communications director, suggested that the campaign was open to having George Bush appear at rallies for his brother before the state’s primary in February.
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/05/us/05bush-JP/05bush-JP-articleLarge.jpg)
Jeb Bush reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at a campaign stop in Bedford, N.H. His brother is seen as an asset in South Carolina. Credit Brian Snyder/Reuters
“To the extent it makes sense on the campaign, we’re going to be happy to have his support, and I know President Bush is willing to help,” Mr. Miller said. “Jeb is running on his record, but there is obviously tremendous respect for and good will toward President Bush in the party and beyond thanks to his leadership in a time of crisis for this country.”
As for the danger of the former president’s undermining his brother’s prospects in a general election, supporters of Jeb Bush believe the Democrats will try to link the two regardless of whether George Bush engages more in the contest.
Even before he announced his candidacy, Jeb Bush wrestled with how much, or how little, to tie himself to his family. He has gone to great lengths to emphasize his own life story and becomes testy when asked about how he differs from his brother, asking voters or reporters if they are precise replicas of their siblings. But he has relied on his family’s fund-raising network to outpace the rest of the Republican field and delivered perhaps his most forceful moment of the debate last month when he defended his brother’s record on terrorism after Donald J. [Sleezebag] ridiculed the former president.
Well before that exchange, some of the former governor’s allies here were pushing for the campaign to make use of George Bush.
Barry Wynn, Jeb Bush’s state co-chairman and a major donor, said he had made two suggestions over the summer to campaign officials about whom to send to Columbia to file the paperwork to be on South Carolina’s primary ballot — a campaign ritual and photo opportunity that is widely covered in local newspapers and political websites.
“I said our first choice is Barbara and our second choice is George W.,” Mr. Wynn recalled. “There’s no question that George W. is probably as popular here as anywhere outside of Texas.”
Jeb Bush’s campaign instead sent his son George P. Bush, who last year was elected to statewide office in Texas.
There has been no recent public polling here measuring George Bush’s standing, but multiple Republicans who have seen private survey data indicate that he is broadly popular among potential South Carolina primary voters. And a New York Times/CBS News survey in May found that, nationally, 71 percent of Republicans had a favorable view of the former president and only 10 percent said they viewed him unfavorably.
At times on the campaign trail, Jeb Bush has acknowledged his predicament. Speaking to voters in New Hampshire last month, he suggested that despite his years in government, he was known widely only because of his last name.
“Around the country they know me as George’s boy and George’s brother, right?” he said. “I’m proud of my family, but I’m not going to get elected by being the third Bush running for president. I got that. I’ve got enough self-awareness to know that that’s the case. I’ve got to go earn it.”
Some of Jeb Bush’s allies are keenly aware of the delicate balance required. Al Cardenas, a longtime Florida Republican Party leader and friend of his, said it was “never a ‘win’ situation” when Jeb Bush was asked about his family.
“Every time you have to face questions about your family’s performance, in some way it interrupts the journey of making sure that your own identity has clarity,” he said.
Jeb Bush has offered mild criticism of his brother’s administration at times. But it is not a role he seems to relish, as was demonstrated when he struggled over the summer to answer questions about whether he would have invaded Iraq, a decision that still weighs down the former president with many voters. The former Florida governor recognizes, however, that for political and symbolic purposes he must create space with his brother.
“My brother didn’t veto bills that he could have vetoed to send a signal that government needs to be reined in,” Mr. Bush said last week in New Hampshire. “Part of that related to the efforts to fight — you know, create the homeland security efforts and to fight the wars and all this. He needed the support to maintain that.”
Jeb Bush’s quandary is reminiscent of the one his brother faced in the 2000 Republican presidential primary. George Bush wanted to prove that he was his own man and, to conservatives, not a replica of his father, who increased taxes and faced a primary challenge from the right in his 1992 re-election bid. But then, as now, there was also considerable good will in Republican ranks toward the Bushes after eight years of having a Democrat in the White House.
“It was an argument we had internally,” recalled Thomas D. Rath, a New Hampshire Republican who supported George Bush in 2000. “We finally decided that if we’re going to pay a price for it with some voters anyway, we may as well get something out of it.”
So the campaign brought George Bush’s parents to a rally in New Hampshire on the Saturday before the state’s primary, and the 41st president said with evident emotion: “This boy — this son of ours — is not going to let you down.”
George Bush was trounced a few days later in the primary for reasons unrelated to that last-minute appearance, but the dynastic overtones were worrisome enough that his parents were largely unseen again until the general election.
But Jeb Bush is not as popular now as his older brother was then among Republican primary voters, and he may not be able to win over conservatives on his own. The question is whether George Bush’s popularity is transferable and if a party that seems hungry for change will respond favorably to a reminder of old family ties.
“They’re probably as fine a people as any on earth,” said Henry McMaster, the lieutenant governor of South Carolina, of the extended Bush clan. “But a lot of folks are in a different mood right now.”
Do a hitch in either house of congress for minimum qualification, Jeb, and we'll talk.
With that definition of "qualification," where would Arnold Schwarzenegger rank?Do a hitch in either house of congress for minimum qualification, Jeb, and we'll talk.
To me, being a governor of a larger state is a better qualification than congressman.
I will admit I am truly enjoying the [Sleezebag] steamroll. The more they attack the more they try to ignore him the
stronger he gets. ;lol
You may well be right, but that remains to be seen.
The last two polls have him getting stronger, then weaker. I suspect one of them is wrong.
The stronger poll of 32%-5.1% = 26.9% is slightly below his current 30 day average of 27.53%
The weaker poll of 17%+5.0% = 22%, well below.
Now it could be that the 17% result is so erroneous that it skews the 30 day average.
Or it could be that people are flipping from [Sleezebag] to Carson on the basis of Carson's remarks about Muslims being unqualified to be president. If wild remarks can work for [Sleezebag], why not for Carson, too?
Me, I'd like to wait for another poll to confirm a trend one way or another.
Even so, becoming president is not exactly a national popularity contest. It's also a matter of fund-raising, strategic planning, and organizing. First you have to get the nomination, then you have to win the electoral college. If it were easy, everybody would do it.
Well, it appears that the steamroller is gathering steam, as vonboch said. The IBT/TIPP poll is at odds with the Gravis marketing poll from the same day. It looks like a fluke. The other poll follows the trend. http://election-polls.org/?order=30day#polls (http://election-polls.org/?order=30day#polls)
Gravis- [Sleezebag] 34.7% Carson 17.2%
IBD- [Sleezebag] 17% Carson 24%
30 Day avg.- [Sleezebag] 27.78% Carson 16.66%
QuoteWell, it appears that the steamroller is gathering steam, as vonboch said. The IBT/TIPP poll is at odds with the Gravis marketing poll from the same day. It looks like a fluke. The other poll follows the trend. http://election-polls.org/?order=30day#polls (http://election-polls.org/?order=30day#polls)
Gravis- [Sleezebag] 34.7% Carson 17.2%
IBD- [Sleezebag] 17% Carson 24%
30 Day avg.- [Sleezebag] 27.78% Carson 16.66%
Every time I hear politics being discussed people are talking about [Sleezebag].
Not in a bad way either. He's basically saying what most ordinary Americans
have wanted for years. Someone summed up his tax plan as
"He likes money and wants you to have more of it." The only thing that will stop a
[Sleezebag] presidency is massive obvious vote fraud or an assassins bullet.
He is appealing to the drones who secretly want to be like him talking from the hip and a disdain for immigrants and militant 3rd wave feminism/ political "correctness".This is the attitude thats causing the backlash. People aren't drones and we aren't cattle either.
Sad we will not get someone a bit more progressive and socialist in.Progressing towards what? This country cant survive more progressives.
Why should we the people not create a new government that fufills the needs of the majority rather than the financial and political elite? Why should the common people continue to endure a system that leaves them impoverished with few opportunties toward improvement? Why should we the people continue to tolerate a system that has become bloated with bureaucracy and excessive interference in meeting the demands of the people? Where do we the people obtain the criteria by which it becomes acceptable of groups in our society to say, "We believe the harm done by our government towards it people has become unbearable"? When do we the people rise up against the harm and the despotic nature of our government?QuoteHe is appealing to the drones who secretly want to be like him talking from the hip and a disdain for immigrants and militant 3rd wave feminism/ political "correctness".This is the attitude thats causing the backlash. People aren't drones and we aren't cattle either.
After a bit the arrogance gets a bit old and people are well past sick of it. We've been ignored for far too long.
Or told to shut up and deal with it. Whats going on is were taking our country back.QuoteSad we will not get someone a bit more progressive and socialist in.Progressing towards what? This country cant survive more progressives.
The present country we live in was founded upon the principles of revolution. In 1775 the U.S. colonies began a revolution to overthrow the reins of British control. This revolutionary action allowed our present country to come into existence and set a precedence that people can overthrow corrupt governments with sufficient might. With the fact that our government has the potential to reform itself through revolution, the above rhetorical questions raise several points that require analysis.Why should we the people not create a new government that fufills the needs of the majority rather than the financial and political elite? Why should the common people continue to endure a system that leaves them impoverished with few opportunties toward improvement? Why should we the people continue to tolerate a system that has become bloated with bureaucracy and excessive interference in meeting the demands of the people? Where do we the people obtain the criteria by which it becomes acceptable of groups in our society to say, "We believe the harm done by our government towards it people has become unbearable"? When do we the people rise up against the harm and the despotic nature of our government?QuoteHe is appealing to the drones who secretly want to be like him talking from the hip and a disdain for immigrants and militant 3rd wave feminism/ political "correctness".This is the attitude thats causing the backlash. People aren't drones and we aren't cattle either.
After a bit the arrogance gets a bit old and people are well past sick of it. We've been ignored for far too long.
Or told to shut up and deal with it. Whats going on is were taking our country back.QuoteSad we will not get someone a bit more progressive and socialist in.Progressing towards what? This country cant survive more progressives.
Why should we the people not create a new government that fufills the needs of the majority rather than the financial and political elite? Why should the common people continue to endure a system that leaves them impoverished with few opportunties toward improvement? Why should we the people continue to tolerate a system that has become bloated with bureaucracy and excessive interference in meeting the demands of the people? Where do we the people obtain the criteria by which it becomes acceptable of groups in our society to say, "We believe the harm done by our government towards it people has become unbearable"? When do we the people rise up against the harm and the despotic nature of our government?QuoteHe is appealing to the drones who secretly want to be like him talking from the hip and a disdain for immigrants and militant 3rd wave feminism/ political "correctness".This is the attitude thats causing the backlash. People aren't drones and we aren't cattle either.
After a bit the arrogance gets a bit old and people are well past sick of it. We've been ignored for far too long.
Or told to shut up and deal with it. Whats going on is were taking our country back.QuoteSad we will not get someone a bit more progressive and socialist in.Progressing towards what? This country cant survive more progressives.
I suspect vonbach agrees 100%, and the only question is whether the progressives are trying to solve the problem, or contributing to or causing it (or both).
Why should we the people not create a new government that fufills the needs of the majority rather than the financial and political elite?
That means it will require either the support of a strong minority or the support of a majority of people within our society to achieve this goal.
Hillary Clinton and her rivals all want the same thing tonight at the Democratic debatehttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-and-her-rivals-all-want-the-same-204126385.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-and-her-rivals-all-want-the-same-204126385.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Hunter Walker October 13, 2015
LAS VEGAS – All the Democrats — including Hillary Clinton — who will be on stage for their first 2016 presidential primary debate Tuesday night say they want to introduce themselves to American voters.
Clinton is a former first lady, senator and secretary of state. She’s also the current frontrunner in the Democratic presidential field. Still, her campaign thinks people aren’t necessarily familiar with the platform she’s running on.
“We think it’s a great opportunity for Hillary because she has laid out a very detailed progressive policy agenda over the course of this campaign,” Clinton campaign spokeswoman Christina Reynolds told Yahoo News on Tuesday afternoon. “She’s laid out her vision for America, she’s talked about what she believes is the fundamental challenge facing the next president and what are the challenges that … keep families up at night. She’s talked about what she would do to solve them. Now, if you’re not a voter in one of the early states, you may have missed some of that.”
Reynolds went on to explain how people may have “missed” the Clinton agenda.
“You may not have been paying attention yet or, you know, the news has been caught up in political clutter,” Reynolds said. “So this is really an opportunity for millions of people to hear for the first time who she’s going to fight for and what she’s going to do as president.”
Since Clinton launched her campaign in April, her team has sought to brand her as a “champion for everyday Americans,” specifically families. In the intervening months, the headlines have been dominated by stories about the questions relating to Clinton’s use of a private email server while she led the State Department and other campaign intrigue. Reynolds suggested the debate will be a chance for Clinton to have a more policy-focused discussion, including highlighting her past record.
“I think this will be an opportunity to remind people that she has spent her career fighting for children and families,” Reynolds said.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/d0xwZyOSDcBYNoqxs8scYw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/7907f354a2d9605db9876d9e706f37b7/tumblr_inline_nw6g9qPyM61tedrp5_1280.jpg)
Hillary Clinton arrives at a labor rally in Las Vegas on Monday. (Photo: John Locher/AP)
Given Clinton’s high profile, her campaign’s claim they want to familiarize people with her more at the debate might seem surprising. However, it’s obvious her lesser-known rivals need to make an introduction if they hope to catch up to her in the polls.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is Clinton’s top opponent. He has surged in state and national polling, and even managed to edge past Clinton in New Hampshire, but his press secretary, Symone Sanders (no relation), told Yahoo News that “his name ID is still a little low in a lot of communities.”
“We are looking forward to the debate tonight. It is an opportunity for the senator to introduce himself to the American people,” Symone said, adding, “Tonight, this is a chance for the senator to go out on that stage and be Bernie Sanders and let America know who Bernie Sanders is and what he stands for. And we believe that, once America gets to know Bernie Sanders, they’re going to love him and they’re going to want to vote for him.”
Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and two ex-governors, Maryland’s Martin O’Malley and Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee, are bringing up the rear in the polls — far behind Clinton and Sanders. They all clearly need to introduce themselves to voters too. The Webb and Chafee campaigns did not respond to requests for comment from Yahoo ahead of the debate, but O’Malley press secretary Haley Morris confirmed the former executive’s team wants people to “get to know the governor.”
“It will be the introduction where he can introduce his record of getting progressive results in Maryland and also make his case for his … bold and progressive vision of the progressive goals that he’s set for the country,” Morris said, adding, “When you go through the priorities for the Democratic Party, whether that’s raising the minimum wage, or tackling climate change, or, you know, taking action to fix our inhumane immigration system, these are all examples where the governor can say, ‘I don’t just hold these progressive principles, but I know what it takes as a leader, as someone with 15 years of executive experience, I know what it takes to forge consensus and get that done.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/2cC_oD79E_yEEcAUr3Wu.w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://36.media.tumblr.com/0cf8163c987d73382f4e3e4b65380683/tumblr_inline_nw6gdiMr6T1tedrp5_1280.jpg)
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Public Policy Conference in Washington earlier this month. (Photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP)
Morris said O’Malley has been laying “groundwork” in the early states and, now that he’s getting in front of a national audience, “the fight is just getting started.”
Still, for now, the spotlight is clearly on Clinton and Sanders. As they both hope to introduce themselves and their platforms, one of the major questions is whether Sanders, who has thus far refrained from attacking Clinton, will go on the offensive. His press secretary, Symone Sanders, said that, like Clinton, he wants to focus on policy.
“You’re not going to see much of a change because, you know, we’re going to give you quintessential Bernie Sanders,” Symone said. “Bernie has never ran a negative attack ad in his life, and we’re not going to start tonight on the debate stage. What we are going to do is we’re going to differentiate on the issues so Bernie can tell the American people where he stands.”
Symone said she expects Sanders to focus on what has long been his main theme — the fight against income inequality — as well as climate change.
“Bernie is speaking to the life-and-death issues that everyday Americans are dealing with,” said Symone. “These are the conversations that people are having at their dinner tables, the things that folks are talking about with their friends. These are the issues that, quote unquote, keep them up at night.”
How a team of Obama veterans helped Bernie Sanders pull in a record number of donationshttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/how-a-team-of-obama-veterans-helped-bernie-sanders-131204886.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/how-a-team-of-obama-veterans-helped-bernie-sanders-131204886.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Alyssa Bereznak National Correspondent, Technology October 07, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/SltdjPthOMFSfOLswE41IA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/891a47884bb2781d5c9eeb89b072e465/tumblr_inline_nvulvtp7ri1qchxpg_1280.jpg)
Sen. Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally in Springfield, Mass. (Photo: Michael Dwyer/AP).
On the last Tuesday in September, an important deadline loomed for the men and women who would be president. The Federal Election Commission requires those running for office to report how much their campaigns have raised each quarter, and the last-minute fundraising appeals that ensue often reach a dramatic pitch as politicians seek to raise a figure that proves they have staying power.
Starting at about 9:30 p.m. that evening, online donations through Sen. Bernie Sanders’s website, store and the ActBlue fundraising site reached the phenomenal clip of about two contributions per second. They stayed at that high and steady pace until the clock struck midnight. When all was said and done, online fundraising efforts like this helped the campaign raise a whopping $26 million for the quarter — just $2 million fewer than Democratic primary frontrunner and establishment favorite Hillary Clinton.
Sanders also reported more than 1 million contributions — more even than Barack Obama had pulled in during the early part of his groundbreaking 2008 presidential run. It was a major milestone for the Vermont senator’s Cinderella story campaign, proving he has both the voter base and the financial wherewithal to compete with Clinton.
If Sanders’s record-setting number of donors served as a wake-up call to establishment Democrats about the strength of the insurgent Sanders campaign, it was no surprise to those inside his operation.
Since May, a small guerilla-marketing team whose members have been part of some of the most successful insurgent campaigns in the Democratic Party have been working to translate grassroots enthusiasm for Sanders into dollars.
At its helm is Scott Goodstein, a former music marketer who made a living hyping bands like Korn prior to his political career. In 2007, after “drinking beers and talking” with Obama’s main digital strategist at the time, he and his friend, videographer Arun Chaudhary, were hired by the famously innovative campaign to help create a groundswell of support online and in local communities.
In 2009, after Obama’s election, Goodstein took everything he learned from the campaign and launched Revolution Messaging, bringing on a “lean-and-mean” group of digital marketing veterans to help. Tim Tagaris, who cut his teeth on Sen. Chris Murphy’s successful campaign against Republican Linda McMahon, and on Ned Lamont’s netroots-fueled fight against one-time Democratic vice presidential nominee and incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, came on as a partner. He hired Michael Whitney, who had worked for Howard Dean’s pioneering 2004 presidential campaign as well as the cause-and-petitions site Change.org. Chaudhary joined up after leaving the White House, where he had been Obama’s first videographer.
Since July, Revolution Messaging has been tasked with overseeing social media, online fundraising, web design and digital advertising for Sanders, sending a steady stream of text messages, emails and issue-based ads urging supporters to donate or volunteer. The team also nurtures and helps grow the communities on Sanders’s already popular Facebook and Reddit pages.
“After seeing the immediate response the first few hours after [Sanders] said that he was running for president, nothing would surprise me,” Tagaris, who heads up the email fundraising team for Sanders, told Yahoo News after the third quarter fundraising numbers were revealed.
The effort is not all that different from the scrappy, ultra-efficient operation that Goodstein and many members of his current workforce ran for Obama’s campaign in 2008. But to equate the two campaigns is to overlook both the way Internet use has evolved over the past eight years, and the unique personality of Sanders as a candidate.
Since the 2008 election, the economy has migrated to Internet-based services, the mobile industry has exploded and a generation of young people weaned on the art of personal branding is more skeptical of pandering than ever. It’s these pivotal changes in the digital world and the people who live in it that explain Sanders’s appeal and the passionate response his campaign has been enjoying.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/iLJJipl84vpwhE8tiqV1Yw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/dc15777ff32e81b0cc5fc40f2abf9ecb/tumblr_inline_nvulzc9ePp1qchxpg_1280.jpg)
Sanders greets supporters after speaking during a campaign rally. (Photo: Michael Dwyer/AP).
Goodstein recalls that when he joined Obama’s campaign in January 2007, the iPhone had not yet been released and text messaging was still something people labored over on their flip phones. Now, he says, more people are comfortable donating money online, ad gateways have become more sophisticated and news breaks much quicker. Even organizing large rallies has become cheaper and easier to do on the fly.
“It’s a different world,” he told Yahoo News. “We’re excited that we achieved the millionth contribution a lot quicker [than with the Obama campaign], but it’s also because the Internet has grown up.”
For Sanders, the high number of donations thus far can be credited to a support base that’s deeply engaged in specific issues — especially the influence of what he so disdainfully refers to as “the billionaire class.” It’s also come from seizing smart opportunities for fundraising. When on two occasions super-PACs representing fellow Democratic contenders Martin O’Malley and Hillary Clinton used negative tactics against Sanders, Goodstein’s team acted swiftly to launch targeted web ads and send out emails to the campaign’s master contact list, imploring subscribers to contribute to prevent the wealthy from influencing the election. When the O’Malley-connected super-PAC first ran a YouTube ad criticizing Sanders in March, the campaign raised much more than it usually did in a normal week. And when the Huffington Post reported that a Clinton-connected super-PAC had been circulating negative emails about Sanders, his campaign raised a record-breaking $1.2 million in less than 48 hours.
“None of this stuff works if there isn’t that energy out there,” Goodstein said. “Clearly people are fired up on these issues, and my team’s doing a good job of smartly figuring out how to harness that energy and make sure that you have the opportunity to engage in a positive way.”
But the steadfast support for Sanders’s campaign is not just derived from frustration with the electoral meddling of elite donors and billionaires. According to Whitney, who heads the company’s email fundraising with Tagaris, email solicitations have been responsible for a significant portion of Sanders’s donations. The loyalty established among the campaign’s followers, he says, is due to their willingness to learn about the policies that are central to the election, and parse through emails from Sanders that are sometimes as long as 2,000 words. These messages address both newsworthy events like the pope’s visit, and issues that Sanders feels passionate about, such as prescription drug reform, or student debt. In the latter email, the staff asked subscribers to reply with what it would mean to them to have no tuition debt, and then re-circulated some of the answers it got to the same list. Sometimes the emails are targeted and include fundraising appeals, but sometimes they are just about messaging and connecting.
“People really feel ownership of this campaign,” Whitney said. “The language that Senator Sanders uses shows everyone is a part of this, and that really encourages people to chip in.”
Goodstein, who enlisted artist Shepard Fairey to create the iconic blue-and-red “Hope” posters for Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, has embraced the idea of collaboration. He’s put some members of Sanders’s Reddit page to work coding special projects. And in late September, he posted a list of famous actors, musicians and other creatives who have publicly backed Bernie.
“We’re looking to put everybody to work,” Goodstein said. “So if you don’t have a thousand dollars, what kind of craft or skill can you donate?”
Perhaps the paramount asset in Sanders’s successful digital campaign is the consistent presence of the candidate himself. His unmistakable persona, along with his unkempt hair and heavy Brooklyn accent, remain a point of attraction to many voters who distrust an overly groomed political class. Former White House aide Chaudhary, for his part, is now doing shareable Bernie vérité videos that highlight these characteristics for social distribution.
“The real innovation here is the authenticity, and the willingness to speak at length about the issues that people are facing every day,” Tagaris said. “Treating people with that kind of respect has really yielded a tremendous response for the senator.”
Despite the amount of money the Sanders campaign has raised thus far, the candidate still faces a number of financial obstacles. According to Richard Hassen, a professor specializing in election law at the University of Irvine’s law school, Sanders’s sizeable support from small donors does not necessarily mean he’ll be successful in the primaries.
“There are some candidates that tend to attract more broad-based support than others,” Hassen told Yahoo News “Barack Obama did it, Howard Dean did it, Ron Paul did it and Ted Cruz has that going on. But having that base does not guarantee success, as Howard Dean can tell you.”
Because Clinton has the advantageous support of super-PACs, which are less beholden to donation limits, she’s also able to spend a much higher fraction of her donations than Sanders. According to the New York Times, Clinton has spent 90 percent of the $28 million she raised for her campaign between April and July. Sanders, by comparison, has spent an estimated $15 million, mostly on his online fundraising operation and hiring staff. Stephen Spaulding, a senior policy adviser at the nonprofit organization Common Cause, says we’ve yet to see the effects of super-PAC donations in the 2016 race.
“This is the second presidential election post-Citizens United,” he told Yahoo News. “We’re going to see even more outside money, and candidates that are relying on small donors need to build up a defense against this big money. I’m sure they’re planning for those anonymous attack ads from super-PACs that’ll be headed their way.”
Rest assured that Goodstein already has a cache of emails and targeted ads queued up for the next one, ready to mobilize the Sanders base to fight back.
What majority? The one they are importing from the third world or the original one they are replacing?
The "majority" they are "importing" from the third world tends not to support things like gay marriage and abortion, what with them being heavily Catholic.
You know, there's a point in there underlining the schizophrenia of the Republican party. The Cheney administration sided with big business interests every. single. time., no matter what. You're possibly to young to have been aware of the business where they backed regulations that considerably extended how far into the US Mexican truckers were allows to go before they had to stop and off-load their cargo. I don't have to have watched Lou Dobbs (or any of the openly Mexican-hating element) around then to know how that went over with their (frankly Mexican-hating) base. It was just a terrible political move. But that's the Bush occupation all over for you; business interests always won with them, and business likes cheap labor.
Yeah, I didn't start to get into politics until I was about 16, so most of my knowledge comes from reading about past events rather than remembering/experiencing their effects. The only political stuff I remember from before then was mostly racism: I'm related to several illegal immigrants, although I myself am legal. I remember my dad getting stopped for a lot of "random" checks at the airport for being brown, the only Bush policies I remember were post 9/11 racism.
Mind-bogglingly, though, many of my Mexican relatives are hardcore conservatives. Hell, some of my illegal-alien relatives are now hardcore conservatives that themselves hate illegal immigrants now. That's Fox News for you.
I actually see the sense in that, and why the talking heads are obsessed with latins this week - they've lost the blacks pretty much forever, or until a lot more blacks aren't poor.
Latins? How can any good hardcore old-school Catholic not find some attraction to the social conservative wing of the right, if only the social conservatives weren't the racists too?
(I know I'm offending many conservatives reading, and I appologize for that; it's just the facts as I know them, and I WILL tell some stories from things I've seen and heard in my life if I'm challenged on this point.)
I actually see the sense in that, and why the talking heads are obsessed with latins this week - they've lost the blacks pretty much forever, or until a lot more blacks aren't poor.
Latins? How can any good hardcore old-school Catholic not find some attraction to the social conservative wing of the right, if only the social conservatives weren't the racists too?
(I know I'm offending many conservatives reading, and I appologize for that; it's just the facts as I know them, and I WILL tell some stories from things I've seen and heard in my life if I'm challenged on this point.)
You hit the nail on the head there. I just wish my relatives would have different priorities. But they care more about mandating Christian morality than ensuring their own wellbeing against racists.
QuoteThe "majority" they are "importing" from the third world tends not to support things like gay marriage and abortion, what with them being heavily Catholic.
Just look at the countries they come from. They are all socialist third world countries.
They aren't "natural conservatives." They vote themselves more money.
In this case our money. "Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money."
Beats me - but she's looked a lot worse than she looked tonight.
The Democrats, in typical form, have been idiots to surrender the stage for so any months this way...
Bernie Sanders: "I think the secretary's right ... the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!"She should be in jail over it. Not running for office.
QuoteBernie Sanders: "I think the secretary's right ... the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!"She should be in jail over it. Not running for office.
You'll note I was responding to your claims about gay marriage and abortion, not anything to do with socialism.Like I said look at their countries they don't exactly act conservative in their home countries.
QuoteBernie Sanders: "I think the secretary's right ... the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!"She should be in jail over it. Not running for office.
The Republicans’ Incompetence Caucushttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opinion/the-republicans-incompetence-caucus.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&src=me&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opinion/the-republicans-incompetence-caucus.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&src=me&_r=0)
The New York Times
David Brooks OCT. 13, 2015
The House Republican caucus is close to ungovernable these days. How did this situation come about?
This was not just the work of the Freedom Caucus or Ted Cruz or one month’s activity. The Republican Party’s capacity for effective self-governance degraded slowly, over the course of a long chain of rhetorical excesses, mental corruptions and philosophical betrayals. Basically, the party abandoned traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism. Republicans came to see themselves as insurgents and revolutionaries, and every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own.
By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. They also see the nation as one organic whole. Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they are still joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love.
All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party. Over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic and imbalanced. Public figures are prisoners of their own prose styles, and Republicans from Newt Gingrich through Ben Carson have become addicted to a crisis mentality. Civilization was always on the brink of collapse. Every setback, like the passage of Obamacare, became the ruination of the republic. Comparisons to Nazi Germany became a staple.
This produced a radical mind-set. Conservatives started talking about the Reagan “revolution,” the Gingrich “revolution.” Among people too ill educated to understand the different spheres, political practitioners adopted the mental habits of the entrepreneur. Everything had to be transformational and disruptive. Hierarchy and authority were equated with injustice. Self-expression became more valued than self-restraint and coalition building. A contempt for politics infested the Republican mind.
Politics is the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balance valid but competing ideas and interests.
But this new Republican faction regards the messy business of politics as soiled and impure. Compromise is corruption. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Countrymen with different views are regarded as aliens. Political identity became a sort of ethnic identity, and any compromise was regarded as a blood betrayal.
A weird contradictory mentality replaced traditional conservatism. Republican radicals have contempt for politics, but they still believe that transformational political change can rescue the nation. Republicans developed a contempt for Washington and government, but they elected leaders who made the most lavish promises imaginable. Government would be reduced by a quarter! Shutdowns would happen! The nation would be saved by transformational change! As Steven Bilakovics writes in his book “Democracy Without Politics,” “even as we expect ever less of democracy we apparently expect ever more from democracy.”
This anti-political political ethos produced elected leaders of jaw-dropping incompetence. Running a government is a craft, like carpentry. But the new Republican officials did not believe in government and so did not respect its traditions, its disciplines and its craftsmanship. They do not accept the hierarchical structures of authority inherent in political activity.
In his masterwork, “Politics as a Vocation,” Max Weber argues that the pre-eminent qualities for a politician are passion, a feeling of responsibility and a sense of proportion. A politician needs warm passion to impel action but a cool sense of responsibility and proportion to make careful decisions in a complex landscape.
If a politician lacks the quality of detachment — the ability to let the difficult facts of reality work their way into the mind — then, Weber argues, the politician ends up striving for the “boastful but entirely empty gesture.” His work “leads nowhere and is senseless.”
Welcome to Ted Cruz, Donald [Sleezebag] and the Freedom Caucus.
Really, have we ever seen bumbling on this scale, people at once so cynical and so naïve, so willfully ignorant in using levers of power to produce some tangible if incremental good? These insurgents can’t even acknowledge democracy’s legitimacy — if you can’t persuade a majority of your colleagues, maybe you should accept their position. You might be wrong!
People who don’t accept democracy will be bad at conversation. They won’t respect tradition, institutions or precedent. These figures are masters at destruction but incompetent at construction.
These insurgents are incompetent at governing and unwilling to be governed. But they are not a spontaneous growth. It took a thousand small betrayals of conservatism to get to the dysfunction we see all around.
She broke no law. (at least not the LETTER of any laws)There is a law and its actually pretty strict. You can just mishandle classified information.
Should there be a law? Yep.
The law governing the use of the personal server is the Hatch Law. From 1939. Ludicrously out of date.From what I see its still against the law. Either she was ignorant of the law and incompetent or she was flat out dishonest.
QuoteThe law governing the use of the personal server is the Hatch Law. From 1939. Ludicrously out of date.From what I see its still against the law. Either she was ignorant of the law and incompetent or she was flat out dishonest.
Then theres the issue of the "deleted" emails. That in itself is a a crime.
Either way it doesn't reflect well.
Could Rubio’s crossover message save the GOP?https://www.yahoo.com/politics/could-rubios-crossover-message-save-the-gop-113846600.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/could-rubios-crossover-message-save-the-gop-113846600.html)
Yahoo
Andrew Romano October 15, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Lf_.0IBehqyb2JJQgYvX2Q--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/287db1635037d4f9a5dc97fd3780627b/tumblr_inline_nw899lhRYV1t0395p_1280.jpg)
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., rallies supporters during a three-day campaign swing through southern Nevada (Photo: AP/John Locher)
LAS VEGAS — Marco Rubio had just finished wooing a group of Christian businessmen at the posh Canyon Gate Country Club, a few miles east of the Strip. The hot afternoon sun was shining on the Italianate columns of the clubhouse. Golf carts glided silently over flawless green fairways. The mountains of Red Rock Canyon rose in the distance. It was a scene fit for a glossy real estate brochure, or perhaps a Republican campaign commercial.
But in the parking lot, a pair of prominent national political reporters — one male, one female — were complaining.
“He never says anything new,” the woman sighed.
“Very scripted,” the man agreed.
“My editors are like, ‘[Sleezebag] attacked Rubio today. How did Rubio respond?’” the woman continued. “And I have to be like, ‘He didn’t. It was just the same old stump speech. Again.’”
My colleagues weren’t wrong about the junior senator from Florida. Over the course of a three-day trip to the Las Vegas metro area, I heard Rubio address the good people of Nevada five times, and each time his remarks were pretty much identical. Sometimes his riff about how “the world is changing faster than ever” would come before the part about America being “the only nation on earth” where you aren’t “stuck” in the same class as your parents; sometimes it would come after. Sometimes Rubio would deliver six policy prescriptions; sometimes he would stop at five. Otherwise, there was little variation — just the candidate, slightly sweaty in his tie and shirt sleeves, smoothly repeating everything he’d said at the previous stop.
For campaign reporters who have experienced Donald [Sleezebag]’s impulsive braggadocio, Jeb Bush’s clumsy Q&As, John Kasich’s entertaining tangents and Ted Cruz’s spotlight-seeking exaggerations, Rubio isn’t particularly exciting to cover. He studiously avoids “making news,” choosing instead to stick to the script.
But here’s the thing about Rubio’s script: it’s very, very good. Good enough, potentially, to win him the nomination.
***
For the first few months of the 2016 presidential campaign, Rubio loitered in the middle of the Republican pack. Now, after a pair of crisp debate performances, with the rest of the GOP’s so-called establishment candidates in decline — Bush has proven to be a bumbling campaigner, Kasich is losing what little steam he had, and Walker basically imploded before ending his bid last month — Rubio is beginning to rise in the polls. According to the latest RealClear Politics average, he’s now in third place nationally, behind [Sleezebag] and Ben Carson. He was in seventh as recently as August.
Still, Rubio’s momentum won’t matter unless he performs well in next year’s primaries and caucuses. Not every indicator is pointing his way. Last week, the campaign announced that it had raised a lackluster $6 million in the third quarter of 2016, down from $9 million the previous quarter. Bush raked in nearly $12 million.
Rubio’s advisers acknowledge that the summer was slow. Yet they also insist that everything is going according to plan. (In Vegas, Rubio made sure to meet with GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson, who has been trying to decide which candidate to support and is now said to be favoring the Floridian.)
Which brings us back to the script.
The first time I saw Rubio pitch himself for the presidency was back in April at his campaign kickoff in Miami . His speech was almost too slick — seductive at first, but ultimately kind of shallow. Like he was auditioning to play the leader of the free world on a new network drama.
Ever since, he’s been road-testing his message in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere. Sharpening it. Refining it. Perfecting it. As a result, the version I heard over and over again Nevada is much stronger than the one I first heard in Florida.
But that’s not just because the script has evolved. It’s also because the moment suddenly seems right for what Rubio has to say.
The early knock on the senator was that he had no natural constituency, and that whatever constituency he did have was going to gravitate toward Bush instead.
But Bush is fizzling. The outsiders — [Sleezebag], Carson and Carly Fiorina — are unlikely to last. And the factional candidates — conservative Cruz, moderate Kasich and libertarian Rand Paul — can’t seem to cross over.
Given the fractured field and the chaos on Capitol Hill, the Republican Party may now need a candidate with the subtlety and skill — the Obama-esque dexterity — to be, if not all things to all people, then at least enough things to enough people: conservatives and moderates, insiders and outsiders, realists and ideologues.
And that, it turns out, is exactly what Rubio is trying to be.
***
Rubio’s first rally in Nevada was at Sun City Summerlin, the largest “active adult” community in the state. Before the senator showed up, I met two active adults named Katie Murrell and Judy Pugmire. They were first in line. Murrell, a whippet-thin and bottle-blonde 74-year-old with a reedy voice and a lot to say, taught for 40 years in Newport Beach, Calif.; Pugmire, 75, the quieter of the two, was still teaching part-time at a local community college. They told me they were neighbors.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/S_B6jBb2myuots_DYijbtw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/88ceedd88f966a2480085ef88d6fe5ea/tumblr_inline_nw8bc1GXCC1t0395p_1280.jpg)
Rubio poses for photos with supporters in Las Vegas. (Photo: John Locher/AP)
I asked why they’d decided to come to the rally. Murrell, naturally, answered first.
“You know, I really like [Sleezebag],” she said. “[Sleezebag]’s in town too.” (He’d recently finished rallying voters on the Strip.) “If you want to cover big things, cover [Sleezebag].”
Pugmire nodded. “I’ll tell you what,” she said. “This country is sick and tired of politicians. That’s why you see [Sleezebag] and Carly and Ben Carson getting all this…”
Merrill cut in. “The Republicans are so screwed up,” she snapped. “[Sleezebag]’s the only one, maybe, who can deal with things.”
“But what about Rubio?” I asked.
Murrell turned to Pugmire, ceding the floor.
“Well, I came because I’m a conservative,” Pugmire said. “I want to listen to him.”
A few minutes later, Rubio and his entourage arrived. Dozens of top donors filled the VIP seats to the right of the stage. After the rally, they’d be picnicking and playing touch football with Rubio himself; the following day would be spent attending various football-themed events — “Quarterbacking Victory”; “Talking the Playbook” — at the swanky Bellagio hotel and casino.
In person, Rubio looks and acts a little like Matt Damon. The same stocky ex-athlete’s build. The same earnest all-American baritone. The same quick wit followed by the same self-effacing smile, as if he’s trying to charm you and apologizing for trying to charm you at the same time.
The senator started his speech the same way he would start every speech in Nevada: by mentioning that he’d spent part of his childhood in Las Vegas.
“Believe it or not, we still have more family in southern Nevada than in South Florida,” he told the crowd. “So if I only win by 68 votes here, you’ll know why.”
Rubio’s parents moved from Miami in 1979 and stayed until Rubio, now 44, was in the eighth grade. His dad tended bar at an off-Strip casino called Sam’s Club; his mother worked at the Imperial Palace. And yet in Summerlin he explained that “growing up,” he “remember(s) never feeling limited” to following in his parents’ modest footsteps. Why? Because they taught him he was “blessed to be a citizen of the one place on earth where the son of a bartender and a maid could be anything he wanted to be.”
“If we ever lose that,” Rubio said, “we stop being special.”
In typical Republican fashion, the senator went on to warn that America was, in fact, “on the verge” of losing its special status.
But then Rubio pivoted; he stopped sounding like a typical Republican and started sounding like someone who might actually win the White House. The problem, he admitted, isn’t President Obama. It isn’t even the Democrats. It’s ways in which the world is changing, and the speed at which it’s changing too. In the age of Amazon, Uber and Candy Crush, America has “a retirement system designed in the 1930s,” a “higher education system designed in the 1950s” and “tax policies designed in the 1980s and 1990s.”
“I wish I could tell you it’s one party, but it’s not,” Rubio told the crowd. “Both parties are out of touch. Both parties are out of date. And if we keep electing the same kind of people — the people who are ‘next in line,’ the people they tell us we have to vote for — nothing is going to change.”
At this point, [Sleezebag] would have started insulting his rivals. But Rubio’s script is noticeably short on negativity. Instead, he spent the rest of his remarks delivering what he called “the good news”: his belief that if voters approach 2016 “not as a choice between Republicans and Democrats” but rather as a “generational choice” — if they reject the Jeb Bushes and Hillary Clintons of the world in favor of the future, as represented, of course, by Marco Rubio — then “our children and grandchildren will be the freest and most prosperous Americans who have ever lived.”
When I say “Obama-esque dexterity,” this is what I mean. For the next 20 minutes, Rubio talked policy: defense spending, Iran, taxes, regulations, the deficit, entitlement reform, energy, health care, education. His views were predictably conservative, but again and again, he expressed them in the language of empathy rather than ideology.
The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart describes this maneuver well. “Rubio has mastered the same technique Barack Obama used so effectively when he was seeking the presidency,” Beinart recently wrote. “When faced with a controversial issue, he doffs his cap to the other side, pleads for civility and respect, insists that it’s a hard call — and then comes out exactly where you’d expect him to come out. … What [Obama and Rubio] share is their moderate-sounding rhetorical style.”
And so, when Rubio spoke about regulations, he insisted that the reason he wants to get them “under control” is because big businesses use regulations to “keep small businesses from competing.”
“The guys who have made it, who are rich and powerful, they’re going to be all right,” Rubio explained. “The people we have to be fighting for are the people who are trying to make it.”
When the senator spoke about energy, he praised domestic fossil fuels because they make “cooking food and heating a home cheaper” — especially for “a struggling family with a single mother who’s trying to get by on $10 an hour.”
When he spoke about health insurance, he confessed that it’s “a legitimate issue” that “we have to address.” Then he suggested that we scrap Obamacare and make health insurance more like auto insurance instead (which sounds sensible enough, even if it isn’t).
And when he spoke about higher education reform, he focused on expanding vocational education for teenagers who would rather be “welders, pipe fitters, or plumbers” than “philosophers,” while reducing the burden of student loans for their more collegiate peers.
“I tell you all this not just to show you how difficult these problems are,” Rubio said, “but to show you how we can fix them. There is no challenge we cannot solve.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gaddtuMP3AFRDdD8.4FDmQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/eb13a850e85fcb4cb0da1455df354b6d/tumblr_inline_nw8avoIEJ41t0395p_1280.jpg)
Rubio works the crowd after a rally at a Las Vegas retirement community. (Photo: John Locher/AP)
It was a message that encompassed many contradictions: conservative policy proposals, working-class rhetoric; insider savvy, outsider spirit. As a U.S. senator from one of the largest states in the nation, Rubio is technically as establishment as they come. But he made sure to remind the crowd in Summerlin that when he ran for the Senate in 2010 against sitting Gov. Charlie Crist, “the entire, and I mean the entire Republican establishment in Washington, D.C., was against me.”
“And by the way,” he added, “it’s very similar now.” In 2010, Rubio campaigned as a full-throated Tea Party candidate, and even though he’s recently been spending more time with the Council on Foreign Relations than the Florida Panhandle Patriots, he is still quick to portray himself as an outsider.
“'It’s not your turn; you gotta wait in line,’” Rubio said, paraphrasing his establishment critics. “Wait for what?”
After Rubio had wrapped up his peroration — after he celebrated his parents for working multiple jobs so he could have a better life; after he insisted that what “unifies us as one people” is that “we’re all but a generation removed from someone who did that for us” — I made my way to the rope line, where Katie Murrell and Judy Pugmire were waiting to snap a photo with the senator.
“I didn’t know he had family here!” Murrell said as soon as she saw me. “That he’d grown up here!”
“I didn’t know that either!” Pugmire added.
“So how did Rubio compare to [Sleezebag]?” I asked.
Pugmire’s reply would have been music to the senator’s ears, assuming he could have heard it over the Kid Rock song blasting through the speakers.
“Oh, for me, I would rather have Rubio,” she said. “There’s no question.”
Pugmire glanced back at the empty stage. “In many ways,” she added, “he reminds me of Ronald Reagan.”
***
If Rubio is going to connect in any of the early primary or caucus states, at least at first, Nevada is probably the place.
As the Summerlin event was winding down, I ran into Mike Slanker, a tall Ohioan in a checked sport coat and jeans. The top political strategist for both the governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, and the state’s junior senator, Dean Heller, Slanker signed on in May to run Rubio’s local operation. He told me Nevada could be a bellwether for his boss — a good lens through which to glimpse Rubio’s broader appeal.
Slanker’s basic point was that a Republican needs to click with two kinds of voters to win the White House: a) voters who will pretty much vote for any GOP candidate and b) voters who will only vote for the right GOP candidate. Not only does Nevada boast a more representative mix of both kinds of voters than say, conservative Iowa, moderate New Hampshire, or Tea Party-centric South Carolina; Rubio is already showing that he can appeal to both of them.
Experts in Nevada say that only four campaigns are really competing at this point: Rubio, Bush, Cruz and Rand Paul. Many think that Rubio has the early edge.
At Canyon Gate, I happened to overhear a conversation between one of Rubio’s advisers and legendary Nevada reporter Jon Ralston.
“How do you think we’re doing?” the adviser asked.
“You’ve got the best organization, as far as I can see,” Ralston replied.
“That’s good to hear,” the adviser said. “We think we’ll do well in the first three states … but we could really do well here.”
Nevada first held caucuses in 2008, and in 2012, only 38,000 Republicans participated. A well-informed source predicted that it could take a mere 10,000 votes to win this cycle’s contest. And so, from an organizational standpoint, the Rubio campaign is making sure to focus its fire on Nevada’s most reliable Republican voters.
“You have to remember who’s going to show up to caucus,” Slanker told me. “And who is that in this state? It’s Mormons and seniors.”
This explains why the campaign was targeting Summerlin’s active adults. It explains why Lt. Gov. Mark Hutchison — a “big player in the Mormon community,” according to Slanker, and the chairman of Rubio’s Nevada campaign — would go on to introduce the senator at every rally. (As a kid in Las Vegas, Rubio himself was briefly a member of the Mormon Church.) It explains why Rubio would visit Boulder City, a Mormon enclave, the following day. And it explains why Rubio would be introduced there by former Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, a man Slanker described as “the godfather of the Mormon Church in this state.” Some Rubio donors are even claiming the candidate will be “the first Mormon president” if he wins next year, according to a recent BuzzFeed report .
At the same time, Rubio is also looking ahead and trying to avoid turning off the crossover voters who will prove critical in the general election — unlike most of his rivals.
“Nevada is a melting pot,” Slanker told me. “We have the fastest-growing Asian population in America. We have an exploding Hispanic population. Heck, we have an exploding population in general. And I think the folks who’ve been unwilling to come to the GOP, or just disinterested in politics in general, are kind of tired of a lot of the personalities in this party. In my mind, Marco is our best chance of reaching out and touching those people.”
If Slanker’s analysis sounds like spin, that’s because it is. But spin isn’t necessarily untrue. Kasich and Bush command little support among conservatives or anti-establishmentarians; [Sleezebag], Cruz, Carson and Fiorina are anathema to most of the rest of the electorate. But Rubio hasn’t alienated anyone, at least not yet.
Two days after Summerlin, Rubio attended a forum hosted by the LIBRE Initiative, a conservative Latino group, at St. Christopher Catholic School in North Las Vegas. (Rubio had briefly been a student there.) When asked about immigration reform, the senator again explained why he no longer supports the sort of comprehensive approach he once tried to shepherd through Congress. (“Part of being a good leader is figuring out what’s possible,” Rubio said. “And we don’t have the votes.”) But he also admitted that he still believes in a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants somewhere down the line.
“After 10 years with a work permit, I personally support—and some people don’t agree with me—allowing people to apply to for a green card,” Rubio explained. “And obviously, after three or five years, you’d be eligible to apply for citizenship.”
The mostly Latino crowd applauded. “We’re talking about real people here,” Rubio said. “They’re human beings with lives and families.”
On the ground in Nevada, Rubio’s all-things-to-all-people approach — his knack for being conservative while sounding moderate — seems to be working. For me, the clearest proof came in a pair of chance encounters I had at two separate Rubio events.
The first was in Summerlin. I initially assumed that retiree Nancy Garrity was a GOP loyalist, because who else attends Republican rallies?
“Yeah!” she almost shouted when I asked if she was supporting Rubio. “He’s smart. When they ask him a question, he answers it. He doesn’t just insult somebody else.”
But then I asked Garrity if Rubio might be too young for the presidency — and her answer surprised me.
“Kennedy was young too,” she said.
“But Kennedy was a Democrat.”
“Yep,” she nodded. “And so was Barack Obama.”
I must have looked confused.
“I really have to tell you this,” Garrity said. “I’m a registered Democrat. But if Rubio becomes the nominee, I will definitely vote for him. I really will.”
“What about the rest of the Republicans?” I asked.
“Oh no,” she said. “I’d rather vote for Hillary.”
I happened upon very different kind of voter the following day at the Havana Grill, a Cuban restaurant miles from the Vegas Strip. Rubio was scheduled to show up in few minutes for a happy hour speech; in the meantime, I struggled to find a place to stand amid the throng of supporters. Suddenly, I overheard a guy with a goatee and an American-flag T-shirt telling another guy about his recent confrontation with a group of Hispanics.
“We didn’t back down,” said the guy with the goatee. “When they start filling my ears with their bullcrap they’re going to get it back. They said, ‘You’re a racist,’ and I’m like, ‘So what? You don’t like different races? Blame God for it, man.’”
“I think the real racists are Democrats,” said the other guy. “They don’t think black people are smart enough to take care of themselves.”
“They’re not!” said the guy with the goatee. “They have to have all this special stuff. They can run fast, though. They’re making money doing that. I can watch them bash their heads playing football on Sunday. It don’t matter if they become rich basketball players — they’ll still be thugs and try to kill somebody. It don’t matter.”
The guy with the goatee paused for a moment.
“I like Marco,” he finally said. “He’s getting a lot of the establishment support. I’m starting to think he should be the nominee instead of Jeb.”
I couldn’t help but laugh. Any Republican skilled enough to secure the support of an avowed Democrat like Nancy Garrity without alienating an unabashed racist like the guy with the goatee — and vice versa — probably has a bright future ahead of him.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gIdJeHZC7EKXSiXEAY_ufQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/9e77ce18fecc9578c9dc947613e41b71/tumblr_inline_nw8asn9iL91t0395p_1280.jpg)
Rubio at the Havana Grill restaurant in Las Vegas. (Photo: John Locher/AP)
Fifteen minutes later, Rubio walked on stage. He spotted a waitress carrying a tray of cocktails through the crowd.
“They’re handing out mojitos in the middle of my speech,” Rubio said, smiling. “I love it. I promise that has never happened before.”
A fan in the front of the room offered him one.
“No, no, no,” he said, waving off the beverage. “I drink water.” But the crowd insisted, and Rubio finally allowed himself a Cuban coffee.
“You guys are messing up my stump speech,” the candidate said with a smile. For a few seconds, at least, Rubio had departed from his script.
He took a sip from the tacitas.
“OK,” he said. “I’m ready now.”
He studiously avoids “making news,” choosing instead to stick to the script. But here’s the thing about Rubio’s script: it’s very, very good.
[Sleezebag], Carson threaten to boycott next GOP debate
Ben Kamisar and Bradford Richardson
Bernie Sanders keeps promise made in private to Sandra Bland’s motherhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-keeps-promise-made-in-private-to-145437157.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-keeps-promise-made-in-private-to-145437157.html)
Yahoo
Michael Walsh October 16, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/mYVtJ4okyxwto93sYMYKJg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/2bfefdb03711da7cd3fcabb1742946e8/tumblr_inline_nwbijqsLI21td5k0c_1280.jpg)
Bernie Sanders speaks at a rally in Los Angeles on Oct. 14. (Photo: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)
In an era when every moment is tweeted and politicized, Bernie Sanders elected not to capitalize on a meaningful meeting with the mother of Sandra Bland.
The chance encounter reportedly took place at East Street Café, a Thai restaurant at Union Station in Washington, D.C., five days before the first Democratic presidential debate.
The Rev. Hannah Adair Bonner, a pastor at St. John’s Church in downtown Houston, wrote in her blog about noticing the Vermont senator at another table while she was eating dinner with Geneva Reed-Veal, whose daughter became a face of the Black Lives Matter campaign following her death in police custody in July.
The pastor said she approached Sanders and asked if he would like to meet Reed-Veal and that their group asked the politician if he would take a picture with them.
“He did not impose upon Ms. Geneva to ask for a picture of his own. He did not use the moment as an opportunity to promote his campaign,” she wrote. “He took no record; he made no statement. He did not try to turn it into a publicity stunt.”
Bonner, who is a Black Lives Matter activist, said she was impressed by everyone’s sincerity during the serendipitous moment.
The Democratic presidential candidate told Reed-Veal that the death of her daughter was inexcusable and promised he would continue to “say her name.” At the debate on Oct. 13 in Las Vegas, Sanders stayed true to his word when answering a question submitted by a law student through Facebook: “Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter?”
“Black lives matter,” Sanders said. “The reason those words matter is the African-American community knows that on any given day, some innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car and then three days later she’s going to end up dead in jail.”
After this response, Google searches for “Sandra Bland” surged.
Later, Bonner shared photos of their meeting with Sanders on Twitter, still impressed that he did not try to capitalize on, or even mention, the moment.
“He simply made space for a sacred moment and then let it pass without trying to gain anything from it,” Bonner said. “For that, I respect him. For that, I am grateful. That choice may not have made him a very good politician, but it made him a better man.”
Six cash-strapped Republican White House hopefuls face tipping pointhttp://news.yahoo.com/six-cash-strapped-republican-white-house-hopefuls-face-225408376.html (http://news.yahoo.com/six-cash-strapped-republican-white-house-hopefuls-face-225408376.html)
Reuters
By Michelle Conlin and Grant Smith 49 minutes ago
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/2pLk8neWHKxiCYW3OGBR2Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MjkxO2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTQ1MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2015-10-16T225408Z_1_LYNXNPEB9F13Q_RTROPTP_2_USA-ELECTION-PAUL.JPG)
U.S. Republican presidential candidate and Senator Rand Paul speaks during the Heritage Action for America presidential candidate forum in Greenville, South Carolina on September 18, 2015. REUTERS/Chris Keane
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Half a dozen Republican presidential candidates are edging toward financial crisis, raising the specter that some may be forced to drop out of the sprawling field of contenders.
They all spent more than they took in during the third quarter, according to campaign finance reports filed on Thursday. The six are: Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former New York Governor George Pataki, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.
Together, they raised $6 million but spent more than $9.5 million during the summer on everything from postage to travel to campaign rallies. All six are trailing badly in the polls.
"They are living on the edge," said Lawrence Noble, former general counsel to the Federal Election Commission."We are getting close to the time when a lot of these candidates are going to say, 'We can't do it, it can't be done,'" said Noble, now a senior attorney with the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance non-profit.
Campaigns have tipping points: the moment when a candidate does the math and realizes that he does not have enough money on hand or the prospect of more money from donors to stay in the race. One telling sign is the "burn rate" - jargon for how much a candidate spends versus how much he is raising. If the burn rate is high and donor enthusiasm low, then trouble ensues.
The math is simple, said Austin Barbour, who ran Rick Perry’s fund-raising Super PAC before the former Texas governor dropped out. Barbour is now a senior adviser to the campaign of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
When direct donations to campaigns are lackluster, as in the case of these six candidates, there may not be enough money to cover basic operating costs like travel, staff salaries and office equipment. Those costs are not typically covered by big money Super PACs, which are supposed to operate independently of the campaigns.
“It’s really tough to survive with such little money,” Barbour said. “It puts a lot of pressure on a campaign because no one wants to put their candidate in debt.”
DANGER ZONE
The third quarter reports show the challenges. Any burn rate over 100 percent is considered dangerous by campaign finance experts. Pataki’s was 226 percent, Graham 188, Paul 181, Jindal 144, Huckabee 110 and Santorum 101.
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/JKHPUF5S2lu_z.v8UgbJBg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MzAwO2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTQ1MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2015-10-16T225408Z_1_LYNXNPEB9F13S_RTROPTP_2_USA-ELECTION-JINDAL.JPG)
U.S. Republican presidential candidate and Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal speaks during the Heritage Action for America presidential candidate forum in Greenville, South Carolina on September 18, 2015. REUTERS/Chris Keane
Of those, Paul and Graham have the most money in the bank, with $2.1 million and $1.7 million respectively, while the rest are money-challenged. Pataki, for instance, had less than $14,000 on hand as of Sept. 30, less than the $17,600 billionaire candidate Donald [Sleezebag] spent on yard signs in the third quarter alone.
The campaigns dismissed the suggestion they were in financial trouble.
Rand Paul's campaign stressed it still had the $2.1 million on hand. A Pataki staffer said his burn rate was just the “cost of a campaign for President.” And the Huckabee campaign said their candidate was experienced at running campaigns on shoestring budgets.
Spokesmen for Santorum, Graham and Jindal did not respond to requests for comment.
To be sure, tight budgets at this point in the race do not mean the campaigns are doomed. A candidate could have a breakout moment, like former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, whose fundraising soared after a good debate performance. Candidates can also lend themselves money, as Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton did when she ran low during the 2008 White House race.
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/etTQxKlwqHnmLcNwZ_5CoA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MzAwO2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTQ1MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2015-10-16T225408Z_1_LYNXNPEB9F13T_RTROPTP_2_USA-ELECTION.JPG)
U.S. Republican presidential candidate George Pataki listens as he is introduced at the No Labels Problem Solver Convention in Manchester, New Hampshire October 12, 2015. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
But the Republican candidates are bedeviled by another math problem. There are 14 Republicans vying for their party's nomination for the November 2016 election, more than double the number at this point during the 2012 election.
“The Republican field is way too large, there simply isn’t enough money to go around,” said Noble.
Small donors are the lifeblood of any campaign and candidates will live or die by their ability to tap into a broad base of supporters willing to contribute up to the maximum of $2,700.
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who is one of the front-runners in the Republican race, reported nearly 22,000 donors in the last quarter who have given more than $200 so far in the campaign. Bush had 7,300.
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/FCcj4ctSotRAmj8d56OP5A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MzAwO2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTQ1MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2015-10-16T225408Z_1_LYNXNPEB9F13U_RTROPTP_2_USA-ELECTION.JPG)
U.S. Republican presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham takes the stage to speak at the No Labels Problem Solver Convention in Manchester, New Hampshire October 12, 2015. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
In contrast, Pataki had fewer than 80 donors last quarter; Jindal had under 300; Graham had nearly 650; Santorum under 300, and Huckabee more than 800. Among these five, Paul had the most, with more than 3,500.
The candidates could conceivably win the patronage of a millionaire or billionaire, who could funnel unlimited amounts of money into their Super PAC. But these fund-raising groups are prohibited from carrying out certain campaign activities and are therefore of limited help.
For example, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had a Super PAC with money in the bank, but after burning through $6 million in three months his campaign's coffers were bare and he was forced to drop out in September.
Perry, who quit the same month, hemorrhaged money and ended the third quarter with just $45,000 on hand. His Super PAC returned $13 million to its donors.
(Reporting By Michelle Conlin, editing by Paul Thomasch and Ross Colvin)
Jim Webb drops out of Democratic primary racehttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/jim-webb-plans-to-drop-out-of-democratic-primary-153500314.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jim-webb-plans-to-drop-out-of-democratic-primary-153500314.html)
Yahoo
Michael Walsh October 20, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/4nGxOhU6KgaN_3D49xjltg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/f0bdda483ce4687d8e3793cc4e0e55e2/tumblr_inline_nwiz7kUi8x1td5k0c_1280.jpg)
Jim Webb speaks during the first official Democratic debate of the 2016 presidential campaign in Las Vegas on Oct. 13. (Photo: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)
Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb dropped out of the Democratic presidential primary race Tuesday afternoon.
Webb, a Vietnam veteran and former Navy secretary, withdrew any consideration of being the party’s nominee during a news conference at 1 p.m. ET in Washington, D.C., but said he has not ruled out an independent run.
“It was very difficult to fundraise inside the Democratic Party structure right now,” he said to reporters. “I have no doubt that if I ran as an independent we would have significant financial help from people who want me to run as something other than a Democrat.”
Fox News, which broke the story of Webb’s decision to withdraw his candidacy earlier in the day, reported that he has become disillusioned by how campaign financing has, in his view, pushed both major political parties to extreme positions.
During the Tuesday press conference, he said that the very nature of American democracy is under siege by how the current power structure finances both political parties.
“Our political candidates are being pulled to the extremes. They are increasingly out of step with the people they are supposed to serve,” he said.
Webb, 69, said that polls show a great number of Americans consider themselves independents rather than Republicans nor Democrats.
“I’ve said for years that the Democratic Party needs to get back to its more traditional message. I’m not seeing that in a way that I wish that I could see it,” he said.
Webb said he will keep talking to people who have been encouraging him to launch an independent campaign.
“We’ll just have to see what happens next,” he said.
During the Democratic primary debate on Oct. 13 in Las Vegas, he stood out as noticeably more moderate than his main competition for the party’s nod, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Citing an op-ed in which Webb called affirmative action “state-sponsored racism,” CNN anchor and debate moderator Anderson Cooper asked Webb if he is out of step with where the Democratic Party is now.
His debate performance did not make a considerable impact on his poll numbers, and many liberal viewers ended the night feeling that he came across as simply too conservative to win the primary. He acknowledged this state of affairs Tuesday.
“I fully accept that my views on many issues are not compatible with the power structure and the nominating base of the Democratic Party,” he said.
Webb’s campaign had already revealed that he was considering an independent run on Monday. He said that this turn of events does not diminish his concerns for the challenges facing the U.S. or his belief that he would provide the best leadership.
In early July, when Webb announced his candidacy, he argued that fair debate is often drowned out by the huge sums of money funneled to candidates — both directly and indirectly.
“We need to shake the hold of these shadow elites on our political process,” he said at the time. “Our elected officials need to get back to the basics of good governance and to remember that their principal obligations are to protect our national interests abroad and to ensure a level playing field here at home, especially for those who otherwise have no voice in the corridors of power.”
This electoral ailment, to which Webb apparently hoped to be the antidote, appears to have been the death knell of his campaign.
He has had trouble raising enough money to pose a legitimate threat to either Clinton or Sanders. A recent filing, reported by Politico, revealed that Webb had raised only $696,972.18 and had $316,765.34 cash on hand. Contrast that with the $29,921,653.91 raised by Clinton or the $26,216,430.38 raised by Sanders.
Biden: I’m not running for president in 2016https://www.yahoo.com/politics/biden-im-not-running-for-president-in-2016-162514730.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/biden-im-not-running-for-president-in-2016-162514730.html)
Yahoo
Olivier Knox Chief Washington Correspondent October 21, 2015
Ending months of will-he, won’t-he speculation, Vice President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that he will not be running for president in 2016.
Biden said he had always known that the process of grieving for his late son Beau might close “the window on mounting a realistic campaign for president.”
“I’ve concluded it has closed,” Biden declared in the Rose Garden of the White House, with his wife Dr Jill Biden and President Barack Obama standing at his side.
The vice president’s hastily announced remarks capped months of speculation about whether he could build the kind of fundraising and get-out-the-vote structure required of successful modern campaigns.
The announcement came one day before the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, testified before the Republican-run House of Representatives Committee looking into the deadly Benghazi attacks of 2012.
Biden, who has spent his entire adult life in politics and made two failed runs for the presidency, pledged to keep defending Obama’s legacy and fighting for the middle class and warned Democratic candidates against running away from the the president.
What’s behind Bernie Sanders’ enormous rallies
Andrew Romano West Coast Correspondent August 12, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/54UQu8ODw18O45BjiM2yuQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/8593a736ca475d483a6b50861f4e6692e4b887d3.jpg)
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks to a sold-out crowd during a campaign event in Los Angeles on Monday. (Photo: Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
LOS ANGELES — On Monday evening I took an Uber from my house in northeast L.A. to the Memorial Sports Arena just south of downtown. Correction: I took the Uber to exit 20A on the 110 South — the off-ramp closest to the Memorial Sports Arena. There were so many cars heading to the venue that the entire right half of the freeway had become a parking lot. It was almost 7 p.m. — start time. I told my driver, Petros, that I was going to have to get out and walk.
Petros looked puzzled.
“Is something going on tonight?” he asked.
“Yes,” I said. “Bernie Sanders is having a rally.”
Petros still looked puzzled. I set off down the side of the freeway.
I’d come to see Sanders speak out of a sense of professional duty, at least in part. Presidential candidates usually descend on deep blue California for one reason and one reason only: money. They fly in, flutter around a $40,000-per-head celebrity fundraiser at George Clooney’s house and fly out. Actual rallies with actual voters here are rare. As a Los Angeles-based political reporter, I would have been remiss if I had skipped the first big one in years.
But I’ll admit that I was personally curious as well. At first, many in the press had dismissed Sanders, the 73-year-old Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist who announced his presidential ambitions in April, as a cranky, irrelevant gadfly. And yet now, three months later, Sanders was polling at 36 percent in New Hampshire — a mere six points behind Hillary Clinton, the all-but-anointed Democratic nominee. In Iowa he was already claiming a quarter of the vote. And for weeks he’d been touring cities and college towns around the country, attracting audiences several times larger than anything Clinton or her would-be Republican rivals could hope for — even though people like Petros had never heard of him.
What’s going on? What is a huge Bernie Sanders rally actually like in person? And why are so many progressives suddenly so riled up about a career legislator whose hunched shoulders, messy white hair and gruff Brooklyn yawp they’ve spent the last few decades ignoring on C-SPAN?
After trudging through the trash on the shoulder of the 110 and circumnavigating an endless, gated parking lot, I finally arrived at the arena. My initial impression was that I’d been here before. I attended my first political rally when I was a freshman in college — a concert for Ralph Nader at Madison Square Garden. (A cute girl with an extra ticket invited me at the last minute.) I remember a man who was vowing to fast until Nader, then a Green Party candidate, was allowed to debate George W. Bush and Al Gore. I remember stoned undergrads in “Bush and Gore Make Me Wanna Ralph” T-shirts. I remember dyed green hair. I remember multiple piercings. And I remember a lot of older people — baby boomers who might have once been accused of smelling like patchouli but who now looked just like the conservative churchgoers you’d meet at Republican events.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/qzxLy6Eg8.O_CsdCSYmP3w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzQxO2lsPXBsYW5l/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/84c8955d604a28aeca450ed265455ff03b41c1cb.jpg)
Presidential candidate Ralph Nader speaks at a Green Party rally at Madison Square Garden in New York in October 2000. (Photo: Evan Agostini/ImageDirect via Getty Images)
The line in L.A. was thousands and thousands of people long — it snaked around the block — and stylistically, it seemed pretty similar. The couple who pulled up in a yellow Corolla with a collage of bumper stickers on the back (“Vote Dammit,” “Equality on My Mind,” “Minecraft,” “Cthulhu”) and “Honk 4 Bernie” and “#TakeBackAmerica” written in red marker on their windows. The skinny, middle-aged African-American man in a black Occupy Wall Street T-shirt and a large black hat. The flip-flops. The backward baseball caps. The beards. The crowd was full of college kids from nearby USC; young, progressive professionals; and liberal retirees in loose-fitting Ralph Lauren. Mostly white, but still fairly diverse. Near the entrance there was the usual rally-going array of activists (“Ferguson is everywhere”) and opportunists (“Feel the Bern” buttons for ONLY $5). As I entered the arena, “Turn! Turn! Turn!” by the Byrds was playing on the PA.
Even Sanders’ speech sounded a lot like Nader’s. Back in 2000, Nader also slammed big business for what he called “a corporate crime wave,” accusing both the Democratic and Republican parties of being controlled by corporations. “Our country has been sold to the highest bidder,” Nader said. “We’re going backwards, while the rich are becoming superrich.” He touted his plans for paid parental leave and paid sick leave. He criticized America for failing to join the rest of the developed world in enacting universal health care. And he railed against the criminal justice system, arguing, “The major public housing project in this country is building prison cells.” Afterward, voter Thomas King, then 22, contrasted Nader with that year’s Democratic Senate nominee from New York. “I’m not too pleased with the fact that [Hillary] Clinton and the New Democrats have moved so close to the center,” King told the New York Times. “This is a populist movement.”
Hearing Sanders speak on Monday about an economy that is “rigged … to benefit the people on top,” about how he “can’t be bought” by corporations, about how it “makes a lot more sense to be investing in education than incarceration,” about how it’s an “international embarrassment” that the U.S. doesn’t have “Medicare for all,” and about how his “family values,” unlike the GOP’s, encompass paid leave for parents, I couldn’t help but feel a little déjà vu — even if the crowd roared after every line like they’d never encountered another candidate willing to say these kinds of things.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/07d718N5Cfr2r3cPTvjSYg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzYwO2lsPXBsYW5l/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/55da3db697233722d7d54848c96546182ce506f4.jpg)
Sanders supporters cheer at his campaign rally at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena on Monday. (Photo: Charles Ommanney/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Sanders has real appeal for progressives craving an alternative to Clinton: the dogged consistency, the ambitious policy prescriptions, the rumpled authenticity. All of that came across more clearly on the stump than it ever does on TV.
But Nader was rumpled and authentic, too.That’s why I was more interested Monday in the two big differences on display in Los Angeles between Sanders and his anti-corporate predecessor — not to mention every other major outsider candidate who’s come before, whether conservative (like Ross Perot), libertarian (like Ron Paul) or liberal (like Robert La Follette).
The first difference was the sheer size of the event. As soon as Sanders waddled onstage in Los Angeles, he announced that “more than 27,000” people were in attendance. Such claims are impossible to verify, but the 16,000-seat arena was nearly full, and thousands more were watching in overflow areas outside the venue. The rally looked (and sounded) massive — more like a deafening, ecstatic, slightly drunken rock concert than a fringe political gathering. And the L.A. event wasn’t an isolated incident. Roughly 28,000 people showed up for Sanders’ rally in Portland, Ore., on Sunday. He drew 15,000 in Seattle; 11,000 in Phoenix; 10,000 in Madison, Wis.; 8,000 in Dallas; and 4,500 in New Orleans. All told, Sanders has attracted more than 100,000 people to his campaign events in recent weeks.
That’s completely unprecedented this early in a presidential primary cycle. (The election is still 15 months away.) For comparison’s sake, Clinton’s biggest crowd so far this year was 5,500. There were 15,000 people at the Nader concert I saw in 2000 — but that was three weeks before Election Day. Paul’s storied 2008 and 2012 crowds topped out around 10,000. Sanders is even surpassing Barack Obama’s revolutionary 2008 campaign. In February 2007, Obama drew 20,000 people to Town Lake in Austin, Texas; in April, he attracted 20,000 to an outdoor rally at Yellow Jacket Park in Atlanta; and in September, 24,000 came to see him speak in New York’s Washington Square Park. But Obama rallies didn’t pass the 28,000 mark until 2008.
The second difference on display Monday was what I’ll call the “responsiveness” of Sanders’ campaign. For the first few months after he entered the contest, Sanders largely shied away from issues of racial equality: bias in policing, mass incarceration, voting rights, the treatment of unauthorized immigrants. In July, Sanders, who has always been “all about unions, corporations — basically economic issues rather than cultural ones,” according to an old friend and early political confidant, appeared at Netroots Nation and frustrated civil rights activists when he answered questions about racial issues by pivoting back to economic ones. “Black lives of course matter,” he said defensively after he was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters. “If you don’t want me to be here, that’s OK.” In Seattle last weekend, another group of Black Lives Matter protesters took the stage and refused to let Sanders speak.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/tZr2ArdvpV9oeZwnPdkU8A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9Mzg0O2lsPXBsYW5l/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/08b4d835e3f8e612a4eb66f1e849240b2515dbd9.jpg)
Sanders speaks at the rally at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena on Monday. (Photo: Ringo H.W. Chiu/AP)
Sanders has a reputation for self-righteousness, and initially he seemed to be sticking to his “it’s a class problem not a race problem” script. But in the weeks since Netroots Nation, something seems to have changed. First, the candidate took a meeting with Symone Sanders (no relation), a young black organizer with the D.C.-based Coalition for Juvenile Justice. He listened to her unsolicited advice on racial issues. Then he offered her a job as his national press secretary. A day after being interrupted in Seattle, the candidate released a sweeping policy platform designed to combat racial inequality. And in Portland and Los Angeles, Symone Sanders debuted as the new public face of the campaign, emceeing each event and introducing her boss to his supporters.
“It’s very important that we say those words: ‘black lives matter,’” Symone Sanders said in L.A. “It’s also important that people in office turn those words into action.”
A few minutes later, Bernie Sanders pledged to do just that. “One year after the death of Michael Brown,” he said from the podium, “there’s no candidate who will fight harder to end institutional racism.”
Ultimately, these two differences — the mind-boggling size of Sanders’ early campaign events and the speed with which he has reshuffled his campaign in response to activists’ concerns — may have less to do with the messenger himself, or his message, than the changing world Sanders is now trying to reach, and the tools he now has at his disposal to reach it.
Nearly eight years ago, I wrote a story for Newsweek about the rise of what some observers were then referring to as “long tail” candidates for president. (The phrase was a reference to the theory, popularized by Wired editor Chris Anderson, that “our economy and culture is shifting from mass markets to million of niches.”) My argument was that we were beginning to move away from the two-sizes-fit-all categories of Democrat and Republican and toward a more personalized, motley politics.
“As the Web allows niche voters to form communities, raise money and get heard,” I wrote, “it’s inevitable that the major-party machines will clash with — and ultimately accommodate — the individualized constituencies they’re struggling to serve.”
The experts I talked to made a couple of predictions. First, that “unlike their predecessors, the next generation of niche politicians won’t necessarily choose the third-party route. Instead, tomorrow’s most successful narrowcasters will likely run as major-party candidates in the primaries, where widely seen debates and easy ballot access will bring exposure and credibility.” Second, while long-tail candidates won’t win the White House anytime soon, “their niche concerns and vocal supporters will demand unprecedented attention” — and mainstream politicians will begin to mine their more marginal counterparts for ideas (and votes).
The sense I got Monday is that the Sanders campaign is the first full realization of this concept. Instagram didn’t exist when Obama launched his presidential campaign in 2007. The iPhone had yet to be released. Twitter still hadn’t taken off. Facebook was a way to connect with your real-life friends — not a global hub for news, marketing and politics.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/3byEyLkG67a6z_qALVNlwA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9Mzc3O2lsPXBsYW5l/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/efa2cd6a77afa62af6010ca1bfcfb16354e7a9bf.jpg)
A supporter takes pictures during the Sanders rally in Los Angeles on Monday. (Photo: Ringo H.W. Chiu/AP)
Since then, social media has permeated every aspect of our lives. It’s become our constant mobile companion. It basically is the media at this point — the main way we absorb information about what’s happening in the world. And that, in turn, has amplified the long-tail effect on presidential politics. When every candidate is in your pocket all the time, it’s easier to find the one who seems to speak for you; when your feed is full of friends echoing your political passions, it’s easier to feel like you’re part of something bigger than yourself — a “political revolution,” as Sanders put in Los Angeles. Nothing is fringe; everything feels mainstream. And when activists revolt, a candidate can’t help but hear; every criticism is reposted, regrammed and retweeted until it becomes impossible to ignore.
That’s a big part of the reason why more than 27,000 people showed up to see Sanders speak in Los Angeles: because everyone seemed to be going. And it’s a big part of the reason why Sanders shifted his stance on racial justice so quickly as well: because everyone seemed to be complaining.
As I was leaving the Memorial Sports Arena Monday night, I met a man named Steve Smith. He’d caravanned into the city from Azusa with his wife and four friends. I asked him what he thought of the rally.
“It was absolutely electrifying — like seeing Zeppelin or the Who,” said Smith, 61. “Compare this to Hillary — a couple hundred people with zero enthusiasm. Sanders is the horse to keep your eye on. He’s the only candidate I know who can get huge numbers of the under-25s out to vote. The others don’t stand a chance.”
I was going to ask whether Smith really thought Sanders could upend the system — whether the senator from Vermont could do what Nader, Perot and Paul had failed to do — or whether that was just how it seemed on a warm night in Southern California, surrounded by tens of thousands of hopeful supporters streaming north through Exposition Park. But then I noticed him sniffing the air.
I sniffed too. Somebody was smoking pot.
“A familiar smell!” said Smith. He grinned. “Not bad at all.”
Note the use of an unappealing pic of Senator Sanders with the article, instead of the obvious one:
(https://thatshowthelightgetsin.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/img_0761.jpg?w=300&h=200)
...This happens constantly in what little coverage I find of him...
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/257697-[Sleezebag]-nears-100-days-on-top[Sleezebag] nears 100 days on top
Donald [Sleezebag] is closing in on 100 days atop the Republican primary polls.All aboard the [Sleezebag] train. 8)
The billionaire candidate has led every major national Republican poll since late July, and a raft of new surveys released this week reveals that [Sleezebag]’s support has held steady over those months, while his underlying fundamentals have improved.
The race has tightened somewhat, as Ben Carson has enjoyed a similar upward trajectory and even overtaken [Sleezebag] in one new poll of Iowa. However, the retired neurosurgeon is the only candidate within shouting distance of [Sleezebag] nationally or in the early voting states and remains firmly in second place in most polls.
Republicans and Beltway media elites, once hesitant to take [Sleezebag]’s campaign seriously, now acknowledge him as a legitimate contender in the races for the Republican nomination and the White House.
“All of us dismissed [Sleezebag] early on. A summer fling, momentary amusement,” “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace said after interviewing [Sleezebag] over the weekend. “As I watch that interview … I am beginning to believe he could be elected president of the United States.”
Chafee ends his presidential campaignhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/chafee-ends-presidential-campaign-122809026--election.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/chafee-ends-presidential-campaign-122809026--election.html)
Associated Press October 23, 2015
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee is ending his Democratic presidential campaign.
In prepared remarks before an appearance before the Democratic National Committee, Chafee said he is dropping out.
Chafee delivered a widely panned debate performance earlier this month. He has struggled to raise money and gain traction against Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
The former U.S. senator called himself a "block of granite" when it came to issues during the debate and has highlighted his opposition to the Iraq war.
Quotehttp://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/257697-[Sleezebag]-nears-100-days-on-top[Sleezebag] nears 100 days on topQuoteDonald [Sleezebag] is closing in on 100 days atop the Republican primary polls.All aboard the [Sleezebag] train. 8)
The billionaire candidate has led every major national Republican poll since late July, and a raft of new surveys released this week reveals that [Sleezebag]’s support has held steady over those months, while his underlying fundamentals have improved.
The race has tightened somewhat, as Ben Carson has enjoyed a similar upward trajectory and even overtaken [Sleezebag] in one new poll of Iowa. However, the retired neurosurgeon is the only candidate within shouting distance of [Sleezebag] nationally or in the early voting states and remains firmly in second place in most polls.
Republicans and Beltway media elites, once hesitant to take [Sleezebag]’s campaign seriously, now acknowledge him as a legitimate contender in the races for the Republican nomination and the White House.
“All of us dismissed [Sleezebag] early on. A summer fling, momentary amusement,” “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace said after interviewing [Sleezebag] over the weekend. “As I watch that interview … I am beginning to believe he could be elected president of the United States.”
Sanders getting ‘a little more pointed’ on Clinton, but not ‘negative’https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-getting-a-little-more-pointed-on-175507987.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-getting-a-little-more-pointed-on-175507987.html)
Hunter Walker National Correspondent October 25, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/AeT.rEFUfqsV6Ku0Mjf0hg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/7f7c4ba98bb181dcc077af86aa0fcfbd/tumblr_inline_nwsf2q7sJT1tedrp5_1280.jpg)
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks to guests at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Saturday in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
DES MOINES, Iowa — Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., went on the offensive at the Iowa Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he delivered a speech that highlighted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s shifting positions. His performance earned headlines dubbing him “fiery” and “bare-knuckle.” However, his campaign insists the remarks aren’t the beginning of an all-out attack on Clinton in their race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Sanders’ press secretary, Symone Sanders, told Yahoo News on Sunday that she was surprised by some of the coverage of his speech.
“I saw some reports saying, you know, ‘Oh, the senator like smacked Hillary, slapped Hillary, attacked her.’ Those were not slaps, attacks and smacks, but they were differentiating on the issues,” Symone said. “The senator has a really strong record to stand on, so he’s going to stand on it.”
Clinton is the frontrunner in the Democratic primary, but state and national polls show Sanders is her top rival.
Sanders’ speech included lines that alluded to Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War when she was in the Senate, her long pauses before announcing opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act during the administration of her husband, President Bill Clinton. Symone pointed out that Sanders began an effort to “differentiate” his record from his opponent’s heading into the Democratic presidential debate on Oct. 13. While she acknowledged he may have sharpened his approach, Symone vowed Sanders will not “directly attack” Clinton.
“I think what folks saw last night, you know, was Bernie came out and was being a little more pointed in his record, if you will. … Prior to last night, he had not drawn as stark a contrast of where he stands as opposed to the other candidates. I think that is definitely true,” Symone explained. “Folks that have said, ‘Bernie came out of the gate and said where he stands.’ Yes, he did, so I don’t think you haven’t seen that, but you won’t see him directly attack.”
In an interview on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on Sunday, the day after the dinner, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta suggested Sanders broke prior vows not to “go negative” with his speech.
“I think Bernie Sanders seemed to have a course correction in the JJ dinner from one in which he said he wasn’t going to go negative to obviously focusing his … fire on her,” said Podesta.
However, Symone specifically said Sanders will not go “negative” and begin criticizing Clinton by name.
“He has never done a negative attack ad in his life, and he has never gone on a negative campaign,” Symone said. “Bernie’s not going to start doing these interviews talking about how, ‘Secretary Clinton’s bad on blah blah blah.’ You know, you’ll never probably hear those words come out of his mouth. And what you will hear is him saying, you know, ‘I believe climate change is the greatest threat to our national security, so it didn’t take me four years to get a position on Keystone.’”
Symone framed Sanders’ Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech as an effort to “highlight his record.”
“I think that’s important to voters to know, especially for people that don’t know the senator, to know … where he stands on these trade agreements,” said Symone. “Not just the Trans-Pacific partnership but, you know, NAFTA, CAFTA and the permanent normal trade agreement with China.”
According to Symone, it would be wrong to view Sanders’ comments on Keystone, various trade agreements, the Iraq War and DOMA as “Hillary zingers.”
“These were just the facts,” she said.
Symone also pointed to the moment in the Democratic debate where Sanders famously declared the American people had had “enough” of hearing about the scandal over Clinton’s emails. Clinton thanked Sanders onstage, and her campaign later told Yahoo News it felt like the moment was “an assist” from Sanders.
“He calls it like he sees it,” Symone said. “So he can go ahead and defend her and say, ‘Look, Americans are tired of these damn emails, they want to talk about the issues.’ Secretary’s, like, ‘Yeah.’ He’s like, ‘OK, but also, Americans are tired of these disastrous trade policies.’ And that might make some people uncomfortable, but you know what? Bernie was speaking truth to power. That’s what makes him so real and authentic.”
Lindsey Graham on GOP field: ‘How am I losing to these people?’https://www.yahoo.com/politics/lindsey-graham-on-gop-field-how-am-i-losing-to-150953390.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/lindsey-graham-on-gop-field-how-am-i-losing-to-150953390.html)
Yahoo
Michael Walsh October 26, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/7jYxVPCVLgdZatYm8QAJLw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/893e4ea602291e0593fc3dac81788066/tumblr_inline_nwu1ytX5G51td5k0c_1280.jpg)
Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during a No Labels Problem Solver Convention in October in Manchester, N.H. (Photo: Jim Cole/AP)
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham says he cannot fathom how real estate magnate Donald [Sleezebag] and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are dominating the GOP presidential primaries.
Graham provided cutting assessments of their lack of political experience, foreign policies and overall temperaments during a wide-ranging interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Monday.
“On our side, you’ve got the No. 2 guy [who] tried to kill someone at 14, and the No. 1 is high energy and crazy as hell. How am I losing to these people?” he said.
The Republican presidential candidate, who has been struggling in national polls, was referring to the time when Carson stabbed one of his high school classmates, an incident he has discussed openly.
Toward the end of the interview, Graham joked that he should start moving up in the polls because he — unlike Carson — has never tried to kill anyone.
“And I’ve tried to murder no one ever, so this should move me up a little bit,” he joked. “Well, the day’s not over, but as of right now, nobody.”
Graham has outlined his approach to national security, the central issue to his campaign, in great detail. He blamed [Sleezebag]’s and Carson’s political inexperience for what he considers to be misguided or grossly underdeveloped foreign policies.
“Just look at Donald [Sleezebag]’s foreign policy. What is it? What is he going to do about ISIL? What is it? What is it? What is his game plan to destroy ISIL? Does anybody know?” he said.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/FG96VPvuP5LYw4UuBHZH6A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/c3e064dcfa99dce24e926bde4c98a153/tumblr_inline_nwu224x6yV1td5k0c_1280.jpg)
Graham, right, watches as he and Sen. John McCain play the roulette wheel at a charitable gaming poker room in October in Manchester, N.H. (Photo: Jim Cole/AP)
[Sleezebag] has said he would bomb the oil fields in Iraq and Syria to take away the Islamic State’s wealth, but has repeatedly declined to elaborate on his strategy because he feels publicly discussing military strategy helps the enemy.
As for immigration — the issue [Sleezebag] dragged to the forefront while announcing his candidacy — Graham called the party frontrunner’s position “hateful and illogical.”
“There’s a reason 75 percent of Hispanics disapprove of this guy,” he said. “We will get slaughtered if he’s the nominee. So if you give a damn about winning, pick someone who doesn’t dig the hole deeper with Hispanics.”
As the election draws closer, Graham said, experience will start to matter more and people will realize that these candidates who have never held elected office are not prepared to be commander in chief.
“Like Ben Carson said he would have declared energy independence as the reactions of 9/11. That’s kind of different,” he said. “You know, ‘I hereby declare,’ you know, bullhorn out here at the World Trade Center, ‘I hereby declare energy independence’ is not what I would be looking for. I think Bush got it right. So, Dr. Carson is a fine man. But his foreign policy is hard for me to follow.”
Primary polls consistently show [Sleezebag] and Carson in the first and second spots, respectively. Graham, on the other hand, is usually floundering toward the bottom of the pack.
An Ipsos/Reuters poll released last Wednesday showed that if the election were held today, 31 percent of Republicans would vote for [Sleezebag], 18 percent would vote for Carson and only 1 percent would vote for Graham.
As for immigration — the issue [Sleezebag] dragged to the forefront while announcing his candidacy — Graham called the party frontrunner’s position “hateful and illogical.”This is why you are losing.
“There’s a reason 75 percent of Hispanics disapprove of this guy,” he said. “We will get slaughtered if he’s the nominee. So if you give a damn about winning, pick someone who doesn’t dig the hole deeper with Hispanics.”
Your debate scorecard for the Republican presidential debate in Coloradohttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/your-debate-scorecard-for-the-1287472602374198.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/your-debate-scorecard-for-the-1287472602374198.html)
Yahoo Politics
Jon Ward Senior Political Correspondent October 28, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/sAwnD58U.IAWnkB9xUZKLA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzQ0O2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/d6005671e0d7ff9c24d2ba533cc1cb32/tumblr_inline_nwwqjqGAYi1t2npxi_540.jpg)
UFC middleweight fighter Vitor Belfort poses with presidential candidate Ben Carson in Florida Tuesday. Belfort is endorsing Carson. (Photo: Susan Stocker/South Florida Sun-Sentinel via AP)
Ben Carson is surging, but what will voters think of him as they take a closer look? Donald [Sleezebag] is falling behind Carson in Iowa and is none too happy about it. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush are jostling for position and could be headed for a showdown. The Republican field has one less candidate since the second debate of this campaign six weeks ago. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is gone. Now Bush is on the ropes. Here is a rundown on where the race stands and what each of the candidates needs to do Wednesday night inside the Coors Center on the campus of the University of Colorado to stay competitive.
Donald [Sleezebag]
26.8 percent in national polling / 20.6 percent in Iowa / 29.5 percent in New Hampshire
He has been No. 1 in the Real Clear Politics average of all national polling since July 20, a total of more than 100 days. But he is falling like a rock in Iowa and has dropped behind retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. The process by which political parties actually select their nominee — also known as reality — is starting to catch up to the Donald. And he has begun to lash out. At first he denied that Carson was actually beating him in Iowa, which goes first in the primary process. But two more polls came out after [Sleezebag] argued to Matt Lauer on Monday morning that the Iowa polling was an anomaly. [Sleezebag] will have to face the facts and has already begun to go after Carson on abortion. That’s a smarter tactic than raising questions about Carson’s membership in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, but in a debate [Sleezebag] could probably go any direction if he thinks he can take Carson down.
Ben Carson
22 percent / 29.2 percent / 14 percent
It’s been an amazing two-month stretch for Carson. For all of September and early October, he kept pace with [Sleezebag] as the No. 2 candidate in national polling. But now he is taking on the aura of a frontrunner. He is ahead of [Sleezebag] by an average of 10 points in the last several polls and overtook [Sleezebag] in national polling for the first time on Tuesday. Carson has never experienced the kind of pressure he’ll be under on the debate stage in Boulder, with many of the other candidates gunning for him. In addition to [Sleezebag]’s broadsides, look for conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to take shots at Carson’s past actions and statements on abortion. In particular, they’ll zero in on the fact that Carson has referred patients to doctors for abortions and that his campaign has defended him for doing so.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/W2oxDGmeN3Ef3XIA7S4lYQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzY2O2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/60a4d98e8f3c2e722ed0d0c321ace673/tumblr_inline_nwwqjrUPCY1t2npxi_540.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio speaks last week in Salt Lake City. (Photo: Rick Bowmer/AP)
Marco Rubio
9 percent / 10.2 percent / 8.3 percent
The Florida senator’s campaign high command probably couldn’t have planned their candidate’s trajectory to this point any better. Actually, they did plan it, and they’re right where they want to be: still out of the harsh spotlight that comes with being the frontrunner but right in striking distance as the race heads into the final three months before Iowa. Rubio’s formula for these debates is incredibly simple: deliver his talking points with ease and style, crack a few jokes and flash that easy grin, and avoid squabbles with other candidates. One problem this time: Jeb Bush may be looking for a fight. Bush may need to knock Rubio down in order to reassure donors and supporters that he has what it takes to claim the backing of the establishment wing of the party. Bush advisers have already previewed the line of attack on Rubio that Bush is likely to make: that Rubio is a Republican version of President Obama, an inexperienced senator who can give a good speech but has shown little leadership ability and would be out of his league in the highest office in the land.
Jeb Bush
7 percent / 6.2 percent / 9 percent
It will be interesting to see which Jeb Bush shows up in Colorado. Does he continue to let his id out as he did over the weekend in South Carolina, and to hell with the consequences? Or does he continue to rein himself in as he did in the first two debates? Does he go after Rubio to assert himself with the establishment wing? Does he take the fight to [Sleezebag]? Can he? So far it’s been unclear. Bush clearly doesn’t relish the more martial element of politics. He’s not a brawler. But he may need to become one to rescue himself from what increasingly is looking like a campaign death spiral. Look for him also to use his newly released plan to reform entitlements to press other candidates on what they’d do to solve one of the biggest challenges facing the nation, one that politicians running for office are often loath to weigh in on.
Ted Cruz
6.6 percent / 9.6 percent / 5.5 percent
Cruz has been waiting a long time now for [Sleezebag] and Carson to implode so he can snatch up their supporters. He can wait a while longer. He’s got plenty of cash. But of anyone in the field, he has the greatest incentive to sow doubt among conservatives about Carson’s conservative credentials. Iowa is fertile ground for Cruz, and he won’t want Carson to get too much momentum there. On the other hand, it’s still very early in Carson’s rise to the top of the polls, and Cruz has some time to see how things shake out without taking the risk of attacking Carson openly.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Q6HvDR2BBjFMFKkqkd.jew--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzUyO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://36.media.tumblr.com/b19d3cd1b9912c304e3800622d09ac33/tumblr_inline_nwwqjrVxSy1t2npxi_540.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, left, with assistant Rebecca Schieber, at a University of Iowa football game in September. (Photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)
Carly Fiorina
5.8 percent / 3.8 percent / 7.8 percent
A common headline these days is “What happened to Carly Fiorina?” She has starred in both Republican debates so far, and after the second she rose to third place in national polling. She’s still at the bottom of the upper tier of candidates, but a pattern of boom and bust is not sustainable. She’ll have to figure out how to maintain any rise in the polls she gets out of Wednesday night.
Mike Huckabee
3.8 percent / 2 percent / 1 percent
Huckabee is the highest-polling member of the Can’t Rise Caucus: the eight Republicans who have been stuck most of the primary at no higher than 3 or 4 percent. Each of them is battling some ceiling that is unique to them. For Huckabee, it’s the fact that he won the Iowa caucuses in 2008 but didn’t win the nomination. Early primary state voters want to pick a winner, so Huckabee’s failure to win it all eight years ago is an obstacle to his winning Iowa again. In addition, he has been a lackluster candidate so far, raising questions about whether his bid is just an effort to kick-start book sales and his cable TV career. He’s had some solid endorsements in Iowa recently from pastors and homeschooling leaders — communities that helped fuel his win last time he ran — but at 2 percent he’s worse off in Hawkeye State polling than he is in the national surveys.
Rand Paul
3.4 percent / 3.8 percent / 4.3 percent
When the main storyline about your campaign is that the Senate majority leader of your own party, who has endorsed your presidential candidacy, is pressuring you to abandon your run for the White House, that’s suboptimal. Paul desperately needs a major course correction.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/_kH7qo76oZ5SSq_5gT_Tbg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDUwO2g9MzAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/bb865a128233dd3fb94471008462a24f/tumblr_inline_nwwqjs788a1t2npxi_540.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, right, in New Hampshire earlier this month. (Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)
John Kasich
2.6 percent / 2 percent / 7 percent
The third member of the Can’t Rise Caucus took some heated shots at [Sleezebag] and Carson on Tuesday in Ohio, his home state, calling their ideas “crazy.” Consider that a heads-up that there will be more fireworks Wednesday night from the outspoken governor and former member of Congress. Kasich is more than capable of going off. His advisers may have decided it’s time to let the dog out.
Chris Christie
2.4 percent / 1.2 percent / 3.3 percent
The charismatic New Jersey governor has to believe that at some point he’ll get a shot. So far he hasn’t found an opening. It seems unlikely he will go the entire campaign without some moment where he gets a second look from voters. Like Kasich, Christie has so far kept his sometimes volatile personality in check. If Kasich lets loose, Christie might want to let him go first. Unless Christie can’t afford to stay in the race financially, he’s probably better off biding his time a bit longer before trying to make a move.
Lindsey Graham, Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal
1 percent (2.8 percent for Jindal in Iowa)
Graham’s “How am I losing to these people?” line was a good one, but he remains without a path to the nomination. Santorum and Jindal, meanwhile, continue to toil away in Iowa with the hope that they can surprise people and finish in the top three there on Feb. 1. There’s still time for that, but so far they’re still stuck in nowheresville in the polls, except for a few recent positive showings by Jindal in some surveys.
George Pataki
0.2 percent / 0.0 percent / 0.3 percent
Don Quixote remains.
http://prntly.com/blog/2015/10/15/official-october-electoral-map-gloom-for-dems-joy-for-[Sleezebag]/
Official October Electoral Map: gloom for Dems, joy for [Sleezebag](http://prntly.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Untitled15.png)
Based on an average of the RCP polling data from all the states and all the “head to head” matchups between Donald [Sleezebag] (by far the winner of the GOP) and Hillary Clinton (The winner of the Democratic Party) shows bad news for the Democrats.
Bernie Sanders’ first television ad promises ‘real change’
Yahoo Politics
Dylan Stableford Senior editor November 01, 2015
Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign has released its first television ad documenting the Vermont senator’s unlikely journey from Brooklyn to Washington.
“The son of a Polish immigrant who grew up in a Brooklyn tenement,” a voiceover says at the beginning of the minute-long ad. “He went to public schools, then college, where the work of his life began: fighting injustice and inequality. Speaking truth to power.”
It highlights Sanders’ four terms as mayor of Burlington, Vt., his opposition to the Iraq War in Congress and his ongoing battle with Wall Street and “a corrupt political system.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/6pSkTGR0qk2SpAPLXEUWYA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/71182e15878a64f84b88bdbefda505b5/tumblr_inline_nx5jrpntpo1tdoo3z_1280.jpg)
(YouTube/Bernie 2016)
The spot, entitled “Real Change,” will air in Iowa and New Hampshire, part of a $2 million-plus ad buy, according to the campaign.
The ad also notes that Sanders’ grassroots campaign has been funded “by over a million contributions.”
“People are sick and tired of establishment politics and they want real change,” Sanders says in a clip from a stump speech in Oregon.
“Bernie Sanders: Husband. Father. Grandfather,” the voiceover concludes. “An honest leader — building a movement with you to give us a future to believe in.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/4WXJySny1269cOJm_XNeMw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/c9830cd79ed5d097299e35765a6dafb7/tumblr_inline_nx5gqgcLfA1tdoo3z_1280.jpg)
Bernie Sanders speaks at a rally in Portland, Ore., in August. (Photo: Troy Wayrynen/AP)
The ad is designed to introduce Sanders to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who may not be familiar with his upbringing.
“As some of you know, I was born in a faraway land called Brooklyn,” Sanders said in May while formally announcing his presidential bid. “My father came to this country from Poland without a penny in his pocket and without much of an education. My mother graduated high school in New York City. My father worked for almost his entire life as a paint salesman and we were solidly lower middle class. My parents, brother and I lived in a small, rent-controlled apartment. My mother’s dream was to move out of that small apartment into a home of our own. She died young and her dream was never fulfilled. As a kid I learned, in many, many ways, what lack of money means to a family. That’s a lesson I have never forgotten.”
Hillary Clinton also highlighted her late mother’s influence in her campaign’s first TV ads that aired in Iowa and New Hampshire in August.
“When I think about why I’m doing this, I think about my mother, Dorothy,” Clinton says in one of them. “I think about all the Dorothys all over America who fight for their families, who never give up. That’s why I’m doing this, that’s why I’ve always done this: for all the Dorothys.”https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-first-television-ad-promises-real-185918187.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-first-television-ad-promises-real-185918187.html)
As expected, Sanders’ first TV ad does not mention his Democratic opponent.
The Vermont senator, who likes to say he’s “never run a negative political ad” in his life, vowed that his campaign would not resort to “reckless personal attacks or character assassination.”
“My campaign will be driven by issues and serious debate, not political gossip,” Sanders said in May. “This is what I believe the American people want and deserve.”
QuoteAs for immigration — the issue [Sleezebag] dragged to the forefront while announcing his candidacy — Graham called the party frontrunner’s position “hateful and illogical.”This is why you are losing.Quote“There’s a reason 75 percent of Hispanics disapprove of this guy,” he said. “We will get slaughtered if he’s the nominee. So if you give a damn about winning, pick someone who doesn’t dig the hole deeper with Hispanics.”
Why are Republicans spitting on their own base to pander to a people that don't vote for them?
Yes illegal aliens and voter intimidation won Obama the election whats your point.
If Romney had had Reagan's demographics he'd have won.
The demographics have changed,
If the GOP doesn't adapt it will go the way of the Whigs and the No-Nothings.Its been "adapting" as you call it, and its gotten nothing but being called racist.
Anyway, reaching out to Hispanics isn't the only path to victory,Victory for whom? Socialists? Just take a look at South American countries.
QuoteThe demographics have changed,
Yes Its changed and we never voted to be invaded and replaced.
Just look to South Africa to see what happens when whites become a mInority. They get slaughtered.
Oh and by the way I actually know people that are unfortunate enough to live in South Africa.
QuoteAnyway, reaching out to Hispanics isn't the only path to victory,Victory for whom? Socialists? Just take a look at South American countries.
The idea of "reaching out" to Hispanics and "adapting" just means letting the
left do what they want. People in the Republican party are sick of being ignored and
replaced. Especially when they are paying for it.
That's probably what the Spanish speakers living in the Texas-California-Colorado triangle said in the 19th century.
Okay. Maybe you can clarify a few things for me. Weren't the whites a minority when they settled there? Weren't they always a minority, even when they were in power?
Victory for the Republicans.
Do you object to majority rule per se?
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html
By Gregory H. Stanton, President, Genocide Watch
The crime of genocide is defined in international law in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Being married to Berniehttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/being-married-to-bernie-1291469214744630.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/being-married-to-bernie-1291469214744630.html)
Yahoo Politics
Lisa Belkin Chief National Correspondent November 03, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/dnhyt3Vb3.D55zZVpl6JDQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzYwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://36.media.tumblr.com/a7d5b1656fa8fee917ff2c466d6b807c/tumblr_inline_nx76znUwDe1smb3m3_540.jpg)
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane, at a campaign rally in Manassas, Va., in September. (Photo: Cliff Owen/AP)
From the stage at the first Democratic presidential debate, nearly all the candidates opened with talk about their families.
“My wife, Hong, came to this country as a refugee from war-torn Vietnam,” said Jim Webb, who then went on to name his five children and their occupations, pausing just long enough in the middle to make viewers wonder if he was trying to remember one of them.
“My wife, Katie, and I have four great kids, Grace, and Tara, and William and Jack,” Martin O’Malley said when it was his turn, adding that his most important role was as “a husband, and a father.”
And Hillary Clinton, with all her complicated reasons not to bring up her spouse, still found a way to mention other generations and relations. “I’m the granddaughter of a factory worker and the grandmother of a wonderful 1-year-old child,” she said.
Bernie Sanders, however, didn’t pause to sketch a family portrait. In fact, he was the only one onstage who didn’t give a bio of any kind. He started right in with the “series of unprecedented national crises” that prompted his candidacy, and he never spoke of his 27-year marriage, nor the blended group of five children he and his wife consider theirs.
Sitting in the audience with two of those children, Jane O’Meara Driscoll Sanders was not the least bit surprised. Accomplished in her own right — she is, among other things, a former president of a Vermont college — she is the people person to his curmudgeon, the one who lives on the ground while he lives in his head. As her husband makes a strong national showing in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, she remains his closest adviser, and part of her advice, on debate night as always, was that he stay focused on why he decided to run this race in the first place.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/VIz2QadyvtXBFZ9E8BLGAQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://36.media.tumblr.com/93576a6032c97a6746078fc7e0954fad/tumblr_inline_nx8zdkB4ty1smb3m3_1280.jpg)
“Why should it be about me or about our family?” she said in a long and candid interview in her husband’s tiny Washington, D.C., campaign headquarters recently, dressed, as always, in casual flowing pants and blouse, her blue eyes framed by her long strawberry blond hair. “It’s about the issues. We’ve always been about the issues.”
*****
Their meet-cute was also a meet-political. In 1981, Jane O’Meara Driscoll, a recently divorced transplanted New Yorker, went to a meeting where the then mayor of Burlington was discussing a proposed tax hike that many thought would hurt low-income residents. Jane took the floor to ask some pointed questions, and when she sat down the person next to her said, “You sound like Bernie Sanders.”
“Who’s Bernie Sanders?” she asked.
He was the candidate opposing this six-term incumbent mayor, she was told, and Jane was soon working to organize a debate between the two. “He was so inspiring,” she says of her now husband at that event. “He embodied everything I believed in.”
She’d brought her then 6-year-old daughter, Carina, along, and a favorite family story is about how the little girl was the only one in the room who didn’t join in the standing ovation for her future stepfather.
“It was very clear from that night that Bernie was an astonishing person,” Carina remembers, stopping in briefly to chat during this interview. “He had the ability to really move people, and that was what drew my mother to him long before they were a couple.”
Well, not very long before. Jane and Bernie didn’t technically meet that night. She worked for his election, and they were introduced at his victory party 10 days later, after he won the race by 10 votes. Within months they were a couple.
“That was the beginning of forever,” she has said.
*****
When Jane gets tired, her children tease that her New York accent returns and “you sound just like you never left,” she says.
Born Mary Jane O’Meara in Brooklyn in 1950 (her family still uses the Mary), she grew up (like Bernie, who is nine years her senior) in Flatbush, where her childhood was defined by the chronic illness of her father. Benedict O’Meara had tripped over a sidewalk crack when Jane was 2 years old, breaking his hip, and then developed a blood infection from a deterioration of the surgically inserted pin.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/2LfONcig.BwPX_rKJnkPrQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9NDAxO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/6a3453488d9d3af6559a56144cf89f56/tumblr_inline_nx76znYHtb1smb3m3_540.jpg)
Bernie and Jane in 1984. (Photo: Sanders family)
He was hospitalized for two and a half years straight, and then returned to the hospital for several months each year after that, which meant he lost his job as a schoolteacher, which had been the only income for his family of five children. When not bedridden he became a taxi driver. Jane’s mother, Bernadette, went to secretarial school at night and persuaded the Catholic kindergarten to accept Jane, her youngest, at age 3 instead of 4 so Bernadette could work during the school day. It was only 12 years later, when Jane’s older brother had built a successful business — as a blacksmith in Brooklyn (no, really) — and paid cash for the first complete medical workup their father ever had, that Benedict became well enough to stay out of the hospital for several years at a time.
“It was an awakening,” Jane says. “It was my first realization that money can buy health, and that this fact was deeply unjust.”
After graduating from Catholic high school in Flatbush, she went to the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, where she studied “marriage and children,” she says — specifically classes in marriage in the family and child development — as a sociology major. She married her high school sweetheart, David Driscoll, and left without a degree. When they moved back to Brooklyn, he worked in sales for an office supply company and she worked hourly jobs — cashier, teller — while raising two children, Heather (now a yoga instructor in Sedona, Ariz.) and Carina (a founder and owner of a Vermont woodworking school).
In the early ’70s, Driscoll was transferred by IBM to Manassas, Va., where the city girl learned to hoe fields in her ever-expanding vegetable garden and grow “actual corn.” But she chafed at the culture of a place “where the men would go after dinner and talk politics and the women would go clean up,” she says. Wanting different role models for her daughters, she urged Driscoll to ask for a transfer north, which is how she came to live in Vermont in 1975, where her youngest child, Dave (now a director of a Vermont snowboard company), was born, and where she enrolled in Goddard College — a school that to this day remains proud of its “history of creativity and chaos, invention and experimentation” — to finish her social work degree.
By the late ’70s she was divorced — amicably, she says. (“We were childhood sweethearts. We grew apart.”) In 1981 she was working for the Juvenile Division of the Burlington Police Department and volunteering at local youth centers when she attended the pivotal mayoral debate. Between that night and Election Day, Bernie created a “task force on youth” to advise his campaign and asked each of 12 local organizations to send a representative to brainstorm ways to help children and families. The youth center sent Jane, and the group selected her as chair. So she worked for Bernie before she met him.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/4Ffx9XBoiUKBfBRQGnKpKQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/82fde6879378c4a364124080d579e68c/tumblr_inline_nx8zciZUi31smb3m3_1280.jpg)
After his election he appointed her the head of his new Youth Office, a post that reported to the city council, not the mayor, which was convenient, since romantic sparks flew more or less immediately. In that job she created programs that she believes still help keep Burlington on lists of best places to raise a family in the U.S. The office sponsored after-school programs, a municipal childcare center, a teen center, a performing arts program, and both a newspaper and local access TV show produced by students.
Her romantic dinners with the mayor usually involved talking policy and politics, and the day after their 1988 wedding the newlyweds marched together in the Burlington Memorial Day parade, then got on a plane with 10 other people for a visit to Burlington’s “sister city” in Yaroslavl, Russia, for the Sanders version of a honeymoon.
“They are a team; they always were a team,” says Carina. “They have been a really amazing example of a partnership based on building something extraordinary together.”
*****
By the time he and Jane met, Bernie Sanders had been married and divorced and had fathered a child, Levi (now a paralegal in Boston), from another long-term relationship.
After Jane’s divorce, her ex-husband went on to have another child, Nicole. All five children — Heather, Carina, Dave, Levi and Nicole — along with the seven grandchildren, are simply “family,” Jane says, “no halves or steps” about it.
Says Carina, of the man she has always called Bernie: “I’m his daughter. He’s my dad. We grew up in his house. They’re our parents.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/5zrLIZVWKiwT_5BfvF.ucg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDgwO2g9NjMxO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/130e4beee796fe3675dd74086969f7e0/tumblr_inline_nx76zo8kGn1smb3m3_540.jpg)
Bernie and Jane in front of their home in Burlington, Vt., in 1988 with their children, from left, Dave, Heather, Levi, and Carina. (Photo: Sanders family)
So much so that when, long after the divorce, David Driscoll was dying of lung cancer, Jane and Bernie moved him into the unoccupied condo they had bought for Bernie’s mother to live in before she died. And when Nicole was married, Bernie and Jane threw the wedding.
“Family is family,” Jane says. “We take care of each other.”
But, she adds, it’s not a family that fits neatly into a campaign bio — or the opening statement of a presidential debate.
All but the youngest of the children were at college or living on their own by the time Bernie became Vermont’s only congressman in 1991. Dave and Carina stayed in Burlington, where they were attending high school, Bernie spent weekdays in Washington and weekends back home, and Jane often shuttled between the two, having left her job with the Youth Office to help set up and run his Capitol Hill office.
That’s the constant question all Capitol Hill couples face, she says: “Do you move the family down there and lose him every weekend, or keep the family back home and only see him on the weekends, have a weekend marriage?”
In addition to forcing the couple to shuttle between homes, the new job led to a reshuffling of their partnership. “When he was mayor we just made it up as we went along,” she says. “We would say, ‘This needs to be done,’ and then we would do it. But when you come to Congress, you have to learn how does the job get done, how do the committees work, how do the party structures work?”
Jane was involved from the start, reading through resumes and hiring staff, attending the informational seminars held by the leadership on how to run a congressional office. But now when she suggested, “Why don’t we try it this way?” he often said, “Jane, this isn’t Burlington, we can’t just make our own decisions.”
It also took a while to make friends. Washington social life is a complex organism, and at first it seemed that many of the other spouses lacked the “urgency about the issues” that she felt — reminiscent of the days when the men discussed politics on the porch while the women went back inside to clean up. She often found herself drawn more to the conversation with the members than with their husbands and wives. (That changed over the years, she adds, and now she has a deep bench of friends among House and Senate spouses.)
In the first few years she was at various times her husband’s press secretary, chief of staff, and political analyst, all while working toward the PhD she would earn in sociology. (Should her husband be elected president, that would make her the first first lady to hold the title of doctor.) She was also on the board of trustees of her alma mater, Goddard College, and in 1996, when the president of that school abruptly resigned, she agreed to step in as interim president and provost. By all accounts she steered Goddard through a rocky time, helping build morale and shore up finances.
“I went in when they needed me and learned that I could do it,” she said of her 18-month tenure.
It left her wanting to do more.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/bWLjCPSXHixEOFo0BdsHjw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/e38cb3f58925e6f0a5cfe9d14194ff5a/tumblr_inline_nx8zb3L0p51smb3m3_1280.jpg)
She founded CEO Leadership Strategies, a political and educational consulting firm based in Burlington, but conflict of interest rules meant she needed to eventually choose between earning a living as a strategist or continuing to serve that role for her husband.
Then, in 2004 she was named president of Burlington College, a commuter school of about 200 full-time students — most of them older and with untraditional backgrounds, in other words, the kind of student she had been when she returned to Goddard for her degree. She left both her roles — at her company and as Bernie’s adviser — to take the job.
For three years she was president of a college and he was the congressman representing the state where that college was based. In 2007 he was elected to the Senate, and the dividing lines between their jobs became even more carefully defined. During her interim time at Goddard, she says, those lines had been informal because “there I was surrounded by familiar faces who knew me for decades and who knew Bernie well enough not to expect any treats from him.” But as they both grew in clout and stature, in organizations that were less familiar, “we more carefully separated our interests,” she says.
Among the rules, she says: She never spoke to members of his staff about any subject that had anything to do with the college. He almost never came to visit her at work, at most attending a few graduation ceremonies. When Burlington College applied for federal grants of any sort, its president’s name was not on the application and it would try whenever possible to pool its requests with those of other entities with similar interests in the state.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/HNwlX51cR8eenTJYBdVD6g--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzU5O2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/59d49b988b2c3652913b9236a29937e2/tumblr_inline_nx76zotpQH1smb3m3_540.jpg)
Jane is her husband’s closest adviser, and part of her advice is to stay focused on why he decided to run in the first place. “We’ve always been about the issues,” she says. (Photo: Mary F. Calvert for Yahoo News)
Despite the college’s determination to avoid conflict, however, controversy still managed to arise. One accusation that comes up increasingly often recently is that as part of Sanders’ expansion plan, Burlington College went into debt to buy a $10 million, 32-acre parcel of land for a new campus. The state agency that agreed to issue tax-exempt bonds against the loan required a commitment of several million dollars from private donors, and in listing those pledges the school included one large pledge that was a future commitment rather than money already in hand. It is standard accounting practice to count these, but in this case the payment never came through and the school now faces serious financial troubles.
The shortfall is a favorite topic of conservative websites, such as the Daily Caller, which call it deliberate loan fraud, saying it was the secret reason behind Jane’s departure from Burlington College in 2011. She calls that “nonsense,” saying that she left after seven years on the job because new board leadership came in that did not agree with her “expansive vision,” so she stepped aside. The current financial difficulties began under her successor, she says. Similarly, talk of loans and bonds and fraud didn’t come up until years after she had left, she says, when her husband began being mentioned as a possible candidate for president.
*****
When talk of the White House first began, Jane was against the idea. “Do you really want to spend all your time raising money and defending every single thing that every single one of us ever did or thought?” she remembers asking.
In her attempts to redirect, she says, “I thought of all sorts of ways he could raise the issues he felt were being ignored, but he could do that without running. Start a nonprofit. Write a book. Find other ways to steer the conversation.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/cm.p2jIjwktQ_A2ahKfsJw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://36.media.tumblr.com/00c9805060b3130eeb46db97f85e17f3/tumblr_inline_nx8zbteCh91smb3m3_1280.jpg)
But in the end she gave her consent, and while she thought the campaign would succeed in its actual goal — not necessarily winning, but pushing other candidates to talk about things like income inequality — she and Bernie were both surprised by how fast it became so big.
That reality hit late this spring in Minneapolis, the first time the Sanders campaign drew a crowd of thousands. They were in a van, as usual, and Phil Fiermonte, the campaign field director, was driving, as usual, and as they approached the venue they saw a line snaking around the block.
“Who are we competing with, Phil?” Bernie asked, assuming that the crowd was for something, or someone, else. But it was for him.
The crowds have gotten even larger since then, yet their campaign style hasn’t changed much. Jane still travels with her husband whenever she can, because “it helps him to have a familiar face, someone he can count on.” They talk equal parts grandchildren and strategy while on the road.
Though no stranger to giving speeches herself — college presidents give a lot of them — so far Jane has stuck to shaking hands and talking to voters one on one. In a field of accomplished spouses — Kate O’Malley is a judge, Heidi Cruz is a former investment banker and Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton — she is arguably the least mentioned. She has no staff of her own. To set up an interview you call her cellphone and she answers. If you get lost on the way to the interview you call her cell again and she gives directions. Ask her where she will be the next week and she isn’t really sure, because this campaign’s schedule is a rather fluid thing.
“My daughter keeps saying I need some sort of assistant,” she says. “But it’s not about me.”
It’s about the issues, she repeats. And to watch her watch her husband on the debate stage, where he doesn’t mention her at all, is to get a glimpse of the effect his ideas had on her the first time she heard him speak.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/6g7mntaWBpw5mnyQPE60AQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzY0O2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/573eff055536a9bc827788a27ffbf002/tumblr_inline_nx76zpo73T1smb3m3_540.jpg)
Bernie Sanders kisses Jane before announcing his candidacy for the presidency in May. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
“He’s doing what he aimed to do,” she gushed a few days after it was over. “The last election the candidates didn’t talk about inequality, they didn’t talk about fairness, they didn’t talk about climate change. He’s setting the agenda. That’s what it’s about.”
The Spanish never owned it except on paper Texans fought for it and after they fought the bestial Cheyenne (They were fond of gang raping and cutting the noses off of girls they caught). The Mexicans decided to lay claim to it after American settlers tamed it. Naturally the Texans objected to this.
You ever consider writing a history book? Would be fascinating...Its already been written down already. Actually.
The top 5 takeaways from Bernie Sanders' big speechhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-top-5-takeaways-from-bernie-sanders-big-014821822.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-top-5-takeaways-from-bernie-sanders-big-014821822.html)
Hunter Walker National Correspondent November 19, 2015
Sen. Bernie Sanders gave one of the most important speeches of his presidential campaign in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, outlining his “democratic socialist ideals.”
Speaking at Georgetown University, the Democratic candidate battled perceptions his ideas are foreign or “radical” and framed his proposals as a modern version of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.
His remarks included much of his standard stump speech embedded in a broader narrative framework seeking to situate his policy pronouncements within a broader political vision and American historical context.
Sanders also discussed foreign policy in the wake of the Paris terror attacks that left 129 people dead last Friday.
Here are five key points from the address:
1. Sanders doesn’t think his ideas are radical.
A core issue for Sanders as he has mounted a surprisingly strong challenge to frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary has been electability and the question of whether voters can get comfortable with his unorthodox political identity. In his speech, Sanders attempted to argue his “democratic socialist” views are in line with American traditions and ideals.
Sanders repeatedly referred to F.D.R. and claimed his policies are similar and face similar opposition from the “ruling class.”
“He redefined the relationship of the federal government to the people of our nation. He combated cynicism, fear and despair. He reinvigorated democracy. He transformed our country,” Sanders said of Roosevelt. “And that is exactly what we have to do today. And by the way, almost everything he proposed, almost every program, every idea he introduced was called ‘socialist.’”
Sanders also invoked Martin Luther King Jr. and Pope Francis as he made his case.
In addition to arguing his ideas are not unprecedented within the country, Sanders pointed out that many of them are already in place abroad. When he discussed his plan for universal health insurance, Sanders noted that some people consider it “incredibly radical.” He pushed back against that characterization.
“This is not a radical idea. It is a conservative idea. It is an idea and a practice that exists in every other major country on Earth,” Sanders said.
2. Sanders thinks the system is rigged.
Fighting income inequality and pushing for campaign finance reform are the two cornerstones of Sanders’ platform.
In his speech, Sanders attempted to link these two things together and argued there is a “corrupt” and “rigged” political system that allows the incredibly wealthy and major corporations to solidify their position at the expense of the majority.
“The bottom line is that today in America, we not only have massive wealth and income inequality, but a power structure built around that inequality, which protects those who have the money,” Sanders said. “Today, a handful of superwealthy campaign contributors have enormous influence over the political process, while their lobbyists determine much of what goes on in Congress.“
3. Sanders doesn’t necessarily think this is a free country.
Sanders pointed to Roosevelt’s call for a “Second Bill of Rights” as he outlined his proposals. He noted Roosevelt believed “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”
“In other words, real freedom must include economic security,” said Sanders. “That was Roosevelt’s vision 70 years ago. It is my vision today. It is a vision that we have not yet achieved, and it is time that we did.”
Sanders described a suite of policies that he said would give people a “living wage.” They included universal health coverage, free tuition at public colleges, paid sick and family leave, raising the minimum wage to $15 and prison reform. He also called for a “full-employment economy” and vowed to generate jobs by rebuilding our “crumbling infrastructure.”
“So, the next time that you hear me attacked as a socialist — like tomorrow,” Sanders said, provoking laughs from the audience, “remember this: I don’t believe government should take over, you know, the grocery store down the street. But I do believe that the middle class and the working class of this country, who produce the wealth of this country, deserve a decent standard of living.”
4. Sanders believes America has made serious foreign policy mistakes.
The last part of Sanders’ speech was focused on foreign policy. In it, he vowed not to remake “the failed foreign policy decisions of the past.”
“I will never send our sons and daughters to war under false pretense or pretenses about dubious battles with no end in sight,” Sanders declared.
Sanders went on to reiterate his longstanding opinion that the Iraq War, which Clinton voted for as a member of the U.S. Senate, was one of these mistakes.
“Unilateral military action should be a last resort, not a first resort,” he said. “Ill-conceived military decisions such as the invasion of Iraq can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilization over regions for decades.”
Sanders has faced questions about his relative lack of foreign policy experience compared to Clinton. By making the argument our past policies have failed, he seems poised to use Clinton’s experience as a former senator and secretary of state against her.
5. The Bernie doctrine
Sanders also detailed his plan to combat the jihadist group Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS.
He outlined a multilateral approach to military action, calling for the creation of “a new organization like NATO to confront the security threats of the 21st century.” He also argued America should take a supporting role in the fight against ISIS and let Muslim nations lead the effort.
“The fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam,” Sanders said. “Countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations with the strong support of their global partners.”
Sanders repeatedly referred to F.D.R. and claimed his policies are similar and face similar opposition from the “ruling class.”FDR was probably the worst president we've ever had. His "new deal" had people starving to death.
“In other words, real freedom must include economic security,” said Sanders. “That was Roosevelt’s vision 70 years ago.Yes and who is going to pay for it?
That was over 14 years ago. I figure it's possible that a number of people, including [Sleezebag], may have been confused about the byline, perhaps confusing Jordan and Jersey.
McCain: Tea Party “appeals to the bad angels of our nature”https://www.yahoo.com/politics/mccain-tea-party-appeals-to-the-bad-angels-of-163046617.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/mccain-tea-party-appeals-to-the-bad-angels-of-163046617.html)
Meredith Shiner Political correspondent December 02, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/bHdfgJAOvfUn7hhELAcibQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/e1d4ae10caba8e50205ee1681002efe9/tumblr_inline_nyqog3sszi1smb3xa_1280.jpg)
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is surrounded by reporters as he arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would not criticize current GOP presidential frontrunner Donald [Sleezebag] outright, no matter how hard reporters tried at a media breakfast here in Washington Wednesday. But he did warn that the tea party movement is in part fueled by appealing to “the bad angels of our nature” and that candidates who do not correct racist sentiments or untrue statements on the trail are “complicit” in propagating them.
Speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, McCain said that much of the anti-establishment sentiment against Republicans from their conservative base is “justified” because those voters have not seen the sort of economic benefits they have expected to see since the crash of 2008. He noted that only “very wealthy people have done very well.” Yet he also offered several candid diagnoses of what he characterized as a darker side of the elements that have taken over the GOP and propelled non-politician candidates like [Sleezebag] or neurosurgeon Ben Carson to the top of the field.
“If you go back to 2010, when the tea party became a real factor at least in certain segments of the political landscape, it’s a reflection of frustration and anger that people feel,” McCain said. “A lot of that is bred by a poor economy, as far as its effect on average American citizens, and a lot of it is justified because they have not seen a betterment of their lives that they had hoped to expect.”
McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, then added a pretty serious addendum to that widely-accepted explanation of the tea party’s roots: “I think also – I probably shouldn’t say this – but some of this appeals to the bad angels of our nature rather than the better angels of our nature.”
When he was campaigning for president in 2008 , McCain caught flack from the conservative base — and even attendees at his own events — for defending now-President Barack Obama against charges from town hall attendees that the Democrat was Arab, un-American and a “terrorist.”
“He’s a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign’s all about. He’s not [an Arab],“ McCain said at the time.
When asked whether more Republican candidates in the 2016 race should follow his example and not let incendiary comments stand, McCain adamantly defended his approach in 2008 and urged others to adopt it. Those who do not correct wrong views are “complicit,” said McCain, and will ultimately lose, even if they win electorally.
“In my view, if you allow those things to be said –or not, in the case of beating up a protestor – and let that go unresponded to, you are complicit,” McCain said. “You have to do what’s right. No matter what the cost is, you have to do what’s right. Otherwise you will lose in the long run, even if you win, you lose, speaking as the loser. You just must have a level of political discourse.”
It’s not clear that those in the current crop of GOP contenders will heed his advice. But McCain’s comments provided a reminder of how far the Republican party has shifted since McCain last ran for president and how antiquated, at least for now, his take might seem to those in the movement that now dominates the GOP.
Even so, McCain — who faces Senate reelection in 2016 — spent much of the breakfast questioning Obama’s leadership and strategy in attacking the Islamic State in Syria. And he told reporters that he plans to vote this week in the Senate to repeal Obamacare, though he conceded “discomfort” with supporting a package that would roll back Medicaid expansion, which was implemented in Arizona by its governor and legislature.
http://dcgazette.com/donald-[Sleezebag]-right-this-video-report-shows-group-of-islamists-holding-a-pre-planned-911-celebration-on-a-rooftop/
Donald [Sleezebag] Right! This VIDEO Report Shows Group of Islamists Holding a Pre-Planned 9/11 Celebration on a Rooftop…
Paris Swade 12/02/2015
28ShareTweetPinterest
Donald [Sleezebag] Right! This VIDEO Report Shows Group of Islamists Holding a Pre-Planned 9/11 Celebration on a Rooftop…
This video from September 16, 2001 shows a news broadcast by New York City affiliate WCBS-TV. It features a long-term reporter named Pablo Guzman. He is talking about the federal government investigating claims in a Jersey City apartment building that reports that residents had a rooftop celebration of the 9/11 attacks.
This video was posted on YouTube on Monday by “Citizen Video.”
The one tweet that Ann Coulter posted basically sums up the election.
This just after the Paris slaughter.
"They can have the election if they like but [Sleezebag] just became president."
Quotehttp://dcgazette.com/donald-[Sleezebag]-right-this-video-report-shows-group-of-islamists-holding-a-pre-planned-911-celebration-on-a-rooftop/QuoteDonald [Sleezebag] Right! This VIDEO Report Shows Group of Islamists Holding a Pre-Planned 9/11 Celebration on a Rooftop…
Paris Swade 12/02/2015
28ShareTweetPinterest
Donald [Sleezebag] Right! This VIDEO Report Shows Group of Islamists Holding a Pre-Planned 9/11 Celebration on a Rooftop…
This video from September 16, 2001 shows a news broadcast by New York City affiliate WCBS-TV. It features a long-term reporter named Pablo Guzman. He is talking about the federal government investigating claims in a Jersey City apartment building that reports that residents had a rooftop celebration of the 9/11 attacks.
This video was posted on YouTube on Monday by “Citizen Video.”
I was watching CNN myself back then. [Sleezebag] was right.
Quotehttp://dcgazette.com/donald-[Sleezebag]-right-this-video-report-shows-group-of-islamists-holding-a-pre-planned-911-celebration-on-a-rooftop/QuoteDonald [Sleezebag] Right! This VIDEO Report Shows Group of Islamists Holding a Pre-Planned 9/11 Celebration on a Rooftop…
Paris Swade 12/02/2015
28ShareTweetPinterest
Donald [Sleezebag] Right! This VIDEO Report Shows Group of Islamists Holding a Pre-Planned 9/11 Celebration on a Rooftop…
This video from September 16, 2001 shows a news broadcast by New York City affiliate WCBS-TV. It features a long-term reporter named Pablo Guzman. He is talking about the federal government investigating claims in a Jersey City apartment building that reports that residents had a rooftop celebration of the 9/11 attacks.
This video was posted on YouTube on Monday by “Citizen Video.”
I was watching CNN myself back then. [Sleezebag] was right.
I was working that day and limited to radio. I don't recall this story.
Well, there's quite a discrepancy between 8 and "thousands", but it sounds like he's merely exaggerating, not making stuff up. Exaggeration is hardly a first for a politician on a stump.
I'd be chagrined whether I was [Sleezebag] or the Media, but I think the Media loses more credibility over this one.
The Bernie revolution: He’s not going anywherehttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-bernie-revolution-hes-not-going-anywhere-100050258.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-bernie-revolution-hes-not-going-anywhere-100050258.html)
Andy Kroll for Yahoo News December 03, 2015
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/_0yHFYFevhOSAQJr_VnKDQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/7ab016cbafc6bffe7a12295eac632dfc/tumblr_inline_nyr8wt8Tir1tiuhmr_1280.jpg)
Bernie Sanders speaking at George Mason University in October. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
It’s a drizzly Wednesday evening in October and the presidential campaign has descended on a college campus in suburban Virginia. The line of students begins way out in the parking lot, a procession of flannel and hoodies and trendy rain boots winding up the stairs and through the doors of the campus rec center, snaking down polished hallways until reaching the gymnasium. Attendees scribble their names and email addresses on pledge cards and drop them in a box on the way in. Young volunteers in campaign T-shirts corral the unwieldy masses, and the late arrivals plead for a seat inside.
We’ve seen this hundreds of times before: The gymnasium filled to the rafters, the handwritten banners and the phalanx of TV cameras, the klieg lights aimed at center stage, the rock music blaring as the candidate makes his or her entrance. But the setting of tonight’s rally, George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., isn’t some hotbed of ivory tower liberalism on fire for the latest Democratic rock star. If anything, George Mason is known as a bastion of libertarianism and a magnet for major donations by right-leaning luminaries such as the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. The headliner of tonight’s student town hall, the object of affection for all these college kids, isn’t quite whom you’d expect either: a rumpled, irascible democratic socialist from the state of Vermont named Bernie Sanders.
Take a look at him: Sen. Bernard Sanders, age 74, is not young, handsome or polished like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama were when they ran for president. He doesn’t care much for working rope lines or rah-rah chants. The closest thing he has to an official slogan is the legally required fine print on his website and campaign lit: “PAID FOR BY BERNIE 2016 (not the billionaires).”
His stump speeches steer clear of the typical campaign pabulum. No city-on-a-hill imagery. No spit-shined paeans to the “greatest country on earth.” Sanders prefers to rattle off one grim fact after another about the dire state of our union—2.2 million people incarcerated; $1 trillion in student debt; the vast gap between top 1 percent and everyone else. His transitions — “Now, there’s another issue I want to discuss” — send Ted Sorensen spinning in his grave. If Obama campaigned in poetry, then Sanders employs the prose of a Union Square pamphleteer telling anyone who’ll listen all the reasons why our country is going to pot.
And the college kids — they love it. At George Mason, they pump their fists and leap out of their seats and scream “I love you, Bernie!” They love him because he doesn’t sugarcoat it, doesn’t coddle them. As he rattles off the bad news, many students boo but others cheer; some cheer and boo. It’s almost as if they can’t help but applaud a candidate who has the nerve to give it to them straight.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gjuzdDvapIzhQQPeOCCXcg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/5d1bdaff5e2905e52617b57f47c2733a/tumblr_inline_nyr87hAtWt1tiuhmr_1280.jpg)
Sanders greeting students after a town hall meeting at George Mason University. (Photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
No matter the setting or the audience, Sanders’ fundamental message is the same: The political system is broken, corrupt. Passing this or that new policy won’t fix it. In the mold of populists past, Sanders wants to tear it all down and rebuild it anew.
***
When Sanders kicked off his presidential bid in May, his own allies were perplexed. He wouldn’t get within a mile of Hillary Clinton. Technically, he wasn’t even a member of the Democratic Party. (Sanders identifies as an Independent in the U.S. Senate.) But just as Donald [Sleezebag] improbably stole the limelight among the Republican faithful after entering the race in June, for the Democrats the summer of 2015 was the Summer of Bernie. He drew huge crowds everywhere he went — 10,000 in Madison, 20,000 in Boston, 27,500 in Los Angeles. His advance team stopped booking reception halls and started booking sports arenas. The people loved it. The numbers proved it. Feel the Bern.
In a span of months, Sanders erased Clinton’s double-digit lead in polls conducted of Iowa and New Hampshire voters. He announced in October that his campaign had raised $26 million in the previous three months — the same as Clinton, despite running a vastly leaner campaign and relying almost entirely on small-dollar donors. Several weeks later, Sanders told supporters that he’d received contributions from 750,000 individuals, a figure surpassing Barack Obama’s tally at the same point in his historic first presidential bid. And Sanders had gotten there more or less organically: For the first five months of his campaign, Sanders didn’t air a single TV ad. (Clinton’s campaign had aired more than 4,800 television ads through early October.)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Pcf4oqcjhzhc2yg.8jo7Cg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/76506c074c2d270b9bfd9d3c29e3759a/tumblr_inline_nyr92urjfA1tiuhmr_1280.jpg)
Sanders greets supporters at a campaign rally outside the New Hampshire statehouse in November. (Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)
Sanders is now on the air in Iowa and New Hampshire, and while his polling numbers have started to level off, they climbed steadily from summer into fall.
There’s nothing new about insurgent candidacies emerging from what their supporters like to call “the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.” But in elections past — from George McGovern and Ted Kennedy to Bill Bradley and Howard Dean — they haven’t had much appeal beyond that well-educated, affluent demographic. What’s fueled Sanders’ rise and carried him past the point of vanity candidate is that he’s resonated with other voting blocs. White working-class voters like his vocal opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Retirees perk up when he defends Social Security and Medicare while denouncing pharmaceutical companies and the price of prescription drugs. Students take note of his call for affordable education. “Bernie is the first candidate to be brutally honest in acknowledging the fact that it is time for the government to stop making money off of student debt,” said Sophia Ansari, a student speaker at Sanders’ George Mason event.
Sanders may not walk into Philadelphia next July as the next Democratic nominee, but he has attracted a broad enough base of support to make Clinton take him seriously. The Democratic debate in October was surely the first in recent memory to feature two candidates arguing over the definition of American capitalism. More important than Sanders’ chances of winning the nomination may be the underlying forces driving his unexpected rise. Who are the Berniacs and Sanderistas, as his fans are known, and what do they want? What’s so appealing to them about a grumpy, 74-year-old democratic socialist?
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/D5YxyuP4mUMJkW.cS13tUw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/8065ebeedcdef4980518b4fe5b891ed6/tumblr_inline_nyr8d5fXzB1tiuhmr_1280.jpg)
A Sanders supporter prepares a table at the Central Iowa Democrats Fall Barbecue in Ames, Iowa, last month. (Photo: Mark Kauzlarich/Reuters)
I spent several weeks following Sanders on the campaign trail and interviewing dozens of his supporters, Berniacs of all ages, races, ideologies and backgrounds. I met a man who had traveled from Finland to see Sanders in the flesh. I spoke to a family that had attended almost every single Sanders campaign event in the state of New Hampshire. I learned of a woman with terminal cancer who loved Sanders so much she’d decided to spend her final months volunteering for his campaign.
No two Berniacs are the same. Each discovered Sanders in his or her own way, and each has his or her own reasons for feeling the Bern. But what unites them is something larger, a deep rejection of a government that doesn’t tackle their everyday needs and problems. You hear a version of this on the Republican side, where [Sleezebag], for all his bullying and lies and vitriol, has tapped into a similar populist vein that cares more about offshoring American jobs, corporate mergers and too-big-to-fail banks than most of the rhetoric used by the current crop of presidential candidates. The Sanders-[Sleezebag] crossover is real: Out on the trail, I lost track of how many times Berniacs brought up [Sleezebag] as proof of something larger at play. One supporter I met in Nashua told me: “I’m kinda looking for a [Sleezebag] versus Sanders.”
***
To live in New Hampshire is to be spoiled when it comes to presidential politics. The state’s first-in-the-nation primary status means the candidates spend inordinate amounts of time and campaign money there, and its residents can rattle off all the times they’ve seen “Hillary” or “Jeb” or “Kasich.” A friend of mine who lives in New Hampshire talks about “collecting” candidates like a kid collects baseball cards.
For decades, Sanders has been as the congressman — and later the senator — next door; before that, he was the widely known mayor of Vermont’s biggest city. There’s a familiarity to the way the people talk about him, a recognition that figures into Sanders’ strong polling numbers in the state. (RealClearPolitics’ polling average shows Sanders tied with Clinton, factoring in a margin of error.) People I spoke to expressed some surprise that Sanders had decided to run, but they soon recognized that the Bernie running for president was the same Bernie they’ve known all these years.
I caught up with Sanders during a two-day swing through New Hampshire at a senior center in Manchester. Standing in the corner of a wood-floored multi-purpose room opposite a Bingo board, kitchen and plaque listing the names of residents who’d rolled 300s in the Wii Bowling League, Sanders focused heavily on the nitty-gritty details of Social Security, chained consumer price index (CPI), protecting Medicare and the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. compared to Canada and Germany — issues all too relevant to most of the roughly three dozen audience members in the room. A burly man named Rick Maynard rose to his feet and thanked Sanders for the time he’d spent in New Hampshire, well before his presidential run, working with citizen activists and keeping people updated on the latest happenings on Capitol Hill.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/BFIcO6Kx3AFiNyzgITrsdA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/a1e0d740faa930929dcca0d7a40f7563/tumblr_inline_nyr95lYGTP1tiuhmr_1280.jpg)
Bernie Sanders shortly after his surprise win as mayor of Burlington, Vt., in 1981. (Photo: Donna Light/AP)
I spoke with Maynard afterward. A 58-year-old unionist with the with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Maynard is a burly fellow, with chest hair peeking out of his T-shirt and “BERNIE” buttons pinned to his hat. He told me he was one of two people in the state who brief state legislators on trade issues. “Fair trade, not free trade,” he stressed. He praised Sanders’ consistency on the issue over the years, including his opposition to the TPP agreement. “He’s saying the same thing, possibly a little bit better because he’s got a bit more experience at it, but it’s the same,” Maynard said. “He doesn’t put the finger up and figure whichever way the polls are going.”
As for Clinton, Maynard referred me to a CNN story that found 45 different instances in which Clinton, as secretary of state, had praised the TPP. (As a candidate, Clinton came out against it.) “She flip-flopped. She kinda swayed in the wind,” Maynard said. “My concerns with Hillary are I don’t trust her, really.”
I heard that sentiment a lot about Clinton. Sanders, by contrast, is held up as a model of consistency and authenticity. He’s been giving the same wonky speeches for 30 years, and now it’s paying off by proving that he cares. In a world of hypocrisy, he is anything but a hypocrite. Long-time political columnist Walter Shapiro, who profiled Sanders 30 years ago when he was mayor of Burlington, puts it well, telling me: “Bernie Sanders was an angry man in 1985, and grumpy. He’s the same guy today.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/aklqnZyuAsfCXqkgkMs7Xg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/85b587efee2b73048efebb7fb999f819/tumblr_inline_nyr8gx6tVI1tiuhmr_1280.jpg)
Hillary Clinton greeting Iowans at Iowa State University in November. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The other theme that comes up at Sanders events is an appreciation of his granular focus on the rising costs of getting by in America today. In the parking lot before a press conference at a local union hall, a third-generation union member named Zack Smith, 35, brings up — of all things — Sanders’ effort to reduce debit card transaction fees. “It’s the average person’s issues he brings up,” Smith said. He dismissed the notion that reforming debit card fees — an issue most visibly championed by then comedian (and future senator) Al Franken in his satirical 1999 campaign book Why Not Me? — wasn’t a winning issue with voters. “It is a big deal,” he insisted. “Four dollars and 52 cents is the average transaction for an ATM. That is absolutely ridiculous. People take out $20 a lot of the time, and 20 percent of that goes to an ATM fee?”
At the Manchester senior center, an older married couple, Michael and Doris Manning, talked with me about Sanders’ ideas on issues that intimately affect retirees and senior citizens. The Mannings are both 66; Doris has gray-blonde hair and wore Jack-o-Lantern earrings, and Michael wore a T-shirt that read “The Snoring He-Beast.”
“Since we’ve been retired now and on Social Security ourselves,” Doris said, “we know what he’s talking about.”
“It used to be a problem we were going to have to deal with someday,” Michael said. “Well, someday is now. And we find ourselves in exactly the types of situations he was describing.”
Doris said she was prescribed a medication that would cost her $265 a month. She couldn’t afford it on her and Michael’s income, so she opted not to take it.
“Same thing with my shingles shot,” Michael said. “For some reason it falls into the wrong category of drug. It’s a class B or whatever. Because it’s not covered, it’s 200-something dollars out of pocket. OK, I’m just gonna take my chances and hope I’m one of the two in three that don’t get it.” He continued, “You have those difficult choices to make. That’s why we tend to support people who tend to support us.”
What was their reaction to Sanders deciding to run for president? I asked.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/JpmRVpthSJiJsYungSMh3g--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/ff48cd876b2180b915453dd9b503ef60/tumblr_inline_nyr998oxih1tiuhmr_1280.jpg)
Sanders supporters during a campaign rally at Cleveland State University in Ohio. (Photo: Aaron Josefczyk/Reuters)
“I was surprised,” Michael Manning said. “I thought that his views were too inconsistent with the prevailing sentiments in Congress and that he’d didn’t stand a chance.” He went on, “But this campaign year with [Sleezebag] and all the other outsiders is going to prove me wrong across the board. I attribute that to a large extent because people are just disgusted with the prevailing views that are out there.”
“It’s nice to be wrong,” Doris chimed in.
“In this case,” Michael agreed, “it’s nice to be wrong.”
***
At the other end of the age spectrum, Sanders’ fandom among young people has given rise to an unlikely nickname for the senator: the “Betty White of American politics.” Yet his campaign is anything but old-school. Numerous alums of Barack Obama’s digital media team work for Sanders, mimicking and improving on Obama’s use of technology and social media to reach and enlist young people who increasingly spend their days online.
Nearly every Bernie fan under the age of 40 that I met said they’d first learned about Sanders online, from his campaign website or Facebook page or live-trolling on Twitter during the second GOP debate, or they kept tabs on his campaign via social media. “On social media, on Facebook,” said Nardos Assefa, a University of Virginia student I met outside the George Mason rally, “you see little snippets of videos that are shared from Bernie’s speeches because he’s funny, he says things that are important to people.” The videos her friends are constantly flagging could be anything from Sanders’ denunciation of the school-to-prison pipeline to his delightfully awkward appearance on Ellen DeGeneres’ show.
“When I scroll through my news feed,” Assefa told me, “it’s, like, Bernie. I don’t see any others.”
What they’re seeing on Facebook and Twitter and in their inboxes stands in many ways as a rebuke of Obama. The Obama brand, if you will, was historic, aspirational, feel-good: “hope” and “change you can believe in.” Sanders is the anti-brand. He’s the “normcore” candidate. He’s not cool, he’s earnest. And that earnestness is in part what draws today’s generation of young voters — who were in elementary school when Obama first ran for president — to the Sanders campaign. These are the late teens and 20-somethings who grew up on “Parks and Rec,” who watch Stephen Colbert. They’re not all about irony; for them, it’s OK to care.
And it’s OK to think bigger than you’ve been led to believe. After the town hall, I met a GMU sophomore named Faith Huddleston Anderson in a “Feel the Bern” T-shirt. In Sanders, Huddleston Anderson hears a politician stretching the limits of what she’d ever thought possible in the lives of people like herself. “Everything he said are things that I’ve thought in my head but never said out loud because it’s such an outrageous thought,” she said. “The idea of college being affordable is such a wild thought.”
She went on, “Us just having the idea in our head of free tuition feels a lot better to reach for than just reaching for, ‘Oh, we should get some reduced prices.’ I’ve always been told college shouldn’t be this expensive. But I’ve never heard anyone say it will not be.”
***
The host said to look for the house with the solar panels on the roof, but it was dark when I arrived and I couldn’t see much of anything, except for the fleet of cars lining the cul-de-sac in a pleasant neighborhood a half-hour’s drive north of Washington. It was the night of the much-anticipated first Democratic presidential debate. The Sanders campaign’s handy interactive map shows an impressive 4,000 watch parties around the country. I’ve chosen to watch the debate — and the debate-watchers — at the home of Hank Rappaport and Gina Angiola, both doctors and both dyed-in-the-wool liberals. Books by Greg Palast, Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky line the shelves; I notice a handwritten note listing the channel numbers for Current TV and Jon Stewart.
The CNN online feed on Hank’s laptop in the basement keeps freezing (“Must be the DNC,” someone jokes), so a bunch of us relocate to Hank and Gina’s living room, plopping down on couches and folding chairs and the floor to watch on the big TV. People cheer and holler after each of Sanders’ turns to speak. They fall silent and sometimes jeer when Clinton talks. They’re unsure how to react when Sanders delivers the line of the night, telling Clinton that the “American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!” And unlike the pundits who fill the TV screen once the debate ends, they believe that Sanders won the debate hands down, despite a strong showing by Clinton.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/5I5AcavZl7hsi1iNycD0jA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/bed1d3e4052d01c3dbe0138d9bcc6c16/tumblr_inline_nyr9ddgJIo1tiuhmr_1280.jpg)
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders speak during the Democratic presidential debate on Oct. 13 in Las Vegas. (Photo: John Locher/AP)
Afterward, we sit around talking about Sanders and what drew the people in the room to his campaign. The attendees skew middle-aged and older, and several have worked for progressive causes and candidates for years. Michael Rubinstein says he’s worked his whole life as a volunteer and as a paid staffer lobbying and grassroots organizing for social justice issues. After a career in medicine, Gina Angiola, one of our hosts, organized for Howard Dean in 2003, was a precinct coordinator for a liberal Maryland state senator and ran the Montgomery County office of Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.). Angiola describes herself and the other Bernie supporters like her as “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”
These are, in other words, the people you’d expect to support Sanders. They remember the wilderness of the Clinton years. They believe it was the Democratic Party insiders — not the candidate’s own flaws — that took down Howard Dean in 2004. They supported a single payer health care system as part of Obamacare. They have mixed feelings about Obama’s presidency, and they wished Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had run for president. They are the bloc of Democratic voters that can’t stomach the establishment, and so they seek out and rally behind more liberal alternatives, anyone from George McGovern in 1972 to Howard Dean in 2004 to Obama or even Dennis Kucinich in 2008. And now Bernie.
Rubinstein, the social justice activist, said he dismissed Sanders initially, but felt drawn to the senator after reading about the huge crowds turning out for him this summer and seeing 100,000 people tune in for a digital town hall he hosted in July. Sanders, Rubinstein said, reminds him of the Howard Beale character in the movie Network. “He’s the guy who’s telling you to put your head out the window and say ‘we’re mad as hell and not taking it anymore,’” he said. “He’s tapped into this kind of anger.”
I asked Gina Angiola, the host, how she got turned onto Bernie, and she nods to her husband, Hank. Although Gina is the political junkie, in this case Hank found Bernie first, and suggested hosting one of the Sanders campaign’s telecasted town halls in July. Hank loves Sanders’ “fire and energy and anger,” and one line of Sanders’ sticks with him: “He said, ‘Obama’s great, but he did one major thing wrong: He built up a huge grassroots organization to get him elected, and on the day he took office he said, ‘Thank you all very much. I’ll take it from here.’”
Murmurs of agreement filled the living room. “That’s a fabulous line,” Gina said.
The thing is, it’s a line not wholly intended for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. The Michael Rubinsteins and Gina Angiolas of the world are already onboard with Sanders’ political revolution. It’s a line instead aimed at the masses of people out there — Democrats, independents, you name it — who feel the deep rejection of make-believe politics and dysfunctional government. People who feel the fear and anger that both Sanders and [Sleezebag] are tapping into, who want an antipolitician, a candidate above it all.
“The [Sleezebag] phenomenon and Bernie people are really sick of the political machinery in both parties,” Angiola told me when we spoke by phone a few days after the debate. “I think that the fact that [Sleezebag], Carson and Sanders are doing so well is a reflection of how disgusted people are with the political system. And they want people to talk straight. Stop mincing words.”
The clearest distillation of Sanders’ appeal came near the end of the first Democratic debate. “I believe that the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of the drug companies, the power of the corporate media is so great,” he said, “that the only way we really transform America and do the things that the middle class and working class desperately need is through a political revolution, when millions of people begin to come together and stand up and say: Our government is going to work for all of us, not just a handful of billionaires.” In other words, Sanders wants power to challenge power, to challenge JPMorgan and Comcast and GlaxoSmithKline. His pitch is that he needs working people, the Berniacs and Sanderistas, to have any hope of making that a reality.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/R2Ue2tvzCPIWtd66pjhDMg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/928328558e00d755b46587dd17ff9ace/tumblr_inline_nyr8lhhvA31tiuhmr_1280.jpg)
Of course, it’s easy to dismiss such talk — “Bernie, I don’t think the revolution’s going to come,” quipped former senator and then Democratic candidate Jim Webb — but it’s impossible to argue that Sanders isn’t tapping into something larger, a sentiment and an argument that may not decide who wins the Democratic nomination but could very well offer a glimpse at the future direction of the Democratic Party.
Christie is getting his moment. The question is whether he can make it last.https://www.yahoo.com/politics/christie-is-getting-his-moment-1313445610946614.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/christie-is-getting-his-moment-1313445610946614.html)
Matt Bai National Political Columnist December 03, 2015
Back in college, when he was contemplating a career in public office, Chris Christie got some advice from a political science professor that he never forgot.
“He told me, ‘If you’re gonna run for public office, you’d better become a good listener,’” Christie told me this week. “‘The only way people follow you is if you listen to them. And a leader without followers is just a guy out for a walk.’”
By that standard, you could say that Christie’s presidential campaign, for most of this year anyway, has been a long stroll in the park. Damaged by the infamous bridge scandal in New Jersey, his approval ratings at home cratering, Christie hasn’t come near double digits in the polling from New Hampshire, where he’s spent more time this year than any other candidate.
For a guy who was once the party’s biggest draw and whose potential candidacy loomed over the rest of the Republican field in 2012, the biggest humiliation came just last month, when he found himself excluded from the main debate stage in Milwaukee, outpolled by the likes of Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee.
I asked Christie, as he sat across from me Tuesday in a conference room at Manchester’s Saint Anselm College, if he’d been surprised by his lack of success throughout the summer and early fall.
“Frustrated, more than anything else,” he said, nodding. “But you can’t let that frustration dominate you. Then you become someone who’s unhappy in this process. And I never wanted to be someone who would do this as an unhappy person. You know, I enjoy doing this. And enjoying it makes me better at it. When I’m enjoying myself, I’m better.
“It’s hard,” Christie admitted. “But you know what? What I kept saying to myself is ‘I know I’m good at this. So I’ve just got to be patient with myself.’ And part of having the early success that I did is that it runs counter to that. So you have to grow up.”
Christie could afford to reflect a little, this being his best week as a candidate, hands down. He was a changed man from the reeling governor I wrote about for my first Political World column almost two years ago, when he gave me his first interview after the Fort Lee bridge scandal erupted, and more sure-footed than the guy who’d sat with me in his kitchen on the eve of his first trip to New Hampshire last April.
Christie’s campaign got a perverse boost, at least in terms of media attention, from the terrorist attacks in Paris, which breathed new urgency into the intelligence and national security issues he likes to talk about as a former prosecutor. (This week’s mass shooting in San Bernardino seems likely to intensify the focus on domestic security, even absent a definitive link to any terrorist cell.) Then came the surprising and much-coveted endorsement of the New Hampshire Union Leader last weekend.
Meanwhile, Christie’s marathon town hall meetings, a hallmark of his best days as New Jersey’s governor, are starting to take on the feel of John McCain’s legendary performances in 2000, when the Arizona senator surged from nowhere to win the state by 18 points. Clips of Christie’s emotive riffs about his mother’s death, or about his fear that his wife might have been killed in the twin towers, have been going viral for weeks.
Of course, none of this has yet translated into any sustained rise in support. (A PPP poll out today shows Christie leaping into double digits in New Hampshire, the first indication that the Union Leader endorsement may have some influence.) And even Christie seemed to be wondering if he was finally about to break out, or if he was just taking his turn under the lights like everyone else.
Voters in New Hampshire have been rifling through non-[Sleezebag] candidates this year like promising finds on the clearance rack at Nordstrom. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, John Kasich, and more recently Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, have all had their moments in the dressing-room mirror, and all have been returned to the “maybe” pile (except Walker, who became the campaign’s first “discard”).
The state’s most influential Republicans remain divided, and despite all the jitters about [Sleezebag], there’s been no lasting, perceptible shift toward one rival candidate or another.
Something’s definitely happening for Christie in New Hampshire right now. The question, in this strange election season, is what, exactly, that something is, and whether we’ll still be talking about it in a couple of weeks.
*****
The best way to think about the Republican primary contest right now, if you haven’t entirely given up trying to make sense of it already, is as the inverse, roughly, of what we saw in 2012.
At about this time four years ago, you will recall, the clear establishment candidate was Mitt Romney. But the Republican electorate had never really warmed to Romney, and after the tea party takeover of Congress in 2010, all the energy was with the grassroots ideologues who were determined to derail him with a candidate of their own.
The problem for the anti-establishment Republicans is that they were anti-establishment, and as such, they spent an awful lot of time and energy fighting viciously over who that candidate should be. By January, as the Iowa caucuses approached, Romney was topping out at the mid-30s in most polls, which made him eminently beatable, but the rest of the Republican electorate was almost evenly divided among Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.
In the end, Santorum played Romney to a draw in Iowa and got a huge boost, but it was Paul who came closest in New Hampshire, and then it was Gingrich who won outright in South Carolina. The insurgent candidates split their delegates, and Romney rolled to the nomination.
Turn that scenario inside out, and you could be looking at 2016. Now it’s [Sleezebag], the celebrity heir to the tea party insurgency, who’s consistently polling in the mid- to high 20s nationally — impressive for a populist outsider, far less so for a party frontrunner. Carson and Cruz, vying for support of the same disaffected factions, lag behind.
None of which would pose an insurmountable challenge for the governing wing of the party, at the end of the day, if it had an obvious standard-bearer. The problem is that in a field that has now narrowed to a mere 14 entrants, there are at least four — Rubio, Bush, Christie and Kasich — who can be considered serious establishment candidates.
In New Hampshire, where the governing wing will almost certainly have to make its stand, those four candidates have been bunched together (with Rubio slightly out in front), dividing among themselves all the local support and media attention a candidate needs to really separate himself.
Some analysts look at this situation and conclude that [Sleezebag] is almost certain to be the nominee, in the same way that Romney easily vanquished his divided rivals. But here’s what I think they’re missing: Generally speaking, establishments don’t behave the way tea parties do.
Eventually, the party loyalists who make up an establishment tend to come together and coalesce around a likely winner. That’s why we call them establishments.
So the race in New Hampshire right now is all about who can persuade the state’s mainstream electorate that he’s the guy who can unify the party and stop [Sleezebag]. That’s why Rubio is trotting out the endorsements of his fellow senators. That’s why Kasich is attacking [Sleezebag] and casting himself as the one candidate who has the brass to take on the bully.
And that’s why the Union Leader endorsement would seem to matter this year, even if newspaper endorsements generally are about as useful as the classifieds. Here’s the most influential conservative institution in the state giving its stamp of approval to Christie, at a moment when a lot of Republican voters are anxious for someone to emerge from the pack.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/lCCY2d_d5zVBX_6uEsX9ig--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MzUyODtoPTI2NDU7aWw9cGxhbmU-/http://40.media.tumblr.com/4ddc6689153b55d8985d3d4bc8389bb5/tumblr_inline_nyrjxfeyQd1tdop5d_1280.jpg)
Chris Christie at a meeting this week in Manchester, N.H. (Photo: Jim Cole/AP)
Christie’s moment is a long time coming, and it says something about his political skill and sheer persistence. When he entered the race formally back in June, a lot of my colleagues in the media — and a lot of his colleagues in the party — had already written him off. All anyone remembered about Christie, at that point, was the bridge thing.
In the parlance of politics, his “favorables” were underwater, meaning that more people had a bad impression of Christie personally than a good one. Being well liked is kind of important in politics, unless your last name is [Sleezebag] or Clinton.
Undeterred, Christie set out to do what he does best, which is to reach voters on an emotional level. He’s hosted 36 town halls in New Hampshire since June, and while that hasn’t done much to lift the poll numbers most people look at, those numbers tell only part of the story.
By the middle of last month, according to a poll conducted by WBUR, Boston’s NPR station, Christie’s favorable rating in New Hampshire was up to 47 percent (from 39 percent in mid-September), while the number of people who retained an unfavorable impression of him had dropped from 39 percent to 33 percent. By contrast, during that same time, Bush and Kasich had seen their favorable numbers drop to the point where they were both underwater.
More remarkably, the latest PPP poll from New Hampshire now shows Christie with the highest favorability rating of any candidate. More than 60 percent of the state’s voters have a favorable impression of him, compared with 22 percent who don’t.
What this means to Christie is that, in New Hampshire at least, the bridge scandal no longer defines him.
“Listen, it will always be a part of my résumé,” he told me this week. “It will always be a part of my experience. I’m not happy about that, but it’s the fact. It happened on my watch. I’ve got to be accountable for it. On the other hand, it’s certainly nothing that’s front of mind anymore, and for a long time it was front of mind, for me and for others.”
What’s front of mind for Christie now, in the wake of the Paris attacks and perhaps San Bernardino too, is terrorism. At a town hall at a firehouse outside Concord Monday night, where by my rough estimate he drew more than 250 people, Christie spoke for 45 minutes before saying a single word about domestic policy.
What I realized, watching that performance, is that, in a strange way, the Paris attacks have unleashed Christie to do what comes most naturally to him, which is to tell a compelling story.
It’s not that he has any great plan for how to combat ISIS or safeguard American cities. What Christie does have is a personal story about his own family’s experience with terrorism and victims in his New Jersey neighborhood, about his years as a U.S. attorney and about a country that has, in his view, become complacent and irresolute.
“It’s the greatest strength I bring to the job, the history and the ability to make decisions in this realm without getting the high, hard one thrown by me,” Christie told me. “And I think a lot of presidents run the risk of that. And I just don’t think that I would on this, because I’ve been through so much of it before and heard and dealt with the lingo and the egos and all the rest.”
But he also agreed that the issue of terrorism is a prism through which voters can get to know him.
“I think that foreign policy is all about, at first blush, the personality of the people executing that foreign policy,” he said. “Kissinger said to me one time, ‘Foreign policy is all about courage and character. Everything else can be learned.’”
Part of the challenge for Christie here — and for other governing candidates in the race — is that voters this year just don’t seem to care very much about records or experience, or at least not yet. I mentioned to him a trend this year that has confounded me and many others: Governors, who generally made for the best candidates over the past half century or so, seem to be flailing this time around.
Nine current or former governors have been in the race on the Republican side. Of those, three — Walker, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal — were the first to leave the Republican race. Not a single governor is polling in double digits.
Christie shook his head at me.
“The governors who have dropped out earned it,” he said, a little coldly. “They earned dropping out. Your performance matters. This stuff doesn’t happen by coincidence or by chance. The people still standing are the people who are the best at this.”
In fact, Christie has been making an overt case for executive experience, while throwing a few not-so-subtle punches at his opponents — notably Rubio. He tells audiences that “new is cool, new is shiny,” but in serious times you need a serious leader. He tells them that the last thing they need is a new president who sits down in the Oval Office on his first day and says, “Gee whiz.”
I wondered if that was entirely fair to Rubio, who is, after all, in federal office, and whom I’d consider part of the governing faction.
“Except he has no experience governing,” Christie shot back. “He’s had five years in the United States Senate, and for a good amount of that time he’s been running for president. So I don’t know.”
Was he saying that Rubio reminded him of a certain Democratic president?
“Yeah,” Christie said, expressionless. “Yes.”
Christie was more circumspect when it came to [Sleezebag], with whom he is trying to avoid the kind of full-on entanglement that hasn’t worked especially well for his rivals.
A few days earlier, after Christie had categorically rejected [Sleezebag]’s story about New Jersey Muslims celebrating on Sept. 11, [Sleezebag] fired off some nasty tweets about him. In one, I reminded Christie, [Sleezebag] had wondered: “How is Chris Christie running the state of New Jersey, which is deeply troubled, when he is spending all of his time in NH?”
Christie seemed to twitch just a bit, but his voice remained calm.
“Since he’s never been a governor,” Christie said, “I’d think he’d have no idea.”
*****
Christie is the kind of politician, more like a Bill Clinton than a Barack Obama, who loves the brinkmanship of politics and thinks deeply about the strategy. So, near the end of our conversation, I asked him to talk a bit about how he saw the race playing out from here, and, a little to my surprise, he obliged.
The way Christie sees it, there will be room for only four to six candidates to emerge intact from the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire. That means maybe two of the governors in the race will be able to move on from there.
At that point, “there will be a lot of congealing,” Christie said, borrowing a word I had used. He reminded me that only three of the 31 Republican governors had endorsed anyone to this point (two for Christie, one for Kasich), and suggested that they might play a pivotal role, after the early contests, in swinging the party behind an eventual nominee.
“The governors’ wing of the party has not yet asserted itself in any significant way,” he told me. “If they do, how will that affect the race?”
In New Hampshire, where his campaign is clearly on the line, Christie has a simple strategy: hang around. He says the data from past campaigns shows that as many as seven in 10 voters won’t make up their minds until the last two weeks.
For now, he just wants to be in the “top three” for most voters, which is a phrase New Hampshirites — born to their privilege as presidential winnowers — use a lot.
Don’t the low poll numbers discourage him?
“I don’t fret too much about that,” Christie said. “In the beginning I did. I would say, why aren’t we getting any traction? What am I missing? And then I finally concluded that I wasn’t missing anything. They’re not ready to decide!
“If next week some poll comes out,” he added, “and I haven’t gotten some big bump from the Union Leader endorsement or the other activist endorsements, it’s not like I’m going to go stick my head in the toilet, like, ‘What’s happening?’ I’m going to say, ‘OK, go back to New Hampshire next week and keep grinding it out.’”
Christie’s main advantage, it seems to me, is that he is, in some ways, more like [Sleezebag] than his rivals. Christie has governed, yes — with mixed results that we could argue about all day and into the night — but he is also a born entertainer.
What [Sleezebag] has discovered this year — or maybe what he helped the rest of us discover — is the disturbing nexus that now exists between campaigns and performance, between political theater and governing reality. Christie lives firmly on the reality side of that line, but he is more comfortable than any other serious politician in the field with the theatrical.
In his town halls, he has always been part candidate, part facilitator and part TV therapist, in a way that can seem spontaneous even when it’s been deliberately honed and contrived.
And this is probably why, at a moment when the other candidates who scream “experience!” seem somehow out of their time and element, Christie may yet be finding a way to make the message work.
“I’ve said this to people, and I’ll say it to you on the record,” Christie told me. “This is a game of ‘Survivor.’ You just don’t want to get voted off the island. That’s it. What you want is to continue to be in there and continue to be relevant and continue to speak.”
Christie is relevant, for as long as it lasts. We’ll know soon enough if the moment is leading him somewhere, or if he’s just a guy out for a walk.
One thing in particular sticks with me from the Sanders article-Obama has done a lot more than one thing wrong, but that was certainly one of them. I guess it's down to being green, or something; I don't think he's a narcissist, but isn't he currently holding his third elected office ever?
:Sanders’ sticks with him: “He said, ‘Obama’s great, but he did one major thing wrong: He built up a huge grassroots organization to get him elected, and on the day he took office he said, ‘Thank you all very much. I’ll take it from here.’”
While I would argue that Obama did more than one thing wrong, but that was clearly a wrong turn.
Clinton was able to go to the people when his own Congress thwarted him, but maybe that's the difference between a narcissist and an extroverted approval seeker. My impression of [Sleezebag] is that he's an egotistical autocrat.
The Bernie revolution: He’s not going anywhere
Obama has done a lot more than one thing wrong, but that was certainly one of them.Obama has done some things correctly. He's the best gun salesman in US history for one.
Well, there was another GOP debate tonight.
The qualifiers were- [Sleezebag], Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christy, Bush, and Kasich. They opened with attacks upon Hillary, made a few jokes, but I don't know that they differentiated themselves. Discussions of comparative tax plans led to my discovery of this website, which allows you to compare candidates' proposals on various tax types.
http://taxfoundation.org/comparing-2016-presidential-tax-reform-proposals (http://taxfoundation.org/comparing-2016-presidential-tax-reform-proposals)
Time to take Sanders seriouslyhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/time-to-take-sanders-seriously-1342599418519606.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/time-to-take-sanders-seriously-1342599418519606.html)
Matt Bai National Political Columnist January 14, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/WJv5fU914wMG1PigYD9nhw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9Mzk5O2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/aff903163676be5eeec8edc2a2d12a7d43baa4c7.jpg)
Some polls have Bernie Sanders overtaking Hillary Clinton in Iowa and opening up a double-digit lead in New Hampshire. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
After I wrote about the twisted codependency of Donald [Sleezebag] and the media a few weeks back, some readers got in touch to complain that the attention paid to [Sleezebag] had all but obscured the rise of Bernie Sanders. In an interview with CNN that week, Sanders himself made the same point, referring to a report that claimed network news shows had devoted 234 minutes to [Sleezebag] and only 10 to his campaign. (Yes, 10 – for the entire year.)
Judging from what’s happening right now in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders and his avid supporters have a legitimate point.
Just as the Democratic primaries were the dominant story in the 2008 cycle, so has the Republican train wreck proved to be the most compelling storyline this year. But with less than three weeks to go before the voting starts, Sanders may be just as plausible a nominee as [Sleezebag].
A New York Times/CBS News poll this week showed Sanders, who trailed Hillary Clinton among Democrats by 20 points a month ago, closing that gap to 7. But national polls are essentially meaningless; what’s more impressive are polls that have Sanders overtaking Clinton in Iowa and opening up a double-digit lead in New Hampshire.
It’s hard to know exactly what we’re looking at here. Is Sanders making a last, spirited stand before reality crashes down on him? Or is this the year when the molecular structure of our politics — on both sides — is about to be smashed apart and scrambled?
History would certainly suggest the former — that Sanders is only the latest in a long line of leftist insurgents, popular with college kids and urban idealists, who shake the party’s establishment without ever really threatening to topple it. The most obvious comparison is to Howard Dean, who by the end of 2003 was dominating the cycle in terms of both polling and money, and who went on to win a single primary — in his own tiny state.
Maybe an even better analogue would be the 2000 Democratic campaign, which was the first one I covered. The entire party establishment then was lined up behind the sitting vice president, Al Gore, but by the end of 1999, the former senator Bill Bradley was still running strong. Much like Sanders, Bradley ran against the legacy of Clintonian calculation, disparaging the incrementalism of the ’90s.
Bradley endured a withering assault from Gore and the party’s leaders, then got whacked in Iowa and edged out in New Hampshire. From that moment on, he was a dead candidate walking.
Clinton is as flawed a candidate as Gore was, and not terribly trusted by the electorate; I’ve never assumed she was a lock for the nomination in the way a lot of my colleagues did. But in Sanders (in contrast to a younger governor like Martin O’Malley, whose campaign has foundered), she drew a chief competitor who’s 74, socialist and scolding. You could argue that no establishment candidate in the last 40 years has gotten luckier than that.
And yet we can all get too hung up on history, and there are reasons to think that the Democratic primaries in 2016 might not be a replay of years past.
In 2000, the antiestablishment current in public life had just begun to assert itself (among the outsiders who threatened to run that year was [Sleezebag] himself), and the Internet was a crude new tool for organizing and raising money.
Now, of course, the attitudes of most voters toward their own party leaders range somewhere between indifferent and contemptuous, and small-dollar fundraising online has obliterated whatever structural advantage an anointed candidate once enjoyed. Sanders raised $73 million in 2015 — about $40 million less than Clinton, but more than enough to run a competitive national campaign.
Clinton, meanwhile, continues to run a strangely remote and impersonal campaign, the political equivalent of a drone operated out of some desert trailer. Everything seems carefully selected for minimal engagement — the orchestrated town halls, the carefully navigated TV interviews, the occasional think-tank speeches.
Clinton’s campaign has policies — just this week, feeling the pressure, she highlighted a series of sober and eminently sensible proposals for making the wealthy pay more taxes — but no discernible argument or soul. If she had a candid slogan, it would be: “Let’s just get there, and I’ll know what to do.”
Only recently has Clinton even seen fit to really acknowledge her chief opponent, going after Sanders for his record of supporting the gun industry. For most of the campaign, she has treated him more like the doddering uncle one must respect even as his dinner-table tirades grow tiresome.
That’s a dangerous way to run against a tireless, plainspoken populist, at a moment when voters, for better or worse, yearn to feel some emotional connection to their politicians. Of all the attitudes a candidate might project right now, exasperation and entitlement are two of the least helpful.
Most significantly, though, the country is in a vastly different place, economically and psychically, than we were when Gore plowed his way through to the nomination that was assumed to be his.
Consider the way Bill Clinton began his final State of the Union address at this time in 2000: “Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.” He went on to reel off a series of statistics that were to be the basis of his legacy — crime down by 20 percent, teen births down for seven straight years, welfare rolls cut in half.
That wasn’t anything like the tone of Obama’s final address this week, 15 years after Sept. 11 and eight years after the collapse of Wall Street. “Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction,” he said, in a speech that seemed almost plaintive at times. “What is true — and the reason that a lot of Americans feel anxious — is that the economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit and haven’t let up.”
As the heir to the previous administration, Clinton isn’t running with the kind of gusting tailwind that propelled Gore forward in 2000, and that may be the most salient fact of her existence this year.
You’d have to conclude that Sanders has at least an even chance of winning one of the first two states, and decent odds of winning both.
And if so, what happens then?
Even winning both Iowa and New Hampshire wouldn’t make Sanders the likely nominee. The main reason Obama was able to surpass Clinton in the 2008 primaries, unlike other insurgents in the party’s modern history, is that he peeled off most of the black voters on whom the establishment candidate always relies. Sanders probably can’t, which is why Clinton would still have the edge in South Carolina and in a lot of big states that follow.
But if Clinton comes out of the first two contests badly weakened, establishment Democrats will find themselves in the same chaotic, panicked state they’ve been chortling about while watching the Republicans. There would be renewed calls, inevitably, for another late entry into the field — namely Joe Biden, who took an unexpected swipe at Clinton on income inequality this week.
For Clinton, what it would mean, mostly, is that she’d have to settle in for the next installment of a tedious movie she hoped never to have to revisit: “The Long, Dark Slog Through Delegate Hell, Part II.”
All she could hope, in that event, is that it doesn’t end the same.
Rubio and Christie battle for establishment lanehttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/rubio-and-christie-battle-for-establishment-lane-052925760.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/rubio-and-christie-battle-for-establishment-lane-052925760.html)
Jon Ward January 15, 2016
For much of the night Thursday, the sixth Republican presidential primary debate was a split-screen competition, with two pairs of candidates fighting separate battles.
As Donald [Sleezebag] and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz slugged it out for the top spot in the Republican presidential primary polls, the two men competing to represent the establishment wing engaged with each other.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hope to emerge as the champion of Republican voters who do not like Cruz and [Sleezebag].
In New Hampshire, for example, support in the polls for Rubio, Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich amounts to 42 percent. [Sleezebag] leads the pack, but with only 30 percent.
Each of the four hopes to be the one to break out of the pack and emerge as the alternative to [Sleezebag] and Cruz. So each has been taking shots at the others, but Rubio and Christie’s broadsides at each other have been particularly harsh.
Late in the debate, Cruz and Rubio clashed — as they did onstage last month — on immigration. But the fight that matters most to Rubio now is with Christie, and it will likely get more intense as the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses and the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary approach.
Debate moderator Neil Cavuto of Fox News asked the two Republicans about their recent back-and-forth, in which Christie charged that Rubio was trying to “slime his way to the White House,” and a super-PAC supporting Rubio portrayed Christie as a liberal in step with President Obama.
Rubio noted — after saying that he liked Christie — that the governor supported the Common Core education standards and gun control, and that he had once, years ago, made a personal donation to Planned Parenthood.
“All I’m saying is: Our next president has to be someone that undoes the damage Barack Obama has done to this country. It cannot be someone that agrees with his agenda,” Rubio said.
Cavuto asked Rubio if he considered Christie a liberal. Rubio stopped short of saying he did, but repeated many of his charges and added one more, that Christie supported Obama’s nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“Unfortunately, Governor Christie has endorsed many of the ideas that Barack Obama supports, whether it is Common Core or gun control or the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor or the donation he made to Planned Parenthood,” Rubio said. “Our next president, and our Republican nominee, cannot be someone who supports those positions.”
Christie flung back at Rubio the Florida senator’s own response to Bush when the former governor attacked him in an earlier debate. At the time, Rubio said that Bush was simply doing what political consultants told him to do, because he was slipping in polls.
“I stood on the stage and watched Marco, rather indignantly, look at Governor Bush and say, ‘Someone told you that because we’re running for the same office, that criticizing me will get you to that office,’” Christie said, leaning on his rostrum and looking at Rubio. “It appears that the same someone has been whispering in old Marco’s ear too.”
Christie disputed Rubio’s charges. “I didn’t support Sonia Sotomayor,” he said. “Secondly, I never wrote a check to Planned Parenthood.” And he listed steps he said he had taken to veto gun control measures: vetoes of a 50-caliber rifle ban, a clip-size reduction plan and a statewide ID system proposal.
Common Core, he said, has been “eliminated” in New Jersey.
Christie went on to dismiss Rubio’s accomplishments as a senator — “What you get to do is just talk and talk and talk” — and then mocked him for changing his tone after they became rivals. Christie came back to his charge that Rubio was changing his stripes and abandoning his high-minded tone of a few months ago.
“I like Marco too, and two years ago, he called me a conservative reformer that New Jersey needed,” Christie said. “That was before he was running against me. Now that he is, he’s changed his tune.”
But Rubio failed to press his attack on several points where Christie would seem to be vulnerable.
In 1994, Christie did say he had donated money to Planned Parenthood, but now says he was misquoted. He was pro-choice in the early 1990s, but says he changed his views after hearing his daughter’s heartbeat in utero.
In the early 1990s, Christie supported an assault-weapons ban, but now admits he’s changed his mind. He defended Common Core as recently as 2013, but last year abandoned this position.
On Sotomayor, Christie said he wouldn’t have nominated Sotomayor, but did say, “I support her confirmation.”
Late in the debate, as Cruz and Rubio debated tax policy, Christie interrupted to tout his own experience as a governor and once again reinforce his experience as a state executive — in contrast to Rubio’s job as a lawmaker in a body of 100 senators. And he punctuated it with a dismissive put-down.
“I’d like to interrupt this debate on the floor of the Senate,” Christie said. He reminded the audience that the question had been about entitlements, and said he wanted to talk about that subject, projecting an air of exasperation with Cruz and Rubio for not addressing the topic at hand.
When Rubio started to say that he would be happy to talk about entitlements, Christie brought him up short.
“You already had your chance, Marco. You blew it,” Christie thundered.
I Chased Bernie Sanders for 70 Miles Todayhttp://www.gq.com/story/chasing-bernie-sanders-campaign-trail-iowa (http://www.gq.com/story/chasing-bernie-sanders-campaign-trail-iowa)
GQ
By Jason Zengerle January 28, 2016, 7:16 pm ET
(http://media.gq.com/photos/56aaab43cb255f772517be49/master/pass/bernie-sanders-bus.jpg)
Jason Zengerle finds out how Bernie Sanders is bucking up the troops...............................................
I was driving east on US-63, outside of Des Moines, headed to see Bill Clinton stump for his wife Thursday night in Ottumwa. In other words, on my way to see Bill Clinton make the case against Bernie Sanders, a political figure who looms larger now than anybody could have thought just a few months ago. And that’s the moment I saw…Bernie Sanders?
In the days before Monday’s Iowa caucus, when the entire political world descends on the Hawkeye State, the place seems to shrink. So much so that you get the feeling that, at any moment, a person who wants to be president (or a person who was president) could be right in front of you. To be honest, I didn’t spot Sanders, not technically—just his gleaming campaign bus. So I decided to follow it.
Seventy miles later, it pulled up in front of a brick building in downtown Ottumwa. Inside were about 100 local Sanders volunteers; Bernie had come to give them a pep talk. Speaking into a mic attached to a scratchy portable PA system, Sanders began by thanking them. “I think everybody understands that today we are in a nip-and-tuck race. That’s a fact. So the reason that we have come so far in such a relatively short period of time is because of your efforts.” Then he implored them to keep at it. “Four days to go,” Sanders said. “We will win this election if there is a large voter turnout on Monday night. We will not win it if there is a low voter turnout. Our job in the next four days is to make certain that there is a large voter turnout.”
As Sanders posed for a quick round of pictures with the volunteers, I fell into a conversation with a young woman wearing a blue hoodie and a Bernie Sanders hat who was drinking from a giant can of Surge. Her name was Emily Crouse, and she was 23. She said she was working for minimum wage at a Subway in Ottumwa and living with her parents as she tried to save enough money to go back to college.
“He just really speaks to me,” she explained. “He’s talking about free health care. He’s talking about bringing up the minimum wage, equal pay, free college. I’m like, ‘Where has this guy been my whole life?’ ” Crouse planned to caucus for Sanders on Monday night. “I’m heading there right after work after I pick up my Mom.”
Between now and then, she was going to do whatever she could to help Sanders. “If I’m not working, I’m going to be here,” Crouse said. “I’m actually waiting to go make some calls now.” She excused herself and headed into a small room decorated with handwritten posters bearing some of Sanders’ favorite sayings. The candidate, meanwhile, slipped out a side door and got back onto his bus, headed to another town to give another pep talk to another group of volunteers.
Republican Debate Review: Without [Sleezebag], Cruz Became The Target-megyn-kelly-cruz-rubio-fox-042752841.html]https://www.yahoo.com/tv/republican-debate-[Sleezebag]-megyn-kelly-cruz-rubio-fox-042752841.html (https://www.yahoo.com/tv/republican-debate-[Sleezebag)
Yahoo! Politics
Ken Tucker Critic-at-Large January 28, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/50PM1f888rcFoEVvcUTj9w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTUzO2g9MzY5O2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w553/501eddffaab95d24f96e32c750b7470f67ad9c9d.jpg)
Donald [Sleezebag] thought he was going to be attacked by Megyn Kelly, and pulled out of the Fox News-Google Republican debate. Ted Cruz ended up being the guy who was attacked on Thursday night — not by Kelly, but by a couple of his opponents. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul aimed a number of direct hits at Cruz, and in terms of television drama, that made Cruz the chief protagonist (and antagonist) of the debate.
Marco Rubio tried to paint Ted Cruz as a phony: “Throughout this campaign, you’ve been willing to say or do anything to get votes.” Rand Paul criticized what he term Cruz’s egotistical “falseness… that is an authenticity problem — that everybody he knows is not as perfect as him.”
The night began with Kelly saying, “Let’s address the elephant not in the room tonight,” referring, of course, to [Sleezebag]. She asked Cruz, “What message do you think that sends” to Iowans? Surprisingly, Cruz failed to answer Kelly’s question, probably the easiest one he got all night. Instead, Cruz went with a painfully obvious prepared joke: “I’m a maniac. And everyone on this stage is stupid, fat and ugly. And Ben [Carson], you’re a terrible surgeon.” Pause. “Now that we’ve gotten the Donald [Sleezebag] portion out of the way…” Ouch. The only thing missing was a drum rim shot and some nervous, Jimmy Fallon-like giggling at his own feeble merry-making.
While the debate was notably duller without [Sleezebag], it was well-produced television. The Fox News panel of moderators—Kelly, Chris Wallace, and Bret Baier — proved the most impressive interrogators of any debate, Democratic or Republican, held thus far. It was an especially good idea to use clips of the candidates’ previous statements to challenge their current positions. Kelly introduced snippets from Cruz and Rubio that were particularly effective in suggesting both men had altered their positions on various issues fundamentally. Plus, using clips for illustrative purposes is good TV.
For example, Kelly played three clips in which Cruz said he was trying to save the 2013 Senate immigration bill. He has since said he was trying use an amendment to kill it. “Was that all an act?” asked Kelly, with a steely flourish. “It’s pretty convincing,” she said. Cruz was left scrambling to assemble a response.
Some idiot in the background of Chris Wallace’s camera angle persisted in mugging and waving at the TV audience—I was surprised it took so long for Fox News and the hall’s security to take care of that.
Nevertheless, a viewer could not come away from this debate without thinking there were essentially only two key players on the stage. Cruz and Rubio, in the fervor of their answers, the frequency with which they spoke, and the applause that they generated from their supporters, emerged clearly. Rand Paul — a last-minute addition after [Sleezebag] dropped out — also proved invaluable as an agent of good TV, needling Cruz and Rubio with deftness, and commandeering his own lustily-cheering section of the audience.
Chris Christie’s strategy — looking into the camera instead of at the moderators or his opponents, and attacking Hillary Clinton and President Obama—may be a sound campaign plan, but it made him seem like a free-floating entity, untethered from the action.
It’s always possible for participants to complain about not getting his share of the spotlight. John Kasich barely got any air time and made little impression. Carson got more air time, but, alas, his vague responses to pointed questions made less of an impression than Kasich. Who’d I leave out? Oh, right: Jeb Bush. Yup, he was there, too.
AP FACT CHECK: GOP claims on carpet bombs, Kurds and economy
Associated Press
Robert Burns and Josh Boak, January 28, 2016
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential contenders let fly with some inaccuracies when they badmouthed the Obama administration on health care, military readiness and pay for construction workers in their latest debate.
And from his own event a few miles away in Des Moines Iowa, debate no-show Donald [Sleezebag] greatly exaggerated the U.S. trade deficit with China.
A look at some of the claims Thursday night and how they compare with the facts:
TED CRUZ: "We have seen now in six years of Obamacare that it has been a disaster. It is the biggest job-killer in this country. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work, have lost their health insurance, have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket. "
THE FACTS: Lost jobs? Since the time Obama signed the health care law in March 2010, the nation's jobless rate has fallen from 9.9 percent to 5 percent. The economy has added more than 13 million jobs over that period.
Lost insurance? The share of Americans without coverage reached a historic low of 9 percent last year, according to the government's National Health Interview Survey. More than 16 million people gained coverage since 2013, just before the law's big coverage expansion got underway.
___
[Sleezebag]: "China this year in trade will make over $500 billion dollars in terms of our trade deficit. $500 billion. That's no partnership, and I'm a free trader. I love free trade. But we have to use our head. And we use political hacks to negotiate with the Chinese."
THE FACTS: [Sleezebag] should re-check his numbers before conducting a trade negotiation. He could be referring to the total U.S. trade deficit with every country in the world. That totaled about $508 billion in 2014, which actually represents an improvement from the $762 billion deficit reached in 2006, according to the Census Bureau.
But the trade deficit in goods with China was $343 billion in 2014 — significantly below what [Sleezebag] has suggested in multiple statements.
___
MARCO RUBIO: "You cannot destroy ISIS with a military that's being diminished."
CRUZ: Obama has "dramatically degraded our military.
"THE FACTS: The charge that President Barack Obama has starved the Pentagon has become a refrain in the GOP primary campaign, but amounts spent on weapons modernization are about the same as they were when Republican George W. Bush was president.
Any military cuts GOP contenders are complaining about were approved by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The military budget is being squeezed by the insistence of lawmakers in both parties that money be spent on bases and equipment that the Pentagon says it doesn't need.
___
CRUZ on Obama: "He's not arming the Kurds."
THE FACTS: He is. The U.S. has allocated a substantial amount of weapons and other military equipment to help the Kurds fight the Islamic State group, and is sending the aid.
The shipments have not been direct. Rather, under a deal with the Iraqi government, all U.S. weapons sent to help in the fight are delivered to Iraqi officials, and they divide the weapons between Iraqi and Kurdish forces.
It's true the Kurds have complained that the assistance is not enough. But they are getting arms and other equipment from Washington.
___
CHRIS CHRISTIE: "For the 45-year-old construction worker out there, who is having a hard time making things meet, he's lost $4,000 in the last seven years in his income because of this administration."
THE FACTS: There may be some in hard hats who've lost income, but on the whole, construction workers are faring much better than they did when Obama first took office.
The latest federal jobs report showed their average weekly earnings have risen 2.7 percent annually since 2009 — much faster than the national average for non-management employees. Their weekly earnings jumped to $1,021 in December, compared with a weekly income of $858 seven years ago.
Certainly not everyone has prospered. Overall, the median household income has dropped since 2009 by $1,268, to $53,657.
___
CRUZ defending his threat to "carpet bomb" Islamic State fighters: "It's what we did in the first Persian Gulf War."
THE FACTS: The U.S. conducted an intensive air war against the Saddam Hussein government in the 1991 war. But to call it "carpet bombing" misses one of the most important characteristics of that air campaign: It marked the first large-scale use of precision-guided missiles and bombs in the history of warfare.
That war also saw the first substantial combat use of the Air Force F-117 stealth fighter, which made it possible for the U.S. to lower risk to pilots flying against enemy air defenses while delivering precision weapons.
The driving force behind developing precision-guided munitions, which today are even more precise than 25 years ago in the Persian Gulf war, was the goal of reducing the risk of killing civilians. It's a goal the U.S. military has embraced under Republican as well as Democratic presidents.
And Cruz has not explained how carpet bombing a terrorism group that is mingled with citizens in areas they control can be done without substantial deaths of innocents.
___
RUBIO: Asked to reconcile his past opposition to granting amnesty for people in the United States illegally and his sponsorship of a bill that would grant those people a path to U.S. citizenship, said "We're going to keep ISIS out of America" and "enforce our immigration laws."
CRUZ: Asked to reconcile his vocal backing for the same bill (along with his attempt to improve its chances with an amendment), and his current claim to never have supported it, said; "The fact that each amendment didn't fix every problem didn't mean that I supported the rest of the bill."
THE FACTS: About the only thing that was clear in this exchange is that both are squirming over their past immigration positions in a primary season dominated by conservative voters.
For Rubio, there was one fact on the stage that he couldn't escape — fellow candidate Jeb Bush verified that Rubio asked him to support his path-to-citizenship legislation when it was being written in 2013. And Cruz was caught by a video clip of himself on the Senate floor, urging the bill's passage.
Both tried to dismiss their previous statements and emphasize their current stance of wanting to secure the nation's southern border before any other actions are taken to address immigrants living in the country illegally.
___
Associated Press writers Jill Colvin in Des Moines, Iowa, and Vivian Salama, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Alicia A. Caldwell in Washington contributed to this report.
QuoteAP FACT CHECK: GOP claims on carpet bombs, Kurds and economy
Associated Press
Robert Burns and Josh Boak, January 28, 2016
A look at some of the claims Thursday night and how they compare with the facts:
TED CRUZ: "We have seen now in six years of Obamacare that it has been a disaster. It is the biggest job-killer in this country. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work, have lost their health insurance, have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket. "
THE FACTS: Lost jobs? Since the time Obama signed the health care law in March 2010, the nation's jobless rate has fallen from 9.9 percent to 5 percent. The economy has added more than 13 million jobs over that period.
Lost insurance? The share of Americans without coverage reached a historic low of 9 percent last year, according to the government's National Health Interview Survey. More than 16 million people gained coverage since 2013, just before the law's big coverage expansion got underway.
___
...The woman's got a lot of bad points, but I really don't find that overblown scandal to be one of the interesting ones...
I imagine the range varies between 0 and 0.0000001% within any given year of Hillary finding humility....The woman's got a lot of bad points, but I really don't find that overblown scandal to be one of the interesting ones...
No. The only interesting stuff is what we aren't allowed to see anyway. She continues to approach this one like the lawyer and politician she's always been..
What are the odds of Hilary finding humility?
Better or worse than Cruze getting some sense knocked into him?
THE FACTS: Lost jobs? Since the time Obama signed the health care law in March 2010, the nation's jobless rate has fallen from 9.9 percent to 5 percent. The economy has added more than 13 million jobs over that period.
What are they kidding? The real unemployment numbers (counted in the old way) are about 22%.The whole rotation group nonsense used for calculating is easy to manipulate however you want. Don't know where you're coming up with 22% or "The old way". The group disparity has been called out since 1975.
Now they don't count people that stopped looking for work.
Alternate Unemployment Charts
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
Unemployment Data Series subcription required(Subscription required.) View Download Excel CSV File Last Updated: January 8th, 2016
The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for December 2015 is 22.9%.
“The 6.7 percent is probably 21 or 22 percent in real numbers,” he said of the nation’s unemployment rate. (That number ticked down further, to 6.6 percent, in January.) “When you give up looking for a job, it’s like they consider you employed,” he continued. “It’s amazing.”
Officially, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is 5.6%, meaning 5.6% of the work force is temporarily out of a job and actively seeking another one. This low number reflects nearly full employment, as 3% to 4% of the work force is typically in the process of quitting/being laid off and finding another job.
Typically, periods of nearly full employment are economically good times, as household income is bolstered and employers have to pay a bit more to hire workers when the labor market is tight.
But these do not feel like good times for most households, despite the low unemployment rate. Earnings are stagnant for 90% of the work force, and employers are only paying a competitive premium for workers in very select fields (programmers adept at Python and mobile user interfaces, etc.)
This creates a cognitive dissonance between the low official unemployment rate and the real economy, which is behaving like an economy with much higher rates of unemployment, i.e. sluggish hiring, stagnant wages, difficulty in finding jobs, and very little pressure on employers to pay more for typical jobs.
Let's start by trying to calculate the work force--the number of people who could get a job if they wanted to. This isn't quite as straightforward as we might imagine, because the two primary agencies that compile these statistics use slightly different categories.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the civilian noninstitutional population as everyone 16 and older who is not in active-duty military service or in prison. The BLS reckons this to be about 250 million people, out of a total population of about 317 million residents: Household Data (BLS)
The BLS subtracts 93 million people who are not in the labor force, leaving about 157 million people in the civilian work force--roughly half the nation's population.
Of these, 148.8 million have a job of some sort and 8.6 million are unemployed.
The Census Bureau calculates the civilian noninstitutional population as everyone who is not in active-duty military service or in prison. (You can download various data on the U.S. population on this Census Bureau website: Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2012. I am using Table 1 data.)
The Census Bureau places the civilian noninstitutional population at 308.8 million in 2012. Since roughly 4 million people are born and 2.6 million die in the U.S. each year, we can adjust this upward by roughly 3.5 million to bring it up to date (mid-2015) to 312 million.
About 74 million people are 17 and younger, and 36 million are 68 and older. Given that the full-benefit retirement age for Social Security is pushing 67, I am using 67 as the cut-off for the work force rather than the traditional 65.
This is of course a squishy calculation, as many people retire at 62 and others work beyond the age of 70. But given the strong employment trends of the over-65 cohort, I think it fair and reasonable to include everyone between 18 and 67 in the work force.
Subtracting 110 young people and retirees leaves a civilian work force of around 200 million people. Let's then subtract those who can't work or choose not to work for conventional reasons. There are roughly 8 million people on permanent disability and several million more at any one time on temporary disability, so let's subtract 10 million disabled.
Next, let's subtract stay-at-home parents. Since there are 20 million children under the age of 5, let's reckon 20 million adults will on average choose to leave the work force to care for their children full-time.
Should this number be 40 million? What about home-schooling? Given the possibilities for part-time, home-based and free-lance work, I am reluctant to conclude everyone caring for or schooling their children cannot possibly earn some income. But let's consider adding another 10 million adults who may be caring for their families (seniors as well as children) at home full-time.
While it may seem as if every other hipster in town is a trust funder, i.e. a person who draws upon inherited wealth and doesn't need to work, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data reports less than 2 million people draw substantial incomes from trusts. Since even those with unearned income can still perform work, I include trust funders in the work force.
If we subtract 10 million disabled and 30 million stay-at-home parents, we have a work force of around 160 million--not far from the BLS number of 157 million. If we use a smaller number of full-time stay-at-home parents, then perhaps the work force is closer to 170 million.
The BLS calculates what it calls labor force participation rate--63% of the total civilian noninstitutional population is in the labor force.
The next issue is what we reckon qualifies as a job. In general, the BLS and the Census Bureau count anyone with earned income as employed. The BLS reckons 148.8 million people have jobs, but this includes 23 million people who earn less than $5,000 annually. The Social Security Administration (SSA) states that 155 million people reported taxable income, which includes not just earnings (wages and salaries) but distributions from retirement funds, IRAs, etc. that are taxable. Wage Statistics for 2013.
The question boils down to this: should we count someone who earns $1,000 a year as employed? How about someone who earns $5,000? At what point does an income enable a person to support himself/herself? Should we place those earning incomes far below a living income in the same category as those with full-time jobs/incomes?
This is where I part company from the government agencies' classification of any earned income in any amount as qualifying as a job. If I am a consultant earning less than $5,000 annually, clearly I cannot support myself on this income. If I earn $2,500 annually in part-time free-lancing, this is at best 10% of poverty-level income for a household in a low-cost region; in a high-cost region, it is perhaps 5% of poverty-level income.
The BLS attempts to define a broader definition of under-employment and unemployment in its categoryU-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force: this is 10.8% of the work force.
Depending on how we calculate the work force, and if we count everyone with any earnings as employed, we get an unemployment rate of somewhere between 5.6% and 12.5%. If we use the BLS's metric for including under-employment, this is in the range of 10% to 15%.
Common sense suggests that we calculate employment/unemployment based on earnings, not just any income in any amount. If we reckon that only those with earnings of $15,000 or more annually (roughly speaking, full-time work at minimum wage) are fully employed, then the numbers change dramatically.
The $15,000 annual earnings are also a rough benchmark of self-supporting households: two wage-earners making $15,000 each would have a household income of $30,000--enough to get by in much of the country.
About 50 million people earn less than $15,000 annually. This includes roughly 10 million self-employed and 40 million with part-time jobs or other sources of earned income. This suggests that only 100 million of the 160 million work force are fully employed in the sense of not just having a job but making enough to be self-supporting.
There are many caveats resulting from the way that government social welfare is not included in earnings: thus a household might have two part-time wage-earners making very modest sums monthly who are getting by because they qualify for Section 8 housing, SNAP food stamps, Medicaid healthcare, school lunch programs, and so on. These programs enable the working poor to support a household despite low earnings.
Should we include those depending on social welfare programs as fully employed?
By my reckoning, roughly 60% of the civilian work force is fully employed and 40% are marginally employed (i.e. earning less than $15,000 annually) or unemployed. Since full-time workers even at minimum wage earn close to $15,000 annually, I think it is fair to use that as the cut-off for fully employed. The BLS counts 121 million people asusually work full-time, but given only 100 million workers earn $15,000 or more, this doesn't add up unless we include self-employed people earning very little who are counted as full-time workers.
Based on income, I set the fully employed rate at 60%, and the marginally employed/unemployed rate at 40%. If we accept the BLS's 121 million full-time jobs (which once again, this doesn't make sense given even minimum wage full-time jobs earn $14,500, and 50 million people report earnings of less than $15,000), we still get a marginally employed/unemployed rate of 25%: work force of 160 million, 121 million fully employed.
These numbers align much better with the real economy than the official unemployment rate of 5.6%. It's nonsense to count everyone earning a few hundred or few thousand dollars annually as being employed in the same category as full-time workers or those earning $15,000 or more annually.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-16/whats-real-unemployment-rate-us
If we subtract 10 million disabled and 30 million stay-at-home parents, we have a work force of around 160 million--not far from the BLS number of 157 million. If we use a smaller number of full-time stay-at-home parents, then perhaps the work force is closer to 170 million.
This is where I part company from the government agencies' classification of any earned income in any amount as qualifying as a job. If I am a consultant earning less than $5,000 annually, clearly I cannot support myself on this income. If I earn $2,500 annually in part-time free-lancing, this is at best 10% of poverty-level income for a household in a low-cost region; in a high-cost region, it is perhaps 5% of poverty-level income.
Rand Paul ran for president and realized he’s a senatorhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/rand-paul-ran-for-president-and-realized-hes-a-145457152.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/rand-paul-ran-for-president-and-realized-hes-a-145457152.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Jon Ward Senior Political Correspondent February 03, 2016
Rand Paul, the U.S. senator from Kentucky who was once a legitimate contender for the Republican presidential nomination, dropped out of the race Wednesday, two days after a lackluster showing in the Iowa caucuses.
“It’s been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House, Paul said in a statement announcing the end of his bid. “Today I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty.”
Paul, a 53-year-old ophthalmologist who had never run for office before his election to the Senate in 2010, risked losing his Senate seat if he tarried too long in the presidential race. He will now turn his attention to winning reelection in Kentucky, where the Democratic mayor of Lexington announced last week he will run against Paul.
Paul, the son of libertarian former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, who ran quixotic but ultimately impactful campaigns for president in 2008 and 2012, rose to national prominence in the spring of 2013 after he spoke on the Senate floor for almost 13 hours to protest President Obama’s use of drones to target American citizens overseas.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/mfYMZgAXkffleR6UkQQ8tQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTc4NTtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/ce9c164246bf8e67580345e6b7b0ee5d6f977adb.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., surrounded by his family at a caucus night rally at the Scottish Rite Consistory in Des Moines, Iowa, Monday, Feb. 1, 2016. (Photo: Nati Harnik/AP)
Paul showed considerable creativity in seizing on issues related to civil liberties and foreign policy that cut across partisan lines, raising the prospect that he could build on his father’s constituency in Iowa and elsewhere, bringing in more younger voters as well as mainstream Republicans who saw him as more electable than his father.
Paul also made a point of visiting historically black universities and talked often about the need for the Republican Party to welcome minorities and to expand their party.
But Paul was beset by a number of troubles. His relationship with the Ron Paul libertarian crowd was hurt by his endorsement of Republican nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 and further deteriorated as Rand tacked to the center on foreign policy.
At the same time, Paul’s noninterventionist foreign policy, which had seemed current in 2013, grew out of step with the times as the rise of the so-called Islamic State and a spate of terrorist attacks around the world and in the U.S. raised the nation’s anxiety level about national security and pushed civil liberties concerns off the front burner.
And Paul was also not well cut out for the rigors of a presidential campaign. He was a lackadaisical campaigner who — from the early days — failed to impress donors and Republican Party influencers. His decision to wear blue jeans to a Koch brothers event early this year was innocuous in and of itself, but it came to be seen as a sign of something larger, an arrogance and indifference on Paul’s part that indicated a lack of hunger for the presidency and offended the party’s elites.
Paul, in fact, hated to ask for money. His campaign aides and advisers worked on him to improve, and he did. He also improved in the last few debates.
But over the course of the past year, it became ever more clear that if Paul wanted a place of influence in national politics, he was a better fit for the Senate, where there is more space for the debating and hashing out of ideas, and where he can over the long haul craft legislation to address issues of his concern.
Kentucky Republicans are confident that as long as Paul is fully focused on his reelection, he can hold his seat. The senior senator from Kentucky, after all, is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and there’s no doubt he was in constant communication with Paul about the need to retain the GOP majority in the Senate.
“I look forward to earning the privilege to represent the people of Kentucky for another term,” Paul said.
Bernie and Hillary end first solo debate with love festhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-and-hillary-end-first-solo-debate-with-love-045328455.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-and-hillary-end-first-solo-debate-with-love-045328455.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Olivier Knox Chief Washington Correspondent February 04, 2016
Democratic presidential rivals Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton knocked each other around Thursday in their first one-on-one debate of the 2016 season, but ultimately closed ranks behind the notion of keeping the White House in their party’s hands.
Sanders spent much of the evening arguing that he was the true standard-bearer for the Democratic Party, hammering the former secretary of state over her ties to Wall Street and vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Clinton focused her energies largely on defending her progressive bona fides, while arguing that the Vermont independent was putting ideological purity on a pedestal above pragmatic proposals that could actually become reality.
But by the end of their MSNBC encounter, the two candidates closed ranks.
It started when moderator Chuck Todd asserted that Clinton did not think Sanders could be president. She looked genuinely surprised, and said, “I never said that,” then brushed aside his follow-up about whether she might pick Sanders as a running mate if she wins the party’s nomination.
“Well, I’m certainly going to unite the party, but I’m not getting ahead of myself. I think that would be a little bit presumptuous,” Clinton said. “If I’m so fortunate as to be the nominee, the first person I will call to talk to about where we go and how we get it done will be Sen. Sanders.”
Todd tried the question on Sanders.
“I agree with what the secretary said. We shouldn’t be getting ahead of ourselves,” the Vermont senator replied. ”And as I have said many times, you know, sometimes in these campaigns, things get a little bit out of hand. I happen to respect the secretary very much, I hope it’s mutual. And on our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.”
Clinton agreed, declaring “That’s true, that’s true.”
Chris Christie’s attacks rattle Marco Rubiohttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/chris-christies-attacks-rattle-marco-rubio-023817040.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/chris-christies-attacks-rattle-marco-rubio-023817040.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Jon Ward Senior Political Correspondent February 06, 2016
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Chris Christie did not disappoint.
The New Jersey governor had made it quite clear that when he stepped on the debate stage Saturday night here, three days before the New Hampshire primary, he would be looking to draw a very sharp contrast between himself and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
From the jump, Christie went after Rubio like an attack dog, tearing into the 44-year-old first-term senator and mocking his youth and inexperience. And Rubio, who increasingly has gathered momentum after a strong showing in the Iowa caucuses last week, was put on the defensive in a way that he has not been so far in this campaign.
Christie, who is in his second term as governor, needs very badly to do well in the voting on Tuesday, but is struggling to gain traction in the polls. He is bunched together with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rubio behind businessman Donald [Sleezebag], and Rubio has been rising in the polls.
Christie began his critique of Rubio by saying that senators wake up thinking about what speech they will give that day or what kind of legislation they will sponsor. A governor, Christie said, wakes up thinking about “What kind of problem do I need to solve?”
Turning to Rubio, Christie addressed him directly. “You have not been involved in a consequential decision where you have had to be held accountable. You just simply haven’t,” Christie said.
Christie then aggressively made the argument that a vote for Rubio is an unwise gamble on an untested, inexperienced politician, and compared him to President Obama, who was also a first-term senator in 2008 when he was elected president.
“What we need to do is not to have the same mistake we made eight years ago,” Christie said. “I like Marco Rubio, and he’s smart person and a good guy. But he simply does not have the experience to be president of the United States.”
Rubio tried to counter by going after Christie’s fiscal record in New Jersey.
“I think the experience is not just what you did, but how it worked out. Under Chris Christie’s governorship of New Jersey, they have been downgraded nine times in their credit rating,” Rubio said.
Then Rubio tried to turn his attention and his argument away from his confrontation with Christie, and criticized Obama, talking in generalizations about how Obama is trying to change the country to make it more “like the rest of the world.”
It was an awkward transition, and one that Christie swiftly pointed out.
“You see, everybody, I want the people at home to think about this. That is what Washington, D.C., does: the drive-by shot at the beginning, with incorrect and incomplete information, and then the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him,” Christie said, as the debate audience began to roar.
“See, Marco, the thing is this: When you’re president of the United States, when you are a governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech, where you talk about how great America is at the end of it, doesn’t solve one problem, for one person,” Christie said.
Rubio was on his heels, and scrambled to respond, saying that Christie had not wanted to return to New Jersey to deal with a blizzard earlier this month. “They had to shame you into going back,” Rubio said. It came off as a weak retort that indicated he was not prepared for the degree to which Christie was in his face.
But the clearest indication that Rubio was rattled was that he once again repeated his canned line about Obama. “This notion that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he is doing is just not true,” Rubio said. It was now a non sequitur, and Christie interjected.
“There it is, there it is,” Christie said.
Rubio and Christie went back and forth for a few more moments, with Christie getting in one more shot.
“You’ve never been responsible for anything in your entire life,” he said to Rubio. And as Rubio continued to say that Christie had not wanted to return to New Jersey at the time of the storm, Christie stopped him.
“Wait a second, is that one of the skills you get as a United States senator: ESP, also?”
Christie continued throughout the debate to use any opportunity to go after Rubio. Later, he brought up a comment Rubio had made about the 2013 immigration reform bill more than 10 minutes earlier.
“He acted as if he was somehow disembodied from the bill,” Christie said of Rubio. “It was his idea. … When you’re governor, you have to take responsibility for these things.”
Rubio, who more than any other presidential candidate this cycle has jumped in and inserted himself to gain time in debates any time his name has been mentioned, stayed silent as Christie launched this critique. He clearly did not want any part of Christie.
McCain blasts Republicans for ‘loose talk’ on torturehttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/mccain-blasts-republicans-for-loose-talk-on-185546253.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/mccain-blasts-republicans-for-loose-talk-on-185546253.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Meredith Shiner Political correspondent February 09, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/CHXBttezyBrOOH1vQHt1aw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/4558a4ab9cc47faa734e984ea12baf3579b19b6e.jpg)
On the day of the New Hampshire primary, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sharply criticizes current Republican presidential candidates for their positions favoring waterboarding. (Photo: AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Former GOP presidential nominee and prisoner of war John McCain wants Republicans seeking the White House to stop speaking so casually in favor of waterboarding, a form of torture which was used to interrogate prisoners in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and was found to be in violation of international human rights standards.
The issues of torture and waterboarding have been a surprise focus heading into Tuesday’s first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary. On Monday night, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald [Sleezebag] “had a lot of fun” repeating a vulgar word used by a supporter to describe opponent Ted Cruz because the Texas senator hedged on a waterboarding question in Saturday night’s debate. Cruz said of waterboarding that he would not “bring it back in any sort of widespread use.” While Cruz left the door open to the maligned practice in some cases, [Sleezebag] has supported its return unequivocally.
And McCain is clearly not happy with where the Republican primary race has landed on an issue he cares about deeply and personally. McCain, a fighter pilot during the Vietnam War, was a prisoner for more than five years. He has since been dedicated to ensuring the United States does not resume torturing captives.
“I know in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, many Americans feel again the grave urgency that we felt 15 years ago. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for our nation to use these interrogation methods then or that is right for our nation to use them now. Waterboarding or any other form of torture is not in the best interest of justice, nor our security, nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend,” McCain said on the Senate floor Tuesday, acknowledging the importance of New Hampshire’s primary, which he won in both 2000 and 2008.
“This question isn’t about our enemies. It’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world. We’ve made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests but by exemplifying our political values in influencing other nations to embrace them,” McCain continued. “When we fight to defend our security, we fight also for an idea that all men are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. That’s all men and women. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same? How much more dangerous it can become, when we forget it ourselves, even momentarily, as we learned at Abu Ghraib?”
Abu Ghraib was the prison in Iraq where the United States Army and Central Intelligence Agency were found to have committed human rights violations by interrogating prisoners with methods that met the international definitions of torture, including waterboarding.
Even the Republican establishment’s current favorite candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has spoken in uncritical terms about future use of what the George W. Bush administration referred to euphemistically as “enhanced interrogation methods.”
In a May speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Rubio addressed the utility of Guantánamo Bay, another U.S. base where torture was determined to have occurred in the 2000s, claiming it was “the only place” where the United States effectively gathered intelligence.
As Yahoo News reported then, Rubio said, “I believe that innocent people, peace-loving people deserve to have their rights respected. And I think terrorists who plot to kill Americans and actively are engaged in plots to attack America deserve to be in prison and taken off the battlefield. And that’s the role that Guantánamo plays. It was also the only place where we were able to gather intelligence. Today we’re not gathering nearly enough intelligence.”
Of course, the U.S. military and intelligence communities have been able to gather information from sources around the world. And Rubio’s beliefs stand in contrast to McCain’s, who used his floor speech Tuesday to implore fellow Republicans to reconsider their positions.
“These forms of torture not only fail their purpose to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the United States and our allies but compromised our values, stained our national honor and did little practical good,” McCain said. “I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. … Now candidates are saying they will disregard the law. I thought that was our complaint with the present president of the United States.”
McCain was alluding to President Obama’s executive orders on domestic issues that have been decried by Republicans in Washington and on the trail. As a candidate, Obama had promised to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay on “day one” of his administration but has yet to do so.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/07/21/john-sidney-mccain-iii-patriot-or-trader/
John McCain’s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies.
Investigators and survivors took the position that John McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany.
As a rising naval officer, John McCain was surrounded by rumors of numerous adulterous affairs, such as used to be called “conduct unbecoming an officer.” Author and biographer Robert Timberg has detailed several of McCain’s sexual relationships with subordinates when serving as a Squadron Leader and an Executive Officer. I think we all know such behavior is a clear violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in other words, a crime.
When John McCain’s application to the National War College was rejected, according to noted author and researcher Joel Skousen, he whined to daddy who pulled strings with the Secretary of the Navy.
John McCain’s 5½-year stay at the Hanoi Hilton (officially Hoa Loa Prison) has ever since been the subject of great controversy. He maintains that he was tortured and otherwise badly mistreated. One of many who disagree is Dennis Johnson, imprisoned at Hanoi and never given treatment for his broken leg.
He reports that every time he saw McCain, who was generally kept segregated, the man was clean-shaven, dressed in fresh clothes, and appeared comfortable among North Vietnamese Army officers. He adds that he frequently heard McCain’s collaborative statements broadcast over the prison’s loud speakers.
On October 26, 1967, John McCain’s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. The fractures of 1 leg and both arms were reportedly due to his failure to tuck them in during ejection. According to U.S. News & World Report (May 14, 1973),
John McCain didn’t wait long before offering military information in return for medical care. While an extraordinary patient at Gi Lam Hospital, he was visited by a number of dignitaries, including, to quote John McCain himself, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the national hero of Dienbienphu.
Jack McLamb is a highly respected name in law enforcement circles. After 9 years of clandestine operations in Cambodia and unmentionable areas, he returned home to Phoenix where he became one of the most decorated police officers on record. Twice McLamb was named Officer of the Year. He went on to become an FBI hostage negotiator. This man has stated that every one of the many former POWs he has talked with consider McCain a traitor.
States McLamb, “He was never tortured…The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.” McLamb further quotes former POWs as saying John McCain starred in 32 propaganda videos in which he denounced his country and comrades.
The Glavnoje Razvedyvatel’noje Upravlenije is the Soviet’s military intelligence division. Numerous sources confirm that during the Nam Era, the English-speaking Vietnamese who conducted interrogations of American prisoners were always overseen by Russian GRU officers. The ranking GRU officer at the Hanoi Hilton had a multilingual teenage son who was tasked with translating all interrogation reports into Russian. He would become known only as T.
According to T who interpreted all interrogations and notes pertaining to John McCain during the latter’s stay from December, 1969, to March, 1973, when a well-fed looking McCain’s was released, privileges were extended. These included time at a furnished apartment in Hanoi – furnished with 2 prostitutes. John McCain would attribute such absences to solitary confinement.
It has been widely reported that following his father’s appointment as CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater of operations, John McCain was offered an immediate parole. John McCain insists that he refused such a preference. Others insist that his father refused to allow such a preference. In any event, such an offer would have required the appr
There is only one way forward for Clinton nowhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/there-is-only-one-way-1362390891388982.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/there-is-only-one-way-1362390891388982.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Matt Bai National Political Columnist February 11, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/FGBKxPT6hVjB5WBAO7aGwQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzYwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/4ac2711bd158e485d6f645296083221d9403cd35.jpg)
Hillary Clinton speaks on Tuesday night after the New Hampshire primary. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
In the days before Bernie Sanders positively obliterated Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, raising the very real specter that she could lose the nomination, I found myself thinking a lot about an exchange she had with voters during a CNN town hall in Derry.
A tired-looking man rose and told Clinton he had terminal colon cancer, and he wanted to know what she would do to help advance the conversation about end-of-life decisions. Clinton seemed visibly moved.
“I don’t have an easy or glib answer for you,” Clinton said candidly, adding that she needed to immerse herself in the ethical and scientific writings.
Not five minutes later, another voter asked Clinton how she would stand up to Republican attacks. She scoffed knowingly and let loose a recitation of how victimized she had been over the years, and how horrible it was to be the target of smear campaigns, and how she was still standing anyway. “It’s unlike anything you’ve ever gone through,” Clinton said.
I thought to myself: Tell that to the guy with colon cancer.
A better politician would have said yes, of course she’d have to deal with some attacks, but that’s life in the arena and she feels lucky to serve. A great politician, like her husband in his prime, would have actually meant it.
But Hillary, truth be told, just isn’t a very gifted politician. And while Sanders focuses relentlessly on the big themes that preoccupy voters, Clinton’s campaign feels like it’s all about her — her résumé, her mettle, her 25 years of suffering through the indignities of public service. “I’m with her” is the slogan for a campaign that seems to signify nothing beyond the joyless accretion of personal loyalties.
Clinton really should beat Sanders in the weeks ahead, but she has only one clear winning strategy here, near as I can tell. She has to stop allowing the campaign to become a referendum on her — and turn it, instead, into a referendum on the guy she wants to replace.
That won’t be Clinton’s instinct, of course. The first thing she’s going to do now, apparently, is the thing the Clintons have generally done when backed against a wall: blame the staff.
Even before New Hampshire buried Clinton in bad news, handing her a 22-point defeat in which she even lost women by double digits, stories were circulating about a shakeup at the Brooklyn headquarters (where, you would think, Clinton’s high command now feels like the Lost Battalion caught behind enemy lines, surrounded by turtleneck-wearing hipsters with “Bernie” signs in their windows).
All of which reminds me of what a scandal-damaged Gary Hart said in 1988 when his chief operative in Iowa, a young law student named Martin O’Malley, informed him that he had registered at zero percent in the caucuses and apologized for letting him down.
“Martin,” Hart said dryly, “this was not an organizational problem.”
Clinton doesn’t have an organizational problem. Oh, sure, there are probably too many informal advisers, too much conflicting advice, no shortage of arrogance and infighting. But that’s nothing new in the Clinton orbit. Only the cast of characters ever changes, and even then not much.
No, Clinton’s problem is the moment and her inability to meet it. What happened in New Hampshire Tuesday wasn’t just some ideological rebellion in both parties, a predictable insider-outsider conflict with less predictable results.
This was the shock wave of 2008 finally rising to the surface of our fractured politics. What Sanders and Donald [Sleezebag] embody, each in his own strident way, is the disgust that’s been building for the eight years since Lehman Brothers collapsed and took the markets with it — eight years in which the wealthy and their wholly owned political parties recovered fabulously while everyone else stagnated.
President Obama once told a roomful of bankers, in frustration, that he was the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks. Turns out he was right, and now that he’s stepping aside, the pitchforks are overturning our politics.
Here’s where Clinton finds herself in a real box. Having represented New York and its chief industry, finance, she’s nowhere near a credible populist; the more she tries to sound like Sanders and tout her history as a progressive rebel who once worked for the Children’s Defense Fund, the more she comes off as desperate and expedient.
But if instead Clinton tries to own her real convictions and make the case for a more pragmatic approach, she’s seen as an ideological apostate, unwilling to take on the system. And so her choice is to be either a less genuine candidate than Sanders or a less progressive one — or some days both.
A supremely talented candidate might navigate a way out of this box, but as I said, that’s not Clinton’s superpower. Her team’s strategy for beating back Sanders seems to rely, instead, on demographics. The coming states will feature more black and Latino voters, and Clinton is assuming they won’t be as impressed as voters in New Hampshire were by the rumpled white guy from Vermont.
That’s a pretty shaky assumption, if you ask me.
Remember, Bill Clinton, who once commanded the loyalty of African-American voters like no Democrat since Robert Kennedy, hasn’t appeared on a ballot for 20 years. A lot of younger black and Latino voters don’t even remember the Clinton years, and they’re just as tired of the status quo as their white counterparts.
It won’t be so easy for Hillary to convince minority and younger white voters, who soundly rejected her in New Hampshire this week, that somehow she represents real change and progressive ideals.
But they believe that still about Barack Obama, and this is where Sanders has left her an opening.
Because for the past few weeks, if you’ve been paying attention, Sanders has subtly extended his indictment of his party’s timid status quo right to the door of the White House. I don’t know what Obama said to Sanders when the two of them sat down to talk in January, but whatever it was, it left Sanders in an uncharitable mood.
Since then, he has said (in a string of angry tweets, no less) that real progressives can’t be for trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He has said real progressives can’t take money from Wall Street. Having apparently appointed himself Political Philosophy Czar, Sanders has said you can’t call yourself both a moderate and a progressive at the same time.
Sanders has brushed aside the health care law that is Obama’s signature achievement (and his most politically costly), calling for a single-payer system and castigating pharmaceutical companies as if “Obamacare” had never existed.
In other words, while he praises Obama in debates, Sanders is saying, unmistakably, that Obama hasn’t been a progressive president and doesn’t embody systemic change. And that’s the cause — rather than her own long résumé — that Clinton, having played a pivotal role in the administration, should champion if she wants to get between Sanders and the voters she needs.
If I were Clinton right now, I’d be asking some pretty simple questions every chance I got in South Carolina and Nevada and Michigan.
Who gets to claim the mantle of change — the nation’s first black president, who overturned the old order on health care and Wall Street regulation and Cuba and Iran, or a senator who’s voted with the gun industry? How seriously can you take a candidate who doesn’t think Obama represents a real departure from the status quo?
A vote for Clinton, at this point, has to be a vote of validation for Obama’s legacy, too.
It’s not a perfect strategy. You might point out that Obama himself once derided Clinton, eons ago, as shifty and calculating. You might point out, as I have, that elections are supposed to be about the future and not the past.
But here’s the reality: To this point, Clinton has run a campaign that’s all about her bona fides, and nobody’s swooning. If she’s still defending her Wall Street speeches and whining about the vast right-wing conspiracy a few weeks from now, the nomination could very well slip away from her, again.
Clinton’s best move now is to lash herself tightly to the man who once beat her and hope it’s enough to ride out the wave.
Christie, Fiorina drop GOP presidential bidshttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/christie-fiorina-drop-gop-presidential-bids-220444220.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/christie-fiorina-drop-gop-presidential-bids-220444220.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Dylan Stableford Senior editor February 10, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/8fYdOWPc0ISW7zlo2gTPwQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1000/022676ebeb2cfafe0650320010502888602c5c81.jpg)
Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina have suspended their campaigns for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. (Photo: Robert F. Bukaty, Matt Rourke/AP)
One day after dismal finishes in the New Hampshire primary, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina have suspended their campaigns for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
Fiorina announced her decision via Facebook. Christie told staffers of his move during a late-afternoon meeting, a spokeswoman said.
It was a disappointing end for the New Jersey governor, who was once expected to be among the favorites to win the GOP nomination.
Christie spent more time campaigning in New Hampshire than any other candidate, participating in more than 70 town hall events in the Granite State. But he was unable to translate those gatherings into votes — receiving just 7.4 percent support among New Hampshire GOP voters.
The Christie campaign may ultimately be remembered for playing the foil to Marco Rubio’s would-be rise during the final Republican debate before the primary, attacking the Florida senator for sticking to talking points during a heated exchange just three days before New Hampshire cast its votes.
“You want someone who is prepared, experienced, mature and tested to get on the stage against Hillary Clinton,” Christie said on CNN hours before Tuesday’s primary results were announced. Rubio’s “just not ready,” Christie added. “He doesn’t have the depth or the substance. And he doesn’t have it because he hasn’t experienced anything.”
Christie added: “Maybe he should run for governor of Florida and do something like that, and actually get some real experience.”
With Christie gone, just two governors — Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — are still in the running for the GOP nomination.
Fiorina, who finished behind Christie in New Hampshire, vowed to remain active in politics. She too struggled for traction in early voting despite making a splash in early debates.
“While I suspend my candidacy today, I will continue to travel this country and fight for those Americans who refuse to settle for the way things are and a status quo that no longer works for them,” Fiorina wrote in a statement posted to her Facebook page. “I will continue to serve in order to restore citizen government to this great nation so that together we may fulfill our potential.”
Marco Rubio: Republican Presidential Candidate Says He Chipped His Tooth Eating a Frozen Twix BarNo need to actually check the story after that, I think.
“I just bit into a Twix bar and I go, ‘Man this Twix bar’s got something really hard in it. And I go, ‘Oh my gosh, I cracked my tooth," Rubio told reporters on Thursday.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/federal-judge-just-made-major-ruling-that-may-devastate-hillarys-election-chances/
Federal Judge Just Made MAJOR Ruling That May Devastate Hillary’s Election Chances
Under the ruling, the State Department must...
Gerry Urbanek February 11, 2016 at 5:30pm
In a ruling that could prove devastating to the Hillary Clinton campaign, a federal judge has ruled that the State Department must immediately begin publishing Clinton’s private emails.
The ruling, which came down Thursday from U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, is in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed last year by Vice reporter Jason Leopold.
After missing the initial deadline for release back in January, the State Department again attempted to stall release until after the Democratic primary contests. Arguing that this delay would prevent voters from making an informed decision about Clinton in the upcoming caucuses, Leopold’s team convinced Judge Contreras that an immediate release was necessary.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/10/thanks-to-superdelegates-hillary-clinton-still-wins-after-getting-crushed-in-new-hampshire.html
Thanks To Superdelegates, Hillary Clinton Still Wins After Getting Crushed In New Hampshire
By Jason Easley on Wed, Feb 10th, 2016
Bernie Sanders may have crushed Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire popular vote, but thanks to superdelegates, Clinton will leave New Hampshire with the same number of delegates as Sanders.
No evidence McCain was a traitor
Politifact
By Shawn Zeller on Thursday, January 17th, 2008 at 12:00 a.m.
In an echo of the attacks from the 2000 South Carolina primary that dealt a critical blow to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, a new flyer says the Arizona senator is a traitor.
It says that when he was a POW, McCain was a "Hanoi Hilton songbird" who collaborated with the enemy.
But it provides scant evidence to back up this claim and it is strongly contradicted by many other accounts reviewed by PolitiFact: interviews with other POWs, an author who has written a McCain biography and the senator's own accounts.
Robert Timberg, author of John McCain: An American Odyssey , who has interviewed many POWs who served with McCain, said there's no evidence that he ever collaborated with the North Vietnamese. "I've never known of any occasion in which Sen. McCain provided the North Vietnamese with anything of value," Timberg said.
The flyer was sent to about 80 media organizations in South Carolina and is posted on the group's Web site. The flyer probably would have been ignored, but the McCain campaign issued a statement calling it "a vicious attack."
The flyer has a caricature of a surly-looking McCain in a prison cell under the words, "Hanoi Hilton Songbird." The second page is headlined "FACT SHEET: Military Record of John Sidney McCain III" and it begins with some accurate biographical information.
The flyer contains 1 pages of criticisms of McCain, but only a few support the accusation that he was helping the enemy:
• That he told his captors "Okay, I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."
• That the Hanoi news media reported he had given information about his flight, rescue ships and the order of U.S. attacks.
• That he broke the military code because he answered questions from a Spanish psychiatrist who had apparently been cooperating with the North Vietnamese.
There is some truth to these claims, but collectively they do not prove McCain was involved in "collaborations with the enemy," as the flyer alleges.
In his memoir Faith of My Fathers, McCain says that he initially offered the information because he was badly injured and afraid of dying. But, he wrote, "I didn't intend to keep my word."
When he was later interrogated, McCain gave his ship's name and squadron number and confirmed the target of his failed mission, he wrote. He also gave the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line and said they were members of his squadron.
Asked to identify future targets, he mentioned North Vietnamese cities that U.S. planes had already bombed.
George "Bud" Day and Orson Swindle, fellow POWs, told PolitiFact that POWs sometimes were forced to talk when they were tortured, but they tried to tell lies to mislead their captors.
"We were all tortured and we wrote confessions under the pressure of torture," said Swindle, who was a cellmate with McCain and is active in his campaign. "John McCain never collaborated with the enemy. He, like every one of us, submitted to severe torture. John McCain did nothing dishonorable. He was heroic."
At one point, McCain broke down and signed a confession. But Timberg, the biographer, said McCain deliberately used misspellings, grammatical errors and Communist jargon to show he was writing under duress: "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died, and the Vietnamese people saved my life . . . "
Day, a Medal of Honor winner who also is supporting McCain's campaign, said the flyer is "the most outrageous f------ lie I've ever heard."
The man behind the flyer is Gerard "Jerry" W. Kiley, 61, of Garnerville, N.Y., who says he served in Vietnam for about a year. He describes his group as a one-man operation unaffiliated with any political party or campaign. He says he opposes McCain because of the senator's efforts to normalize relations with the Vietnamese communist government and because, in his view, McCain has helped the U.S. government keep information about POWs classified.
"John McCain has made sure the information concerning the lives of Americans we clearly abandoned after the war remain in government files 40 years later," he says.
He teamed with political activist Ted Sampley of North Carolina to distribute the fliers to South Carolina media outlets this month. Sampley did not respond to requests for comment.
Sampley also is a longtime McCain opponent. In 2000, he gained attention when he called McCain a "Manchurian candidate" on his Web site and said that he was an agent of the Vietnamese. In 1993, Sampley was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced to 180 days' probation for attacking a McCain aide, according to a 2004 article in the New York Times.
McCain is not the first politician to draw the men's ire. In 2004, they formed Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.
Kiley has twice interrupted events featuring Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, forcing an American flag in his hand on one occasion and throwing red wine at him on another, according to a Secret Service agent who later arrested Kiley. He admits he threw the wine, but he was later acquitted in federal court of threatening Khai.
Kiley says he bases his most damning charges against McCain — that McCain gave information about the schedule of U.S. attacks in Vietnam in 1967, the year his plane was shot down and McCain was captured — on the word of Earl Hopper, a retired Army colonel.
In an interview, Hopper's wife, Patty, said that Hopper wasn't able to address the charges over the phone because of poor hearing. She said that Hopper has long been involved in the POW movement and that Earl Hopper's son, Earl Jr., is missing in action in Vietnam.
She cited as evidence for Hopper's charges a 1973 article by McCain that ran in U.S. News and World Report and what she said were "declassified U.S. military documents" she claimed to possess describing McCain's collaboration. Patty Hopper said she was away from her Arizona home and could not fax those documents.
But the 1973 article does not back up the charges made in the flyer. It provides the same basic account as McCain's book, corroborated by Timberg's book, which was based on interviews with many POWs.
Timberg, Day and Swindle noted that McCain, the son of a Navy admiral, was offered an early release from the prison but refused so that he could adhere to the military's code of conduct.
Timberg said he was perplexed by the allegations.
"Why do they hate him? There can be lots of issues you disagree with him about. But why try to destroy him?"
Because of the seriousness of the charge, the utter absence of evidence and the clear intention to harm McCain just days before a critical Republican primary, we find this claim to be Pants on Fire wrong.
About this statement:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/17/vietnam-veterans-against-john-mccain/no-evidence-mccain-was-a-traitor/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/17/vietnam-veterans-against-john-mccain/no-evidence-mccain-was-a-traitor/)
Published: Thursday, January 17th, 2008 at 12:00 a.m.
Researched by: Shawn Zeller
Edited by: Amy Hollyfield
Subjects: Candidate Biography
Sources:
Interviews: George "Bud" Day, former POW; Orson Swindle, former POW; Robert Timberg, author; Gerard Kiley, Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain; Patty Hopper, wife of retired U.S. Army Colonel Earl Hopper
Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain
Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, Flyer "FACT SHEET: Military record of John Sidney McCain III"
New Times of Phoenix, Is John McCain a war hero?
Washington Post, "Yanking His McChain; Web Site Posits That Candidate Is a Southeast Asia Pawn," by Michael Powell and Tom Edsall, Feb. 16, 2000
New York Times, "McCain Fights Old Foe Who Now Fights Kerry," by Michael Janofsky," Feb. 14, 2004
Adweek.com, "New Anti-Kerry Ads Air in N.C.," by Gregory Solman, Aug. 31, 2004
United Press International, "Some vets question Kerry's antiwar past," by Richard Tomkins, July 28, 2004
U.S. Veteran Dispatch, "Vietnam Vet Found Not Guilty of Assault on Vietnam Prime Minister," by Ted Sampley, November 2005.
2005 U.S. District Court records of case United States of America vs. Gerard W. Kiley
U.S. News & World Report, "How the POWs fought back," by John McCain, May 14, 1973
Robert Timberg, The Nightingale's Song, touchstone/Simon & Schuster, 1995
John McCain with Mark Salter, Faith of My Fathers, Perennial, 1999
http://polidics.com/ethics/fellow-pows-say-john-mccain-was-a-coward-and-a-traitor-in-viet-nam.html
Quote Fellow POW’s say John McCain Was a Coward and a Traitor in Viet Nam. Quote http://gotnews.com/busted-yes-john-mccain-is-a-traitor-heres-the-proof/ Quote GotNews.com is announcing a $5,000 bounty to find the tape of John McCain praising his N. Vietnamese captors. Quote https://hope2012.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/songbird-mccain-the-evidence-in-his-own-words-his-fellow-veterans-and-his-captors/ Quote ‘SONGBIRD’ MCCAIN: THE EVIDENCE – IN HIS OWN WORDS, HIS FELLOW VETERANS, AND HIS CAPTORS Its worth noting that its his fellow vets that despise McCain and call him a traitor. |
Its worth noting that its his fellow vets that despise McCain and call him a traitor.
Hillary Clinton, winning women, takes Nevada in victory over Sandershttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-winning-women-takes-nevada-in-233933736.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-winning-women-takes-nevada-in-233933736.html)
Yahoo! Politics
Liz Goodwin, Andrew Romano and Daniel Klaidman February 20, 2016
Hillary Clinton beat out rival Bernie Sanders to win the Nevada caucuses after a frenetic final blitz of campaigning, denying Sanders a golden opportunity to capitalize on his early momentum and raising questions about where else he can win in the weeks ahead.
“Some may have doubted us, but we never doubted each other,” Clinton said at her victory party in the Caesars Palace casino on the Las Vegas Strip.
Clinton went on to outline the problems facing the country, from “crumbling classes” in South Carolina to the toxic water in Flint, Mich. “Americans are right to be angry,” she said. “But we’re also hungry for real solutions.”
Sanders outspent Clinton 2 to 1 on TV ads in the state, and managed to build up his campaign operation to rival hers in size. But Team Clinton, which had been in the state since April under the direction of Barack Obama campaign alum Emmy Ruiz, was better organized. Clinton’s female-focused outreach strategy in Nevada paid off, with exit polls showing Clinton winning among women by 16 percentage points, reversing the embarrassing New Hampshire trend of women choosing Sanders. Clinton once led the state by large margins, but a poll last week showed she and Sanders in a dead heat. The former secretary of state canceled a campaign rally in Florida this week and spent an extra day campaigning in Nevada.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/qYfPwgJnKJE5QRsxGI1r8w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTgxODtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/1f9864376033bfb32a7457b74768e0d8e91070fa.jpg)
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won the Democratic caucuses in Nevada, where she campaigned actively to secure a victory. (Photo: John Locher/AP)
Her high-profile surrogates, including actress Eva Longoria and Cabinet member Tom Perez, flooded the state and held multiple events every day, out-campaigning Sanders’ team.
“We knew that the race was going to be tight, and we wanted to make sure that we left nothing on the field,” said Jorge Neri, Clinton’s Nevada field organizer.
Female voters who flocked to a casino caucus site Saturday morning said they liked Sanders but ultimately sided with Clinton, in part because they believed she would understand their issues better than Sanders.
“First of all, she’s a woman; she will understand a woman’s needs,” said Fernanda Breciado, 55, a housekeeping supervisor at Caesars Palace who was voting during her lunch break. “She has the support of the greatest president,” she added, referring to Bill Clinton.
Jennifer Palmieri, a Clinton spokeswoman, said Hillary’s performance with women was good news. “It’s one state, it’s one race, but that’s pretty good,” she said. “We understand we have work to do with white men.”
The state brought out tension between the two candidates. On Thursday, an exhausted-looking Sanders and Clinton crossed paths at a town hall focused on immigration issues in Las Vegas. Clinton took a poke at Sanders’ earlier criticism of Obama and her husband. “Maybe it’s that Sen. Sanders wasn’t really a Democrat until he decided to run for president. He doesn’t know what the last two Democratic presidents did,” she said as the crowd booed. In an interview with BET later, Sanders suggested Clinton was heaping praise on Obama merely to pander to black voters.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/MNM86Z_AkP3Y7EPVwypyGw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTkwMztpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/d2504db2861028be28c1606259a47c1d042bd826.jpg)
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, gesture in front of supporters after she was projected to be the winner in the Democratic caucuses in Las Vegas on Saturday. (Photo: David Becker/Reuters)
Eleven miles away from Clinton’s victory party on the Las Vegas Strip, Sanders’ supporters reassembled at the Henderson Pavilion, site of the Vermont senator’s final pre-caucus rally the night before, to cheer on their candidate. Campaign officials originally planned to start the program at 5 p.m. local time, suggesting that they believed the caucuses would be close and the votes would take a long time to count. But Clinton was declared the winner at about 2:30 p.m., and Sanders wound up speaking earlier than expected. About 400 supporters, who were still streaming in when Sanders took the stage, clustered near the front of the 2,444-seat amphitheater waving “A Future to Believe In” signs.
“You know, five weeks ago we were 25 points behind in the polls,” Sanders said. “We’ve made some real progress.”
Sanders accepted his defeat, but it was hard to ignore the notes of defiance and even defensiveness in his remarks. He “applaud[ed]” Clinton’s campaign for being “very aggressive” — not exactly a compliment. He warned that Clinton’s “very wealthy and powerful super-PAC — a super-PAC that receives lots of money from Wall Street and special interests” would be coming after him in the weeks ahead. And he repeatedly argued that “momentum” was more important than victory.
“What this entire campaign has been about is the issue of momentum,” Sanders said. “Taking on the establishment is not easy. … It is clear to me and to many observers that the wind is at our backs.”
If Sanders could have pulled out a victory in Nevada, it would have gone a long way toward silencing critics who say he can only win among white voters, and lacks the broad appeal to be the party’s nominee. Entrance polls found that black voters went for Clinton 3 to 1, and while the same polls showed Sanders outpacing Clinton among Latinos, it’s likely those results were misleading.
In an email to backers, Sanders argued that even in losing Nevada, he had proven he could do well among a diverse pool of voters. “Nevada was supposed to be a state ‘tailor-made’ for the Clinton campaign, and a place she once led by almost 40 points,” he said. “But today we sent a message that will stun the political and financial establishment of this country: Our campaign can win anywhere.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/O4MiFIG1bevTYgJOchdAcw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTgwOTtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/4de0f7f588c77c77321ea4990782bafedb55e81a.jpg)
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks to supporters at a rally in Henderson, Nev., after rival candidate Hillary Clinton was projected to be the winner in the Nevada Democratic caucuses on Saturday. (Photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
That claim will be put to the test in the coming weeks as the Democratic nominating contest first moves on to South Carolina — where black voters typically play a decisive role and where Clinton leads Sanders by an average of 24 percentage points — before heading into a rapid succession of March primaries and caucuses widely thought to favor the former secretary of state.
“I’ve always believed March was going to be Hillary Clinton’s month,” David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign manager and a current Clinton supporter, said this week. “The Texases of the world, the Georgias of the world — they become very important. Michigan becomes very important on March 8. And then March 15 is, I think, the most important day on the calendar — those large Midwestern and Southern states (Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio), where I think she will do very well.”
As the results came rolling in, top Clinton backers began to tout Nevada as a game-changer. “This victory had to overcome the momentum Sanders got in New Hampshire and the spin from the pundits,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Clinton fundraiser and Democratic National Committee member. “It really speaks to Hillary Clinton’s message and also the strength of their campaign organization.”
But in an interview with Yahoo News after Sanders’ speech, senior adviser Tad Devine disagreed, pointing to Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, Minnesota and “the Midwest” as contests Sanders could win going forward.
“I think [Nevada] proves that they are not in total meltdown,” Devine added, referring to the Clinton campaign. “And it proves that we can begin to coalesce a winning campaign coalition in America. This is just the beginning.”
You'll find my stance on pretty much EVERYTHING religiously based is it shouldn't be against THE LAW.I believe I tried to more-or-less say that a few posts up. If you're convicted that something's wrong, persuading others of it is your moral duty - and far more effective than laws, frankly, if you pull it off.
Against my personal religion/code/etc DOES NOT mean I should advocate that it be against THE LAW. My belief in my right to practice my own religion is only as strong as my belief in YOUR right to practice YOURS. Therefore I have no qualms being, sometimesl literally, devil's advocate in defending someone's right to do something I might find "sinful".
This has been the FUNDAMENTAL error of the political church people for my entire political adulthood. They harm the church by making themselves obnoxious - pissing the cost of their moral activism away dabbling in affairs that are Caesar's not God's, and thus doing their duty wrong.
I also envision a transformation in food service. Fast food will be ordered on a touch screen with a credit card reader. No more cashiers. Your bag will slide down the chute.
For that matter with no immigration/border control, I expect a lot of labor will be contracted to bilingual guys with strictly Spanish speaking crews, much the way WalMart managed to get their stores cleaned at below cost.And Walmart strip mined towns of businesses and jobs doing this. No Borders, equals no country.
I suppose people will just stay in college until they are eventually qualified for a job in demand, like robot repairman.
Obama: Guantanamo Bay undermines security, must be closedhttp://news.yahoo.com/pentagons-guantanamo-plan-lays-costs-savings-080548790--politics.html (http://news.yahoo.com/pentagons-guantanamo-plan-lays-costs-savings-080548790--politics.html)
Associated Press
By LOLITA C. BALDOR and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY 45 minutes ago
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qDB7fkX.yC_kV3eEFTGLMQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9NzE3O2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/076c8b33ca614809910f6a706700d972.jpg)
President Barack Obama speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016, to discuss the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama administration released its long-awaited plan to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer remaining detainees to a facility in the United States. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to "once and for all" close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and transfer the most detainees to a facility in the U.S., submitting a plan short on specifics and unlikely to make headway with opponents in Congress.
Obama cast his proposal, released Tuesday after months of delay, as a moment to turn the page on a facility that for years has raised nettlesome legal questions, become a recruitment tool for violent extremists and garnered strong opposition from some allies abroad.
"I don't want to pass this problem onto the next president, whoever it is," Obama said, in an appearance at the White House. "If we don't do what's required now, I think future generations are going to look back and ask why we failed to act when the right course, the right side of history, and justice and our best American traditions was clear."
Despite the big ambitions, Obama's proposed path to closure remained unclear. It leaves unanswered the politically thorny question of where in the U.S a new facility would be located and whether it could be completed by the end of Obama's term. Moving detainees to U.S. soil is currently prohibited under U.S. law and lawmakers have shown little interest in removing the restrictions.
"We will review President Obama's plan but since it includes bringing dangerous terrorists to facilities in U.S. communities, he knows that the bipartisan will of Congress has already been expressed against that proposal," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Obama had yet to convince Americans that moving detainees to U.S. soil is "smart of safe."
"It is against the law — and it will stay against the law," Ryan said.
(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/YudS9k4R566DFErAmZd8LA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9NjM4O2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/d8896790ca624809910f6a706700ce0c.jpg)
Vice President Joe Biden reacts to comments made by President Barack Obama, accompanied by Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016. Obama announced Pentagon's long-awaited plan to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer the remaining detainees to a facility in the U.S. The plan is Obama's last-ditch effort to make good on campaign vow to close Guantanamo. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Even Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a former prisoner of war and an advocate of closing the prison, called Obama's report a "vague menu of options," which does not include a policy for dealing with future terrorist detainees.
Obama has "missed a major chance to convince the Congress and the American people that he has a responsible plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility," he said.
It's not clear whether that chance ever existed. Momentum to close the facility has slowed dramatically under Obama's tenure. Congress remains deadlocked on far less contentious matters, and the issue has little resonance on the presidential campaign trail.
Still, for Obama, the facility stands as a major unfilled promise and a painful reminder of the limits on his power: His first executive order sketched out a timeline for closing the prison, but was ultimately derailed by Congress.
The White House has not ruled out the possibility that the president may again attempt to close the prison through executive action — a move that would directly challenge Congress' authority. The plan submitted Tuesday does not address that option.
The proposal underscores the administration's strategy of shrinking the population, hoping the massive cost for housing the diminished population would ultimately make closure inevitable.
(http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/pFQFXHMF2fmv_Wyv0l6Gmg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9NjM5O2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/caaa5d6cc7e83d09910f6a706700f41a.jpg)
In this Nov. 21, 2013, file photo reviewed by the U.S. military, dawn arrives at the now closed Camp X-Ray, which was used as the first detention facility for al-Qaida and Taliban militants who were captured after the Sept. 11 attacks at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. U.S. officials say the Pentagon’s long-awaited plan to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer the remaining detainees to a facility in the U.S. calls for up to $475 million in construction costs, but would save as much as $180 million per year in operating costs. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
Under the plan, roughly 35 of the 91 current detainees will be transferred to other countries in the coming months, leaving up to 60 detainees who are either facing trial by military commission or have been determined to be too dangerous to release but are not facing charges.
Those detainees would be relocated to a U.S. facility that could cost up to $475 million to build, but would ultimately be offset by as much as $180 million per year in operating cost savings. The annual operating cost for Guantanamo is $445 million. The U.S. facilities would cost between $265 million and $305 million to operate each year, according to the proposal.
The plan considers, but does not name, 13 different locations in the U.S., including seven existing prison facilities in Colorado, South Carolina and Kansas, as well as six other locations at current correctional facilities on state, federal or military sites in several states. It also notes that there could be all new construction on existing military bases. The plan doesn't recommend a preferred site and the cost estimates are meant to provide a starting point for a conversation with Congress.
More detailed spending figures, which are considered classified, will be provided to Congress, said U.S. officials, who were not authorized to discuss the plan publicly ahead of its release, so spoke on condition of anonymity.
Members of Congress have been demanding the Guantanamo plan for months, and those representing South Carolina, Kansas and Colorado have voiced opposition to housing the detainees in their states.
"We must safeguard the missions on Fort Leavenworth, the nearly 14,000 military and civilian personnel and their family members, and the thousands of Kansans who live in the Leavenworth community," Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said in a statement Tuesday.
Advocates of closing Guantanamo say the prison has long been a recruiting tool for militant groups and that holding extremists suspected of violent acts indefinitely without charges or trial sparks anger and dismay among U.S. allies.
Opponents, however, say changing the detention center's ZIP code won't eliminate that problem.
On that point, Obama's proposal faced criticism even from those who endorse closing the detention center. His initial campaign pledge was widely viewed as a promise to end the practice of detaining prisoners indefinitely without charge, not to bring that practice to the U.S., said Naureen Shah, director of Amnesty International USA's Security and Human Rights Program.
"Whatever the president proposes, even if it doesn't come to fruition, the administration is changing the goal posts on this issue," she said.
Obama said Tuesday he would also propose changes to the military commissions, which he noted have been costly and ineffective. Those changes would also require congressional action, he noted.
__
Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hprofile-xtl1/v/t1.0-1/p100x100/12670562_1012063828851197_2253102093542559563_n.jpg?oh=d449754acb05036da1478ceb720aabf6&oe=576172D0) Dr. David Duke (https://www.facebook.com/drdaviddukeFANpage/?fref=nf)
Former head of Ku Klux Klan discussed [Sleezebag] · 1 hr ·
..
100 major media articles about me today, but not one dared to call to call me and interview on why White Americans are overwhelmingly supporting Donald [Sleezebag].
They are obviously afraid to hear the logical reasons I offer.
1) Because we must secure our border
2) Because we break the power of the Jewish Federal Reserve and predator banks Goldman Sachs that are robbing us blind.
3) Because we are tired of massive Jewish money and lobbies controlling American politics
4) Because we sick and tired of Zio Wars
5) Because we don't war Word War III with Russiia
6) Because like every people on Earth, White people have a right to preserve their heritage, their nations, their values, and provide for a decent, not a THIRD WORLD future for our children.
7) Because [Sleezebag] exposes the lies of a controlled media and a controlled opposition media (Fox News)
Even the New York Times admits that the Republican rank and file have adopted my political programs. Donald [Sleezebag] has the same positions I had in 1992 in the primaries where even though I was illegally kept out of debates I scored lot more support than Paul, Carson and others in primaries I was not illegally kept out of.
The fact that [Sleezebag] (and others) say what I say almost 25 years ago does not make him bad, but it makes me pretty damn good.
By the way, you can read my essays and hear my interviews before the Iraq War in 2002 -2003 saying there were no weapons of mass destruction that the war in Iraq would be a disaster of America.
In every election I ever ran in starting in the 1970s I preached the necessity of securing our borders and the catastrophe that would befall our nation if we went to war.
Dr. David Duke
I find your pendulum remark reality-challenged, too. We're overdue for a swing alright, but not that way.America is the modern equivalent of Weimar Germany. Look how the pendulum shifted back then.
Do you think the party establishment prefers Kasich to Rubio, given the probabilities? I do think it's clearly down to one or the other - and I would have guessed settling for Rubio.
Republicans all wet on waterboarding, former generals sayhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/republicans-all-wet-on-waterboarding-former-164218614.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/republicans-all-wet-on-waterboarding-former-164218614.html)
Olivier Knox Chief Washington Correspondent February 25, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/epHtOQHEJle1tjldCivRPw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/5e3b8a988f99acebd05c77396b4945547f303b32.jpg)
An Army captain walks outside unoccupied cells inside Camp 6 at the U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay. (Photo: Ben Fox/AP)
Nineteen retired generals and admirals who support Hillary Clinton’s campaign have signed a blistering condemnation of Republican presidential candidates who support the use of interrogation tactics widely regarded as torture. The officers also scolded them for opposing President Obama’s proposal to close the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay.
“The Republican candidates have turned this into a game to see who can seem toughest,” the former officers said in a statement the Clinton campaign provided on Thursday. “Yet, how we combat our enemies and defeat ISIS is not a game, and these proposals would only make us weaker.”
On the campaign trail, Donald [Sleezebag] has called with gusto for interrogating suspected terrorists with tactics widely regarded as torture, including but not limited to waterboarding. Ted Cruz says waterboarding isn’t torture and has pushed for carpet-bombing cities held by the so-called Islamic State. Marco Rubio has opposed legislation banning the use of torture. All of the Republican presidential candidates oppose Obama’s plan to close the detention facility near Cuba’s southeastern tip.
The statement by the retired brass called Guantánamo “one of the most powerful symbols for terrorist recruitment” and said torture “abandons the principles that this country was founded on, compromises our position of leadership on the world stage, and puts our troops, frontline civilians, and all Americans at risk.”
The retired officers said Clinton “has consistently been on the right side of history on these issues,” both by supporting efforts to close the prison and by asserting “that torture does not work and defies our nation’s values and interests.”
While the group supports the former secretary of state’s presidential aspirations, other former national security officials who have not come out in favor of a candidate have expressed contempt for some of the rhetoric coming from contenders for the Republican presidential nomination.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, has explicitly denounced carpet-bombing as a tactic and says the foreign policy discussions on the campaign trail “would embarrass a middle-schooler.” Former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden recently said the agency won’t be waterboarding again anytime soon and invited [Sleezebag] to bring his “own damn bucket” if he wants to resume the practice.
Public opinion polls have found that Americans are divided over whether torture works and whether it should be used, though roughly three out of four Republicans think waterboarding and other harsh techniques are sometimes justified.
The CIA has defended its use of interrogation tactics authorized by then-President George W. Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But the FBI and Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee say they failed to yield any valuable information.
The group of retired officers who signed the statement includes former Army Maj. Gen. Tony Taguba, best known for his scathing 2004 report on abuses committed by U.S. forces at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.
Donald [Sleezebag] had a rough night. Will it matter?-had-a-rough-night-will-it-matter-062332029.html]https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-[Sleezebag]-had-a-rough-night-will-it-matter-062332029.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-[Sleezebag)
Jon Ward Senior Political Correspondent February 26, 2016
The 10th Republican presidential debate was a good show, as it always is with Donald [Sleezebag] on the stage.
But for the first time in this unprecedented primary election, [Sleezebag] could have used a little more winning. He left the stage in Houston having been pushed around for most of the night.
Standing between the two U.S. senators who remain the only obstacles between him and the GOP nomination, [Sleezebag] was under assault from both Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas for a large part of the two-hour spectacle.
A little more than halfway through the raucous back-and-forth, [Sleezebag] was clearly tiring, and angry at being under so much duress. When the radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt directed another question at [Sleezebag], the businessman and reality TV personality snapped at him in anger.
“Every single question comes to me? I know I’m here for the ratings, but it’s a little bit ridiculous,” he complained.
Rubio was relentless. He pushed, prodded, provoked and badgered [Sleezebag] as no one else during the campaign has been able to do on a stage. Rubio, smiling much of the time, interrupted and talked over [Sleezebag] rather than standing by and waiting for him to insult or belittle him.
And Cruz followed up on many of Rubio’s attacks or criticisms.
Rubio went on the offensive in his first answer, saying that [Sleezebag] had only recently adopted a conservative stance on immigration, and then accusing him of hiring people from outside the country.
“Even today, we saw a report in one of the newspapers that Donald, you’ve hired a significant number of people from other countries to take jobs that Americans could have filled,” he said.
He was referring to a New York Times report that showed that [Sleezebag]’s Palm Beach club, Mar-a-Lago, has brought in hundreds of foreign workers with temporary visas to fill jobs, while denying or ignoring hundreds of applications from American citizens.
Essentially, Rubio was calling [Sleezebag] a hypocrite, given the billionaire’s campaign rhetoric about getting jobs back for Americans who have lost them, especially to immigrants. [Sleezebag] compounded this impression in an interview on CNN after the debate, arguing that “you can’t get American people” for such work.
During the debate, Rubio pointed out that the Times had interviewed a number of people who would have been willing to take the work, “if you would have been willing to hire them to do it.”
Before [Sleezebag] began to counterattack, Rubio demonstrated a tactic that he employed repeatedly to great effect. He launched in on [Sleezebag] from another angle, pointing out that [Sleezebag] was the “only person on this stage that has ever been fined for hiring people to work on your projects illegally.”
“You hired some workers from Poland,” Rubio said. As [Sleezebag] began to reject the accusation as “totally wrong,” Rubio suggested that the audience simply search on Google for the evidence.
Ted Cruz questions [Sleezebag]'s experience, pointing out that [Sleezebag] was on reality TV when other candidates were working in government.
[Sleezebag] did not get a breather. Cruz immediately waded in on him for not being conservative enough on immigration.
“When I was leading the fight against the ‘Gang of Eight’ amnesty bill, where was Donald? He was firing Dennis Rodman on ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’” Cruz said, mockingly.
The Texas senator, armed with his own file of facts, said that [Sleezebag] had donated $50,000 to the politicians who helped pass an immigration reform bill through the Senate in 2013, which Cruz refers to as an “open borders” plan.
“When you’re funding open border politicians, you shouldn’t be surprised when they fight for open borders,” Cruz said, seeking to undercut another of [Sleezebag]’s key claims, that he will have a wall built across the U.S.-Mexico border to stop all illegal immigration.
When the wall was mentioned moments later, CNN’s moderator, Wolf Blitzer, expressed skepticism that [Sleezebag] would actually be able to force the Mexican government to pay for it.
How would he do this? Blitzer asked [Sleezebag]. “I will,” [Sleezebag] said, without elaboration.
Rubio once again started taking shots at [Sleezebag].
“If he builds the wall the way he built [Sleezebag] Towers, he’ll be using illegal immigrant labor to do it,” he said. [Sleezebag] rolled his eyes but did not respond. “The second thing, about the trade war,” Rubio went on, “I don’t understand, because your ties and the clothes you make [are] made in Mexico and in China. So you’re gonna be starting a trade war against your own ties and your own suits.”
Rubio pestered [Sleezebag] eight times about why he didn’t make his ties and branded clothing line in the United States rather than in China and Mexico. Rubio then pivoted quickly to another attack, punching from a different angle.
As [Sleezebag] was objecting that Rubio didn’t know anything about his reasons for manufacturing his clothing line in China, Rubio shot back: “Well, I don’t know anything about bankrupting four companies.”
Then he launched in again. “I don’t know anything about starting a university, and that was a fake university. There are people who borrowed $36,000 to go to [Sleezebag] University, and they’re suing now,” Rubio said, discussing the ongoing lawsuit against the school (now defunct) in which [Sleezebag] has been called to testify under oath.
“That’s a fake school. And you know what they got? They got to take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald [Sleezebag].”
[Sleezebag] tried repeatedly to stop Rubio from talking and to get a word in himself, but remarkably, failed to do so. Finally, he went after Rubio for profiting from a home sale.
“Here’s a guy, here’s a guy that buys a house for $179,000, he sells it to a lobbyist — who’s probably here — for $380,000, and then legislation is passed,” [Sleezebag] said.
Rubio came quickly back with another one-liner. “Here’s a guy that inherited $200 million,” he responded. “If he hadn’t inherited $200 million, you know where Donald [Sleezebag] would be right now?”
Back and forth it went for much of the night.
This all led up to the most punishing blow Rubio landed, again refusing to let [Sleezebag] get away with a superficial answer on how he would reform the U.S. health care system. Casually but with a touch of disdain, Rubio pressed [Sleezebag] on what his plan for health insurance reform would be, other than allowing customers to shop across state lines for a plan.
“What is your plan, Mr. [Sleezebag]?” Rubio said. “What is your plan on health care?”
“You don’t know,” [Sleezebag] replied. “The biggest problem — ”
“What’s your plan?” Rubio asked again.
“The biggest problem, I’ll have you know…” [Sleezebag] said, before being interrupted once again.
“What’s your plan?” Rubio said.
[Sleezebag] gave up, instead mocking Rubio for his near-catastrophic debate performance Feb. 6 in New Hampshire, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie badgered the Florida senator into repeating himself multiple times in a way that was subsequently mocked as robotic.
But as [Sleezebag] once again invoked purchasing health plans across state lines, Rubio used Christie’s tactic against him.
“Now he’s repeating himself,” Rubio said. The audience cheered loudly and knowingly, acknowledging that Rubio was not only demonstrating a toughness that he had not shown under fire from Christie, but was using against [Sleezebag] the accusation Christie used against him.
[Sleezebag] was flustered.
“Is there anything else you would like to add to that?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked [Sleezebag].
“No, there’s nothing to add,” [Sleezebag] said.
[Sleezebag] then came in for questions over whether he would release his tax returns. He replied that because he is being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, he does not want to release them until the audit is completed, and noted that his taxes have been audited for 12 years straight.
Rubio also made light of [Sleezebag]’s approach to the Middle East peace process. Even radio talk show host Glenn Beck, a big supporter of Cruz, tweeted: “Rubio is killing it.”
Ahead of next Tuesday’s primary voting in a dozen states, Rubio and Cruz both need to arrest [Sleezebag]’s momentum. On Thursday night, each did about as good a job as they possibly could to change the shape of the race.
But [Sleezebag] has proven hard to stop, and the next few days will reveal whether the Houston debate marked a change in the dynamics of the race or simply amounted to a few uncomfortable moments for [Sleezebag] on the way to winning the nomination.
Nearly 20 percent of [Sleezebag]’s supporters say freeing the slaves was a bad idea-supporters-free-slaves-poll-193745865.html]https://www.yahoo.com/politics/[Sleezebag]-supporters-free-slaves-poll-193745865.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/[Sleezebag)
Dylan Stableford Senior editor February 25, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/GeHR.dTKlpna6xUNXfEVLA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/8225245750aa35dd34a5622d03809d8e68f1c8a8.jpg)
Donald [Sleezebag] meets with supporters at a campaign rally on Monday in Las Vegas. (Photo: John Locher/AP)
Donald [Sleezebag] is riding a wave of anger to the Republican presidential nomination. And according to surveys and exit poll data compiled by the New York Times, there are some unsettling beliefs held by the voters propelling him.
According to a Economist/YouGov national poll conducted in January, nearly 20 percent of [Sleezebag]’s supporters say they do not approve of the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln’s executive order that freed the slaves in the Southern states during the Civil War.
Of the 2,000 U.S. adults who participated in the poll, 13 percent said they either slightly or strongly disagreed with Lincoln, while 17 percent said they weren’t sure.
The same survey found that a third of [Sleezebag]’s supporters believe that Japanese-American internment during World War II was a good idea.
According to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted earlier this month, a third of [Sleezebag]’s supporters in South Carolina say they would “support barring gays and lesbians from entering the country.”
The same poll found that 38 percent “wish the South had won the Civil War,” while 70 percent “wish the Confederate battle flag were still flying on their statehouse grounds.”
And though most Republican primary voters in South Carolina (78 percent) disagreed with the idea that whites were a superior race, only 69 percent of the brash billionaire’s backers did, compared with, say, supporters of Ohio Gov. John Kasich (92 percent) or those of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (89 percent).
“Mr. [Sleezebag]’s popularity with white, working-class voters who are more likely than other Republicans to believe that whites are a supreme race and who long for the Confederacy may make him unpopular among leaders in his party,” Lynn Vavreck, a professor of political science at UCLA, writes in the New York Times. “But it’s worth noting that he isn’t persuading voters to hold these beliefs. The beliefs were there — and have been for some time.”
The deep-seated sentiments of those supporters are, in part, a result of ignorance and poor education — another voting bloc that [Sleezebag] has successfully exploited.
According to preliminary entrance poll data compiled by CNN, [Sleezebag] had 57 percent support among those with a high school education or less, 37 points higher than any other candidate.
During his victory speech, [Sleezebag] said "We won with the highly educated, we won with the poorly educated."
“We won with young,” [Sleezebag] said during his victory speech after the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday. “We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated.”
At a rally in Las Vegas on the eve of the caucuses Monday, [Sleezebag] — who graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1968 — didn’t exactly sound like a presidential candidate, much less one with an economics degree.
“What the hell is caucus?” he said to laughter. “Nobody even knows what it is. Just vote.”
[Sleezebag] then told the crowd he wanted to punch a protester who was being escorted from the event in the face.
“There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches — we’re not allowed to punch back anymore,” he said. “I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out in a stretcher.”
[Sleezebag] added: “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya.”
After his win in South Carolina, [Sleezebag] was asked on “Fox News Sunday” if he thought he should “act more presidential.”
“Well, probably I do,” [Sleezebag] replied. “I mean, I can act as presidential as anybody that’s ever been president other than the great Abraham Lincoln.”
On Thursday, [Sleezebag] picked up the unofficial endorsement of perhaps the country’s most prominent white supremacist: former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke.
“Voting against Donald [Sleezebag] at this point is really treason to your heritage,” Duke said on his radio show. “I’m not saying I endorse everything about [Sleezebag], in fact I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”
“America, you’re stupid,” Salon’s Sean Illing declared. “Donald [Sleezebag]’s political triumph makes it official — we’re a nation of idiots.”
One of the writers of “Idiocracy” — a 1996 cult comedy that imagines a dystopian future so dumb that Luke Wilson is the most intelligent person alive — agreed.
“I never expected #idiocracy to become a documentary,” Etan Cohen, who co-wrote the film with Mike Judge, lamented on Twitter. “I thought the worst thing that would come true was everyone wearing Crocs.”
Nearly 20 percent of [Sleezebag]’s supporters say freeing the slaves was a bad ideaWhen In doubt call them racists because that will certainly work. The media doesn't get it.
They're tapping into similar wells of popular frustration in populist ways - the difference in their obvious sincerity and character being larger than the difference in their angles of attack, which is considerable.
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t58.6885-6/c0.38.526.234/p526x296/12409894_1660954997499759_1249165809_n.jpg)https://www.facebook.com/topic/Benito-Mussolini/107465109283314?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6256427325118320923 (https://www.facebook.com/topic/Benito-Mussolini/107465109283314?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6256427325118320923)
Benito Mussolini: Donald [Sleezebag] Retweets Quote From Italian Dictator
[Sleezebag] on Sunday retweeted an account that attributed Mussolini's quote, "It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep," to the GOP candidate. Gawker said they created the account.
As mayor of Burlington, Sanders praised the regimes of Nicaragua and Cuba—claiming bread lines were a sign of economic health
Sanders keeps his Judaism in the background, irking US Jewshttp://news.yahoo.com/sanders-keeps-judaism-background-irking-us-jews-162516509.html (http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-keeps-judaism-background-irking-us-jews-162516509.html)
Associated Press
By RACHEL ZOLL and JOSEF FEDERMAN 1 hour ago
(http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Hb1grwmL4GLA.jb4xAjDZw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9NjQwO2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/04a301a3e05dd80a910f6a706700b849.jpg)
In this Feb. 8, 2016 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., smiles as he greats attendees during a campaign stop at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, N.H. As Sanders headed toward victory in New Hampshire, pundits noted the barrier he was about to break: Sanders would become the first Jewish candidate to win a major party presidential primary. But since he won that night, instead of the burst of communal pride that usually accompanies such milestones, the response from American Jews has been muted. One reason: The Vermont senator, the candidate who has come closer than any other Jew to being a major party presidential nominee, has mostly avoided discussing his Judaism. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
NEW YORK (AP) — As Bernie Sanders headed toward victory in New Hampshire, observers noted the barrier he was about to break: Sanders would become the first Jewish candidate to win a major party presidential primary.
But instead of the burst of communal pride that usually accompanies such milestones, the response from American Jews has been muted. One reason: The Vermont senator, the candidate who has come closer than any other Jew to being a major party presidential nominee, has mostly avoided discussing his Judaism.
Sanders won't identify the Israeli kibbutz where he briefly volunteered in the 1960s. When reporters found the kibbutz, Sha'ar Ha'amakim in northern Israel, he wouldn't comment.
In New Hampshire, he described himself as "the son of a Polish immigrant," not a Jewish one. At a Democratic debate, he spoke of the historic nature of "somebody with my background" seeking the presidency, but didn't say "Jewish." A recent headline in the liberal Jewish Daily Forward newspaper read, "We Need To Out Bernie Sanders as a Jew — For His Own Good."
Rabbi James Glazier of Temple Sinai, in South Burlington, Vermont, said Sanders' comments were being discussed by fellow rabbis in the liberal Reform movement. "What did he leave out there? He didn't say 'Jewish Polish' immigrant. Reform rabbis have picked up on this big time."
Sanders' lack of religious observance is not what rankles. Many Jews identify "culturally" instead of religiously with the faith.
But unlike some other prominent non-observant Jews, Sanders, during more than three decades as a mayor, congressman and U.S. senator, has developed few relationships with Jewish groups or leaders on religious issues or on Israel. He has supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but has not made Israel in a priority.
"I would say that he has never been one of those in Congress who was active in a Jewish caucus, who turned out for Israel, who was involved in those issues — and he still isn't," said Jonathan Sarna, an expert in American Jewish history at Brandeis University.
Ironically, when Sanders gave his most religiously focused campaign speech, he underscored his distance from Judaism. It was last fall at Liberty University, the evangelical school founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell in Virginia, and Sanders addressed the school on Rosh Hashana, or the Jewish New Year.
Discussing his beliefs in the speech, he said he was "motivated by a vision" for social justice "which exists in all of the great religions." Later, he attended a local Rosh Hashana gathering.
The Sanders campaign did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Sanders has said the Holocaust wiped out much of his father's family in Poland. As a child in Brooklyn, Sanders went to Hebrew school and had a bar mitzvah.
"Being Jewish is very important to us," his brother, Larry, said in an interview. "There was no problem of debate, it was just a given in our lives, just as being Americans was a given in our lives. But Bernard is not particularly religious. He doesn't go to synagogue often. I think he probably goes to synagogue only for weddings and funerals, rather than to pray."
In his secular-leaning home state, Sanders was rarely called on to discuss his faith. In 1988, he married his second wife, Jane, who was raised Roman Catholic.
He has been facing increasing challenges about his support for Israel.
At a 2014 Vermont event, after the war started between Israel and Palestinian Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza, some voters demanded Sanders do more to protest Israeli bombing. The war killed more than 2,200 Palestinians in Gaza, including hundreds of civilians, and 73 people on the Israeli side.
Sanders said Israel "overreacted" with the intensity of its attacks, and he called the bombing of U.N. schools "terribly, terribly wrong." But he also criticized Hamas for launching rockets into Israel. Israel has said Hamas is responsible for civilian casualties, since it carried out numerous attacks from residential areas in Gaza.
"I believe in a two-state solution, where Israel has the right to exist in security at the same time the Palestinians have a state of their own," Sanders said.
Despite Sanders' reticence about discussing his Jewish roots, his religious identity is clear, Sarna said.
"I think it is very much a statement about America that someone who everybody knows is of Jewish background and has a Jewish name and sounds Jewish from Brooklyn can get several delegates," Sarna said. "There is a sense that only in America could a Bernie Sanders be a candidate."
____
AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll reported from New York, and Josef Federman from Jerusalem. Aron Heller in Jerusalem and Jill Lawless in London contributed to this report.
When Bernie Sanders Thought Castro and the Sandinistas Could Teach America a Lessonhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/28/when-bernie-sanders-thought-castro-and-the-sandinistas-could-teach-america-a-lesson.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/28/when-bernie-sanders-thought-castro-and-the-sandinistas-could-teach-america-a-lesson.html)
The Daily Beast
Michael Moynihan 02.28.16 12:01 AM ET
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/02/28/when-bernie-sanders-thought-castro-and-the-sandinistas-could-teach-america-a-lesson/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/48557418.cached.jpg)
Photo Illustration by Emil Lendof/The Daily Beast
As mayor of Burlington, Sanders praised the regimes of Nicaragua and Cuba—claiming bread lines were a sign of economic health and press censorship was necessary in wartime.
After the ISIS-orchestrated bloodbath in Paris last November, CBS News informed the three Democratic presidential candidates that a forthcoming debate it was hosting would be shifting focus from domestic to foreign policy.
It seemed like an uncontroversial decision. But it was enough to send Bernie Sanders’s campaign into paroxysms of panic. During a conference call with debate organizers, one Sanders surrogate launched into a “heated” and “bizarre” protest, complaining that CBS was trying to “change the terms of the debate…on the day of the debate,” according to a Yahoo News source.
Still, the clamor from Bernie’s camp wasn’t that bizarre. Bernie understands that the frisson Sanderistas audiences experience isn’t activated by conversations about the Iran nuclear deal. No, Sanders disciples are slain in the spirit by repeated-ad-infinitum sermons about billionaires twisting mustaches, adjusting monocles, and jealously guarding their “rigged system.” It was this message that vaulted Sanders from the mayor’s office to Congress and into the Senate. But foreign-policy questions, The New York Times noted, had a habit of pushing him “out of his comfort zone.”
So here we are: The candidate accused of not caring about foreign policy was the same politico who, years ago, was routinely accused of preferring foreign affairs to the tedium of negotiating overtime pay with the local firefighter’s union. Indeed, after he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders turned the town into a fantasy foreign-policy camp. In his 1997 memoir, Outsider in the House, he asked, “how many cities of 40,000 [like Burlington] have a foreign policy? Well, we did.”
What were the policies and ideas that animated his small-town internationalism? In a recent interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Sanders was asked about a comment he made in 1974 calling for the CIA’s abolition. He qualified, hedged, and offered a potted history of CIA meddling in the affairs of sovereign countries, all while arguing half-heartedly that his views had long-since evolved toward pragmatism.
If CNN can ambush Sanders by reaching back to 1974 and his not-entirely-unreasonable criticism of the CIA, perhaps another enterprising television journalist will ask the candidate-of-consistency one of the following questions:
— Do you think that American foreign policy gives people cancer?
— Do you think a state of war—be it against the Vietnamese communists, Nicaraguan anti-communists, or al Qaeda’s Islamists—justifies the curtailment of press freedoms?
— Do you stand by your qualified-but-fulsome praise of the totalitarian regime in Cuba? Do you stand by your unqualified-and-fulsome praise of the totalitarian Sandinista regime in Nicaragua?
— Do you believe that bread lines are a sign of economic health?
— Do you think the Reagan administration was engaged in the funding and commissioning of terrorism?
A weird palette of questions, sure, but when Sanders was mayor of Burlington, he answered “yes” to all of them. Hidden on spools of microfilm, buried in muffled and grainy videos of press conferences and public appearances, Mayor Sanders enumerated detailed—and radical—foreign-policy positions and explained his brand of socialism. (If you find foreign-policy debates tedious, feel free to ask Sanders if he still believes that “the basic truth of politics is primarily class struggle”; that “democracy means public ownership of the major means of production”; or that “both the Democratic and Republican parties represent the ruling class.”)
In the 1980s, any Bernie Sanders event or interview inevitably wended toward a denunciation of Washington’s Central America policy, typically punctuated with a full-throated defense of the dictatorship in Nicaragua. As one sympathetic biographer wrote in 1991, Sanders “probably has done more than any other elected politician in the country to actively support the Sandinistas and their revolution.” Reflecting on a Potemkin tour of revolutionary Nicaragua he took in 1985, Sanders marveled that he was, “believe it or not, the highest ranking American official” to attend a parade celebrating the Sandinista seizure of power.
It’s quite easy to believe, actually, when one wonders what elected American official would knowingly join a group of largely unelected officials of various “fraternal” Soviet dictatorships while, just a few feet away, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega bellows into a microphone that the United States is governed by a criminal band of terrorists.
None of this bothered Sanders, though, because he largely shared Ortega’s worldview. While opposition to Reagan’s policy in Central America—including indefensible decisions like the mining of Managua harbor—was common amongst mainstream Democrats, it was rare to find outright support for the Soviet-funded, Cuban-trained Sandinistas. Indeed, Congress’s vote to cut off administration funding of the anti-Sandinista Contra guerrillas precipitated the Iran-Contra scandal.
But despite its aversion to elections, brutal suppression of dissent, hideous mistreatment of indigenous Nicaraguans, and rejection of basic democratic norms, Sanders thought Managua’s Marxist-Leninist clique had much to teach Burlington: “Vermont could set an example to the rest of the nation similar to the type of example Nicaragua is setting for the rest of Latin America.”
The lesson Sanders saw in Nicaragua could have been plagiarized from an editorial in Barricada, the oafish Sandinista propaganda organ. “Is [the Sandinistas’] crime that they have built new health clinics, schools, and distributed land to the peasants? Is their crime that they have given equal rights to women? Or that they are moving forward to wipe out illiteracy? No, their crime in Mr. Reagan’s eyes and the eyes of the corporations and billionaires that determine American foreign policy is that they have refused to be a puppet and banana republic to American corporate interests.”
But Sanders was mistaking aspirational Sandinista propaganda for quantifiable Sandinista achievement. None of it was true, but it overlaid nicely on top of his own political views. Sanders’s almost evangelical belief in “the revolution” led him from extreme credulity to occasional fits of extreme paranoia.
For instance, in 1987 Sanders hosted Sandinista politician Nora Astorga in Burlington, a woman notorious for a Mata Hari-like guerilla operation that successfully lured Gen. Reynaldo Perez-Vega, a high-ranking figure in the Somoza dictatorship, to her apartment with promises of sex. Perez-Vega’s body was later recovered wrapped in a Sandinista flag, his throat slit by his kidnappers. When Astorga died in 1988 from cervical cancer, Sanders took the occasion to publicly praise Astorga as “a very, very beautiful woman” and a “very vital and beautiful woman,” positing that American foreign policy might have given her cancer. “I have my own feelings about what causes cancer, and the psychosomatic aspects of cancer,” he said. “One wonders if the war didn’t claim another victim; a person who couldn’t deal with the tremendous grief and suffering in her own country.”
(Sanders often lurched toward conspiracy theory to make banal historical events conform to an ideological narrative. He argued that Ronald Reagan was as Manchurian president created by millionaires who run corporations: “Some millionaires in California said ‘Ron, we want you to work for us. We want you to become governor.’ They sat around a table. A dozen millionaires. They made him governor. And then they made him president. And he did his job effectively for those corporations.”)
The conflict in Nicaragua exacerbated Sanders’s more extreme positions. He asked a group of University of Vermont students to consider how “we deal with Nicaragua, which is in many ways Vietnam, except it’s worse. It’s more gross.” His answer was to raise money and civilian materiel for the revolution, establish a sister city program in Nicaragua, and act as a mouthpiece for the Sandinista government.
The local Vermont journalist corps, with whom Sanders had an extraordinarily contentious relationship, occasionally questioned Sanders on Nicaragua’s increasingly dictatorial drift.
In 1985 Sanders traveled to New York City to meet with Ortega just weeks after Nicaragua imposed a “state of emergency” that resulted in mass arrests of regime critics and the shuttering of opposition newspapers and magazines. While liberal critics of Reagan’s Nicaraguan policy rounded on the Sandinistas (talk-show host Phil Donahue told Ortega that his actions looked “fascist”), Sanders refused to condemn the decision. He was “not an expert in Nicaragua” and “not a Nicaraguan,” he said during a press conference. “Am I aware enough of all the details of what is going on in Nicaragua to say ‘you have reacted too strongly?’ I don’t know…” But of course he did know, later saying that the Sandinistas’ brutal crackdown “makes sense to me.”
What “made sense” to Sanders was the Sandinistas’ war against La Prensa, a daily newspaper whose vigorous opposition to the Somoza dictatorship quickly transformed into vigorous opposition of the dictatorship that replaced it. When challenged on the Sandinistas’ incessant censorship, Sanders had a disturbing stock answer: Nicaragua was at war with counterrevolutionary forces, funded by the United States, and wartime occasionally necessitated undemocratic measures. (The Sandinista state censor Nelba Blandon offered a more succinct answer: “They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.”)
To underscore his point, Sanders would usually indulge in counterfactual whataboutism: “If we look at our own history, I would ask American citizens to go back to World War II. Does anyone seriously think that President Roosevelt or the United States government [would have] allowed the American Nazi Party the right to demonstrate, or to get on radio and to say this is the way you should go about killing American citizens?” (It’s perhaps worth pointing out that La Prensa never printed tutorials on how to kill Nicaraguans. And it’s also worth pointing out that in 1991, Sanders complained of the “massive censorship of dissent, criticism, debate” by the United States government during the Gulf War.)
Or how about the Reagan counterfactual: “What would President Reagan do if buildings were being bombed? If hospitals were being bombed? If people in our own country were being killed? Do you think President Reagan would say, ‘of course we want the people who are killing our children to get up on radio and explain to the citizens of the country how they are going to kill more of our people?’”
Or perhaps Abraham Lincoln can convince you: “How many of you remember what happened in the American Civil War and Abraham Lincoln’s feeling about how you have to fight that war? And how much tolerance there was in this country, during that war, for people who were not sympathetic to the Union cause?”
While Freedom House and Amnesty International agitated on behalf of La Prensa, Sanders was making excuses for the government that censored its articles, prevented it from buying newsprint, harassed its staffers, and arrested its journalists. “The point is,” he argued, “in American history the opposition press talking about how you could kill your own people and overthrow your own government was never allowed…Never allowed to exist.”
The Burlington Free Press mocked Sanders for playing the role of internationalista dupe and lampooned him for expressing, after just a brief, government-guided tour of Nicaragua, “such approval of the Sandinistas on the basis of what was at best a cursory inspection,” an instinct that “says more about his naïveté in the foreign policy field than anything else.”
Sanders countered that he was free to quiz real Nicaraguans on their political allegiances, but they “laughed” when he asked which party they backed because “of course they are with the government.” When asked about the food shortages provoked by the Sandinistas’ voodoo economic policy, Sanders claimed that bread lines were a sign of a healthy economy, suggesting an equitable distribution of wealth: “It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries people don’t line up for food: the rich get the food and the poor starve to death.” When asked about Nicaragua’s notoriously brutal treatment of the Miskito Indians, the Free Press noted that Sanders “attempted to cut off” the line of questioning. (Ted Kennedy called the Sandinistas’ crimes against the indigenous Miskitos “unconscionable,” “intolerable,” and “disturbing,” commenting that they were relocated at gunpoint to “forced-labor camps which resemble concentration camps.”)
Through the Mayor’s Council on the Arts, Sanders tried to bring some revolutionary third-worldism to Vermont when he funded cable-access television that showed “films from Cuba [and] daily television fare from Nicaragua.” At a press conference, Sanders highlighted the grants that allowed the importation of “films produced in Nicaragua, that appear on Nicaraguan [state] television, on Channel 15. We have films from Cuba on Channel 15.”
Ah, yes, let us not forget the democratic socialist Shangri-La in Havana. In 1989 Sanders traveled to Cuba on a trip organized by the Center for Cuban Studies, a pro-Castro group based in New York, hoping to come away with a “balanced” picture of the communist dictatorship. The late, legendary Vermont journalist Peter Freyne sighed that Sanders “came back singing the praises of Fidel Castro.”
“I think there is tremendous ignorance in this country as to what is going on in Cuba,” Sanders told The Burlington Free Press before he left. It’s a country with “deficiencies,” he acknowledged, but one that has made “enormous progress” in “improving the lives of poor people and working people.” When he returned to Burlington, Sanders excitedly reported that Cuba had “solved some very important problems” like hunger and homelessness. “I did not see a hungry child. I did not see any homeless people,” he told the Free Press. “Cuba today not only has free healthcare but very high quality healthcare.”
Sanders had a hunch that Cubans actually appreciated living in a one-party state. “The people we met had an almost religious affection for [Fidel Castro]. The revolution there is far deep and more profound than I understood it to be. It really is a revolution in terms of values.” It was a conclusion he had come to long before visiting the country. Years earlier Sanders said something similar during a press conference: “You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect—they are certainly not—but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same.”
There is, of course, a mechanism to measure the levels of popular content amongst the campesinos. Perhaps it’s too much to expect a democratic socialist to be familiar with the free election, a democratic nicety the Cuban government hasn’t availed itself of during its almost 60 years in power.
But Sanders has long been attracted to socialist countries that eschewed democracy. He recalled “being very excited when Fidel Castro made a revolution in Cuba” in 1959. “It just seemed right and appropriate that poor people were rising up against a lot of ugly rich people.” In an interview with The Progressive, almost 30 years later, Sanders was still expressing admiration for the Cuban dictatorship: “And what about Cuba? It’s not a perfect society, I grant, but there aren’t children there going hungry. It’s been more successful than almost any other developing country in providing health care for its people. And the Cuban revolution is only 30 years old. It may get even better.”
During his tenure as mayor, Burlington established sister-city programs in Nicaragua and the Soviet Union, and tried—and failed—to create one in Cuba.
By the 1980s, certain elements of the radical left were still defending the honor of the Cuban revolution. But few had kind words for the Soviet Union, with most political pilgrims having long since wandered to Cuba, Vietnam, China, and Cambodia. And Sanders too was routinely critical of the Kremlin, criticizing the invasion of Afghanistan and acknowledging the lack of freedom in the Soviet Union, while still managing a bit of socialist fraternity, praising Moscow for constructing the “cleanest, most effective mass transit system I have ever seen in my life…you wait 15 seconds in rush hour between trains.” He was “impressed” by the state-run youth programs “which go far beyond what we do for young people in this country.”
Sanders has long claimed to be a “democratic socialist”—the type of lefty who loves Sweden, but is offended by the totalitarian socialism that dominated during the Cold War—but he has long employed the tepid language of “imperfection” when discussing the criminal failures of undemocratic socialism. Totalitarians with unfriendly politics are correctly met with derision and thundering demands for extradition and prosecution. So Sanders succinctly described the Chilean murderer, torturer, and destroyer of democracy Augusto Pinochet as a “mass murderer, torturer, and destroyer of democracy.” And Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos is rightly tagged as a “crook and murderer.”
Perhaps at this point I don’t need to point out that Fidel Castro is likewise a crook and a murderer. Or that Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega, while achieving none of the milestones Bernie Sanders once claimed he had achieved, stole enormous amounts of money from the Nicaraguan people and was, to name just one example, behind the infamous bombing at La Penca which killed seven people (including three journalists).
So to my fellow journalists: the next one of you who gets caught in one of Sanders’s riffs about the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh, ask him one of my questions. Ask him how consistent he has been on foreign policy. And help him answer a question posed by a Burlington Free Press journalist in 1985, who wondered if his useful idiot trip to Nicaragua would come back to haunt him in a future race.
“The answer is ‘probably.’ But I’ll be damned if I know how.”
Support & expand free trade: Strongly Disagree
Avoid foreign entanglements: Strongly Agree
I can't make heads nor tails of your politics.Because I'm not really talking politics.
I'm intrigued to hear someone on another continent being down on a US candidate for being isolationist - though I imagine it makes more sense coming from a European than most places in the world. -We didn't screw up there nearly so bad as pretty much all the foreign interventions since 1945 that have made us so beloved ;sarc around the world...People in U.S. seem to have kind of "we screwed up" syndrome.
I'm less of a lefty than left-leaning and don't like the right's style at all. Sanders --- I don't know if he'd actually make a GOOD president, but Clinton's in the pocket of the bossmen and the Republicans are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the bossmen (the Pig IS the bossmen), so I'm running out of choices, there.Talking about bossmen.
Thing is, Sanders isn't going to win and I'm going to have to support Clinton in the end - but I'm making my protest heard well in advance, because if Sanders ain't the guy, some of the positions he represents (not that NO free trade thing) advocating for the poor and the working people, deserve to do well until the Right Guy comes along.The advocating for the poor and working people is a slippery slope.
Isolationism is a bad idea to be sure - but this nation has been STUPID abroad for a very long time and needs to get in the habit of SMART before we send in the marines...You are talking stupid vs pure evil.
Found this handy tool.
Looks like Bernie is mostly the same as Obama:
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/1-35/Barack-Obama-vs-Bernie-Sanders (http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/1-35/Barack-Obama-vs-Bernie-Sanders)
Except, in some key areas he is worse.QuoteSupport & expand free trade: Strongly DisagreeQuoteAvoid foreign entanglements: Strongly Agree
Well, I would describe Sanders as being left of both President Obama, and the entire US Senate. So I might describe him as worse, rather than the same.That was roughly my point to BUncle - if he thinks Obama is bad, is Sanders so much better when many of Sander's ideas are same or supersized version of Obama's.
His idea of Medicare for all, jacking the minimum wage to $15/hour, and free college, are rather generous. The Obama administration compared it to flying puppies for everyone with winning Lotto tickets attached to their collars.
No other candidate commands the sort of authenticity that Bernie Sanders does. He has a consistent voting record, and a history of activism that predates his political career.This would make me cautious as it would indicate he has not really changed his thought about "bread lines being sign of economic health", etc.
I was right about the democracy, in the long run.Same way you could say USSR was not so bad because in the end they gave way to democracy (almost) peacefully.
I'd lay my money on an average randomly-chosen Iraqi preferring we'd stayed out. -Obviously, the average Kurd might beg to differ, but you can't piss off everyone any more than you can please them all.This all depends on whether you ask this before U.S. withdrawal or after.
Of nearly 2 million refugees created by the 1991 crackdown on dissent, it is estimated that 1,000 died every day for a period of months due to unsanitary and inhumane conditions.
Robert Reich explains why he endorses Bernie Sanders despite Clinton tieshttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/robert-reich-explains-why-he-1375868143501366.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/robert-reich-explains-why-he-1375868143501366.html)
Michael Walsh Reporter February 29, 2016
The former secretary of labor under the Clinton administration thinks that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading the movement best suited to address the excesses of income inequality in the United States.
Robert Reich, professor of public policy at UC Berkeley, spoke to Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric on Monday about his reasons for endorsing Sanders over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“I always try to do whatever my conscience tells me to do. I think very, very highly of Hillary Clinton. I’ve worked closely with her. I have nothing but admiration, and if she gets the Democratic nomination, I tell you I’m going to work my heart out to make sure she’s president,” Reich said in a phone interview. “But on this one, I really struggled.”
Despite his close ties with the Clintons, Reich was attracted to the Sanders campaign because of its emphasis on addressing income and wealth inequality. The growing divide between the rich and poor and the struggles of the dwindling middle class are among Reich’s chief concerns.
“Bernie Sanders is really leading a movement to try to reverse this, to make our democracy work, to get big money out, and I think that’s extremely important. That’s why I’m supporting him,” he said.
Couric asked Reich how it would be possible for Sanders to follow through on his plans for campaign finance reform after the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision that corporations are people with the same rights as citizens.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/.dbT7sxU8m.2ZzthzFeoxA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTg1MztpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/83467e32ef4c116be32800ff64294b8f3e7342b1.jpg)
Robert Reich was labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. (Photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star via Getty Images)
The economist, who is an active liberal voice on social media, responded that mass mobilization is the only way to bring fundamental change to this nation – as evidenced by the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements.
“That’s why Bernie Sanders’ candidacy is so important. He does represent a movement, a mobilization to get big money out of politics,” he said.
Clinton needs to work hard, he said, to demonstrate that she is not tethered to Wall Street.
Reich expressed pride for his role in her husband’s administration in the 1990s but lamented that Wall Street still had too much sway over politics at the time.
“I don’t want to in any way denigrate Hillary Clinton. As I said, she’s been somebody who I’ve known for 50 years. I think that in these days where people have some justifiable concerns about Wall Street and its political power, its political connections, particularly after the Wall Street bailouts, it is very important that there not even be the appearance of impropriety.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Gf0996TWOzpHi13vYRWEPg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTg1MztpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/a13216889667efacba613547a191905b09561dd7.jpg)
Bernie Sanders raises a fist and marches around after speaking during a rally at Colorado State University’s Moby Arena on Sunday, February 28, 2016. (Photo: Aaron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
This is not a rational country anymore, and right now we're in a lot more danger of Hitler coming back than Stalin, metaphorically-speaking.I mean it everyday.
What the right say about him is near to 100% fantasies and lies - he's a moderate with no fight in him against far-right extremism, trying instead to compromise and make deals with cranks who won't deal.You mean like those insane quotes are made up?
bin, you couldn't be more sadly mistaken that my problem with the President is that he's too liberal.I didn't say that or at least didn't think that.
That's really all I have to say to what I found when I logged in this morning. We're in no danger of turning communist here in the US; quite the opposite. We're halfway to the unforms and the sieg heil, not that the one sort of aggressive murdering police state looks very different than the other, ultimately.U.S. has been reducing military/withdrawing from foreign policy for the most part of Obama, so even if it looks like this on the inside, the outside and the foreign policy reality is quite the opposite.
QuoteWell, I would describe Sanders as being left of both President Obama, and the entire US Senate. So I might describe him as worse, rather than the same.That was roughly my point to BUncle - if he thinks Obama is bad, is Sanders so much better when many of Sander's ideas are same or supersized version of Obama's.
His idea of Medicare for all, jacking the minimum wage to $15/hour, and free college, are rather generous. The Obama administration compared it to flying puppies for everyone with winning Lotto tickets attached to their collars.
I live in country where in past the state provided free healthcare, jobs, schooling, near-free transport etc.
I understand most people in U.S. have never seen it, and probably would not want to see it, if only they knew what it leads to.
What happens when you give too many things free to people is mass dumbing-down of society.
They start to expect and demand everything from the state and take it for granted, start to blame the state for everything that happens to them and the levels of individual initiative and risk-taking are drastically reduced.QuoteNo other candidate commands the sort of authenticity that Bernie Sanders does. He has a consistent voting record, and a history of activism that predates his political career.This would make me cautious as it would indicate he has not really changed his thought about "bread lines being sign of economic health", etc.
In an Obama vs Sanders comparison Sanders seems to be the more left and more isolationist candidate, both are things that americans don't need, they just haven't understood it yet.
For people who have "lived left" and seen results of U.S. isolationism this is really scary.
For me, living next to Russia this is "where and when I run" type of scary.QuoteI was right about the democracy, in the long run.Same way you could say USSR was not so bad because in the end they gave way to democracy (almost) peacefully.
Well, it's just not true. Crime is crime.
If somebody ignores it while being informed or tries to wrap a lie around it, they are complicit.QuoteI'd lay my money on an average randomly-chosen Iraqi preferring we'd stayed out. -Obviously, the average Kurd might beg to differ, but you can't piss off everyone any more than you can please them all.This all depends on whether you ask this before U.S. withdrawal or after.
U.S. withdrew from both Iraq and Afghanistan too soon, leaving a power vacuum which is now allowing regressive forces to grip those countries.
So, if you ask some Iraqi now, they'd tell you, "you'd better stayed out" not because you came in in the first place, but because after coming in you screwed up completely by leaving the country before it could live on it's own security-wise.
I'm following some Syrians on Twitter.
They feel completely betrayed by U.S.
Not only they didn't get the no-fly zone they were expecting, but the help they did get was meager and now most of it goes to the kurds, who are actively cooperating with Assad.
I agree about rationality.
From outside it looks like people in the U.S. have forgotten they are americans.
The set of values always associated with America for an Eastern European like me seem to be in places the exact opposite of today's wishes of average american.
And it's not like the lessons have not been there.
Just the wrong conclusions are made from them (Iraq, auto industry vs unions, etc), often the exact opposite of what had to be concluded.
Isolationism doesn't work - granted. Putin claims not to be a communist, and Putin's your problem. I don't know what would be best thing to do about the recent imperialist aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere in the region - but it ought to be stopped. But you're making the same mistake the CIA kept making in Central and South America during the cold war; looking out for short-term limited interests that may not be what's right or good for the most people the longest.The long-term solution is keeping your promises and backing them up with action or believable promise of action.
A US gone police state, or in chaos, is bad for everyone.What makes you think it's going that way?
Isolationism doesn't workIt worked just fine for the USA for quite some time. It certainly works better than trying to be the worlds policeman.
Isn't what you describe more like "keep status quo" stance?
Haven't these things been a reality since like 60s at least?
Are they not being slowly and painfully dismantled, instead of being stepped up?
It worked just fine for the USA for quite some time. It certainly works better than trying to be the worlds policeman.
"Friends with all allies with none." Thomas Jefferson
Funny thing - Western Europeans are so fond of saying that the US has a center-right party and an extreme-right party, that I get pretty surprised sometimes when Central and Eastern Europeans speak up. It's like you guys aren't all one person who thinks exactly alike.
Also, try that in the age of ballistic missiles and nukes and see how it goes.It works just fine actually. Certainly better than empire building.
So, it only "worked" and was a reality as long as there was no credible threat to US.
In mid thirties it was plentifully clear in U.S. elite that that age is over.
See various fleet/air force programs designed to deal with the new possible threats.
That 911 thing is a good argument for intervention.
5. Assimilation/integration is failing even with the previous, slow immigration, multiculturalism is a failure.Of course its a failure its why empires fail in the first place. Sooner or later the state looses the power to police the disparate peoples and then the
It works just fine actually.
Certainly better than empire building.
Empires always come at the expense of the native countries then end up with the
country falling apart.
What has the Pax Americana actually gained for average Americans?
Endless wars and higher taxes?
The simple fact is we cant afford our empire anymore.
What threat might that be? No power on earth could've been a credible threat to continental US even then.
Right up to the start of WW2 the whole country was solidly pro isolationist it took a president months away
from getting impeached and blatantly trying to provoke both Germany and Japan to get us in that war.
Neither power was even close to a match to the USA.
If it weren't for our Pro Israel policies we wouldn't have enemies in the middle east.
Of course its a failure its why empires fail in the first place. Sooner or later the state looses the power to police the disparate peoples and then the
whole thing comes apart.
After Super Tuesday, Bernie Sanders says he’s taking the fight to every statehttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/after-super-tuesday-bernie-sanders-says-hes-031241686.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/after-super-tuesday-bernie-sanders-says-hes-031241686.html)
Liz Goodwin Senior National Affairs Reporter March 01, 2016
BURLINGTON, Vt. — Bernie Sanders may be facing tough delegate math against his rival Hillary Clinton, but the progressive candidate told a crowd of his strongest supporters that he would fight for the nomination in every state.
“At the end of tonight, 15 states will have voted. Thirty-five states remain,” Sanders told a Vermont crowd of thousands. “Let me assure you that we are going to take our fight for economic justice, for social justice, for environmental sanity, for a world of peace to every one of those states.”
The Vermont senator assured his supporters that he will still pick up delegates in states he loses on Super Tuesday.
“This is not a general election, it’s not winner-take-all. If you get 52 percent or 48 percent, you end up with roughly the same amount of delegates,” he said.
The senator is right that he is picking up delegates even in states he loses, but Super Tuesday has seriously dented his chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. Though he did better than some expected — winning his home state of Vermont in a landslide, plus Oklahoma, Colorado and Minnesota — Sanders was falling short of making up for Clinton’s very strong showing in the South, where she won six states, and in delegate-rich Massachusetts. (Superdelegates, who are chosen by the party and not allocated based on the popular vote, also overwhelmingly support Clinton.) On this course, Sanders is likely to find himself in a delegate hole he cannot dig out of.
But this pessimism has not reached Vermont, the campaign or the Sanders supporters who contributed $42 million to his campaign last month, outdoing Clinton’s fundraising machine. The hometown crowd gave Sanders a rock star’s reception, cheering for a full minute when he arrived on stage with his wife, Jane. Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and other campaign surrogates introduced Sanders as the “next president of the United States” to the cheering crowd.
Sanders appears to have the money and the will to go all the way. And he doesn’t have to worry about big-time donors deciding it’s time for him to pull the plug if he can’t catch up with Clinton.
“We think we’re going to have the resources to go all the way,” Sanders’ senior adviser, Tad Devine, said. “In the past, campaigns ended because the bundlers said, ‘We aren’t going to bundle anymore.’ We don’t have any bundlers. The people who are investing in this campaign are doing so not because it’s a smart money calculation, but because they believe in Bernie Sanders.”
Devine said the campaign is looking forward to upcoming races in Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Louisiana and Michigan. “We’re going to compete and win in as many states as possible,” he said.
Devine dismissed the possibility that Sanders supporters will lose some of their enthusiasm as they see their candidate’s chances dim.
“You know, I think our supporters are enthusiastic about Bernie and his message, not enthusiastic about his delegate totals,” he said.
Sanders has from the beginning been a candidate of ideas, when he entered the race nearly a year ago with almost zero name recognition to take on a candidate most Democrats saw as inevitable. His surprising popularity pushed Clinton to the left on many issues, from the Keystone Pipeline to economic inequality, and has changed the race forever. The money that keeps pouring into this campaign means he can continue to deliver this message, even if he doesn’t have a shot at the nomination.
“What I have said is that this campaign is not just about electing a president, it is about making a political revolution,” Sanders said at his victory rally.
One thing the campaign says won’t happen, no matter the outcome? Sharper attacks on Clinton.
“I’ve worked with Bernie for 20 years. We’ve never run a negative ad, and I predict we never will,” Devine said.
I'm seeing that I'm far from the only one really put out with Mr. Christie for that stupid endorsement. He's catching some serious, SERIOUS bounce-back.
There is not enough justice in the world, but it's not fallen to zero quite yet.
I've worked -briefly, thank god- in a lot of factories, and I've been migrant labor for several years. You are welcome to guess what radicalized me on labor issues. (Protip: me saying the Bosses want to make us all slaves may have been based on having been treated like one. A lot.)The answer is simple close the borders and deport the illegals, go after the employers who employ them, and then reinstitute tariffs.
The Bossmen Love Free Trade - and it's a lot more complicated than that rising tide argument to people and regions out of work while the economy adjusts. I don't know what the best answer is, but it isn't simple.
QuoteU.S. is not an empire.Yes it is. Or is American imperialism just my imagination.
Your taxes are low, relative to world, both relative to individual earnings and relative to GDP:
There were no empires mentioned in that quote.Well there is Rome and Parthia for a start. The Ottoman empire and the Soviet union (just take a look at Yugoslavia).
I agree that that answer is very simple.Please don't insult me. At least try to follow your own forum rules.
About free trade-
A rising tide lifts all boats. I get it; I believe it.
HowEVER - I already told the story in this thread of temping in a textile mill the day the management called all the full-time employees to a meeting to have the gall to ask them to vote for NAFTA-friendly candidates, and the woman who rhetorically said to me "Sure, I'll vote to send my job to Mexico." Textiles (and furniture, somewhat) were the basis of this region's economy.
That mill is closed, now, -most mills around here are- and I wonder what that woman is doing to make ends meet since her job went to Mexico.
I've worked -briefly, thank god- in a lot of factories, and I've been migrant labor for several years. You are welcome to guess what radicalized me on labor issues. (Protip: me saying the Bosses want to make us all slaves may have been based on having been treated like one. A lot.)
The Bossmen Love Free Trade - and it's a lot more complicated than that rising tide argument to people and regions out of work while the economy adjusts. I don't know what the best answer is, but it isn't simple.
;clenchedteeth You make it insanely difficult, directly contradicting me and completely ignoring the main thrust of what you quoted.QuoteI agree that that answer is very simple.
Please don't insult me. At least try to follow your own forum rules.
Kasich: 'Zero chance’ I’m someone’s vice presidenthttp://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271348-kasich-zero-chance-im-someones-vice-president (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271348-kasich-zero-chance-im-someones-vice-president)
The Hill
By Mark Hensch March 01, 2016, 03:58 pm
Republican presidential candidate John Kasich insisted Tuesday he would not consider running for the vice presidency.
“Zero chance, just stop there, zero chance,” he told Fox Business Network’s “Varney & Co.,” specifically referencing Donald [Sleezebag]
“I have no interest,” Kasich added. "I’m going to be governor of Ohio. There is zero chance I will be anybody’s vice presidential candidate — period, end of story.”
The Ohio governor dismissed speculation that a poor showing on Super Tuesday would doom his run, saying he is focusing on winning his home state on March 15.
“I don’t know how much you know about American football, but a lot of things get decided in the fourth quarter, not the first quarter,” he told host Stuart Varney, who is British.
“I’m going to win Ohio, and then as soon as I win Ohio, everybody in this 24/7 news cycle will turn around and say, ‘Let’s talk about John Kasich,' ” he added. "I mean, that’s just the way it works."
Kasich said political newcomers like [Sleezebag] won't solve the nation's problems.
“We have a lot of voters who are just picking outsiders because they think the system doesn’t work,” he said. "When they pick outsiders and they don’t fix the system, then they get [angrier] and they pick more outsiders.
“The only way to stop it is to get the attention of these folks and explain to them that if you’re a reformer, and you really do know how to get this done, and you really have produced in the past, and you have a vision for the future, that’s how I believe you peel those voters away.”
Kasich ranks fifth in the Republican field heading into Super Tuesday, according to a RealClearPolitics average of national polls.
Cough cough lol.Speaking of manners, this is rude and makes you look unsophisticated. No more sentences ending in "lol" - and any further smilie use that can be taken as gloating is right out, too.
You can't cure stupid, Uno; you can't cure stupid. Or evil...
Rusty, how's the third party talk coming along after last night?
For my international friends, let me explain that this election was between two VERY weak candidates. There’s been a lot of lesser of two evils elections during the near 30 years of my political life, but this is absolutely the worst at the presidential level I’ve ever witnessed.
Bakrama has been a mediocre president. Period. Gitmo is still open, and the economy is still in the toilet. He has failed in the area of his greatest potential, as an inspirational leader. His healthcare reform is lame -insurance is NOT the answer- and he’s continued to try to be conciliatory in the face of the least sanely reasonable House of Representatives in modern times -they’ve appealed Obamacare 32 times, knowing for sure it wouldn‘t get past the Senate after the first time; is that sane?- for years after it was clear that trying to meet them in the middle didn’t work and never would.
As Cry and I discussed earlier in the thread, the Socialist the right accuses him of being is just NOT what he is, when some of us would have LIKED a touch of socialism to remedy the ridiculous statist (that’s a polite term for fascist) excesses of the Bush occupation. At the time that we needed a bold new direction following a strong and bold LEADER, his “Change you can believe in” turned out to be “Not one tenth as bad as the last guy”, which just. isn’t. good. enough. Something about the man inspired people’s imagination. The right has imagined him some evil Kenyan communist muslim, while the left has been disappointed he turned out not to be the progressive messiah they thought he would be, and many of them have been angry about it for over three years.
We needed a leader. A leader who persuaded the American people of what is so plain to the rest of the world - that the Bush/Cheney way was wrong, both morally and practically, and not in our national interests. He turns out not to be that leader.
Mitt Romney is a good man; maybe a VERY good man. I believe that. I don’t think he’s QUITE presidential caliber, but he might have risen to the challenge. His problem? To begin with, like Bakrama four years ago, he simply didn’t have enough experience as a public servant holding office to be qualified for the presidency. A term as Governor of a populous state like Massachusetts might qualify if he’d held lower offices and worked his way up, but that and a couple of failed runs for national office is insufficient. And to my shame, absolutely no one ever talked about this, even less than they did about Bakrama before him. This is a country with many very stupid people in it, and stupid ideas get more traction than they should, while the smart-but-hard-to-explain ones are often unheard - TV has that effect.
The list of his problems goes on; he’s a Mormon, which is offensive to the Christians of the Republicans’ political base. Despite what he’s said all year, he’s actually something of a liberal by Republican standards - that goes over poorly with the small-government conservatives and the social (moral) conservatives alike.
The biggest single problem ANY Republican candidate for President faces, not just Romney, (McCain had horrible trouble with this, too, which was much of his undoing) is that the Republican Party is a deeply schizophrenic organization. The social conservatives (those church people you Euros think so little of, and you’re right when it comes to politics) and the small-government (or what I call political) conservatives have no business being in the same party. They mostly all agree about the low taxes and balanced budgets (although the Republicans in office are at least as bad about balanced budgets in practice - Clinton, a Democrat, submitted balanced budgets to Congress; something no Republican president in my 47 years has done) and, in theory, about small government. And most of the political conservatives are least sympathetic to the moral stances of the social conservatives. But those social conservatives (think Tea Party, which amusingly enough, began as a libertarian political conservative movement and than gottaken overhijacked by the social conservative/idiots) always support laws regulating moral issues, always want greater powers for the police, support trade sanctions on countries they don’t like, want more guards on the Mexican border (Canadians being, apparently, white enough to not matter) and LOVED the Bush/Cheney gang while they waged war on an irrelevant-to-9/11 nation and sent American citizens to camps. THIS is the measure of devotion to small government on the part of the statist social conservatives, which is deeply offensive to any intelligent political conservative who’s thought about it. It’s why Ron Paul, hands-down one of the most conservative members of Congress fought the Bush gang tooth and nail. He actually loves America and believes in the US constitution - an attitude out of style on the right, though the right mostly doesn’t realize it.
So no candidate can possibly please both Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. All candidates for major office have that problem, but the last two Republican presidential nominees have been ruined by it. Ruined. Romney had to pretend to be far more conservative than he is, which hurt him horribly. Talk on the right in the last two days indicates some thinkers on the right are beginning to realize this, but far more of the talk is about appealing to latinos - a vein pursuit, as the wealth and status quo party will NEVER have as much appeal to poor people.
Now, the part that I think will shock anyone who’s seen me talk politics online: I am a social conservative.
I grew up Southern Baptist. That was before the denomination turned into virtually a wing of the Republican Party in the 80’s (which is a bigger reason than my later crisis of faith that you won’t catch me in a Southern Baptist church - that, and I can’t stand being around people wearing too much perfume) but it nonetheless strongly informs my world view. I grew up around these people. I understand them and speak their language, and still share most of their personal values. I’m a prude, folks, just like them.
Where we part ways is in theology (Jesus said “"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", which I think applies to a LOT more than paying your taxes) and in interpretation. Jesus said “Go and sin no more” to the adulteress he rescued, but he also said a lot more things like “Feed my sheep” and the thing about turning the other cheek. I don’t think he’d like the wealth-and-selfishness party one whit more than the do-as-thou-wilt-as-long-as-no-one-gets-hurt party, if that. In fact, I think he’d be on the steps of the temple railing against the modern Pharisees a lot harder than the modern Sadducees. Just like in the old days.
I just think personal morality has no place in government; it is a matter for preaching and persuasion, and anyone who doesn’t see that misunderstood their Bible, or hasn’t thought it out.
And I furthermore think that the political conservatives are right a good half the time. Government is a fat, stupid, inefficient thing, ravenous for your money, your time and dignity, and your freedom. It cares about its rules more than it does about people.
Every time I have to deal with the medical profession, it is proven over and over. Likewise for dealing with the DMV.
My problem with the social conservatives is that they are just. plain. wrong. politically, (and stupid) even though I’m technically one of them. My problem with the political conservative is that they are heartless and selfish, and run with a bunch of jerks. My problem with the right as a whole? Well-
Jesse Helms’ big money and nasty attacks style - Ronald Regan’s simple (stupid) answers to complex questions and nasty attacks style. It is religiously embraced by the right these days, and I, not all that liberal-looking outside labor issues in any decent light, have been offended and driven away and polarized by the hateful behavior, lies and fantasies of the right. Do not dare, EVER, insinuate that I don’t love America, the US Constitution and most importantly of all freedom, justice and fairness. -Also? Not a big fan of Ted Kennedy over here, and sick of having him thrown up in my face 25 years ago. I never voted for the man, and that’s just rude, and hurts your cause.
This has gotten worse, and worse, and worse -and worse- my entire political life. (Tell me that you’ve seen as many “WHY THE RIGHT HATES AMERICA” thread and comment titles online as the ubiquitous “WHY LIBERALS HATE AMERICA” (or variations thereof) and I’ll conclude that you haven’t browsed very widely at all, or are a liar. In either case, I won’t waste my time discussing the issues with you, because I don’t have time to talk politics with people who are stupid about politics. Be wrong and able to defend it intelligently enough, and you’re suddenly one of my favorite people - it’s a crucial difference.)
Yeah so, my big problem with those Republican jokers? They’re rude. They’re hateful. They’re selfish. They’re loud and obnoxious liars. They went fascist in 2001. They haven’t turned their backs on the fascism since. The country and the entire world deserves an apology for the monkey and his handler and all the terrible things they did.
I deserve an apology for all the names I’ve been called for 29 years, and all the insinuations against my character, for choosing the lesser evil and registering Democratic, and for voting for the lesser evil to the best of my discernment since.
---
And so anyway, that’s what I think just happened Tuesday; more people voted against Romney than voted against Obama. Not that many voted FOR either.
All statements contained herein are to the best of my knowledge and considered opinion true and factual. Selah amen.
Mitt Romney tells Donald [Sleezebag] voters they’re ‘suckers’-voters-theyre-162616616.html]http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-tells-donald-[Sleezebag]-voters-theyre-162616616.html (http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-tells-donald-[Sleezebag)
By Olivier Knox 1 hour ago
Donald [Sleezebag] has run an unapologetically coarse, give-the-elites-the-finger presidential campaign, ruthlessly mocking his rivals, attacking Latinos and Muslims, trampling long-held conservative ideas, and bluntly dismissing the Republican establishment. The tinsel-haired showman has promised delighted supporters that he will take on the politicians who have betrayed them and lead Americans to victory over the global forces that have crushed their hopes of living the American Dream.
On Thursday, twice-failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney — the living, breathing, immaculately coiffed human embodiment of the same Republican establishment that [Sleezebag] publicly reviles and of the economic currents that he exploits but claims to despise – tried to convince the reality star’s supporters that they are “suckers” being taken in by a dangerous con man.
“Donald [Sleezebag] is a phony, a fraud,” the millionaire investor told a friendly audience at the Hinckley Institute of Politics in Salt Lake City . “He’s playing the American people for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.”
Romney, who was referring to the red baseball caps bearing [Sleezebag]’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, did not endorse any individual Republican candidate for president in 2016 and sharply attacked Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton as unfit for office. The result was a speech that the former Massachusetts governor might have given had he run.
It was a litany of attacks, personal and policy-based, reaching as far back as the failure of vanity projects like [Sleezebag] Vodka and as close as [Sleezebag]’s ugly tangle with Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly.
Romney notably led an all-out attack on arguable [Sleezebag]’s biggest strength: His reputation as a savvy and hugely successful businessman. What about [Sleezebag] Airlines? [Sleezebag] University? [Sleezebag] Mortgage? [Sleezebag] Vodka?
“A business genius, he is not,” the former Massachusetts governor said.
And Romney previewed what strategists in both parties have suggested could be the best line of attack against [Sleezebag]: That his missteps cost others dearly.
“His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them,” he said.
Romney repeatedly returned to sharp assaults on [Sleezebag]’s temperament and his judgment.
“Donald [Sleezebag] says he admires Vladimir Putin, at the same time he’s called George W. Bush a liar,” Romney said. “That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.”
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Dg7k6ZHWilF0IOk18GhNlA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://41.media.tumblr.com/f58af905f52945485371a5ce0e8798f8/tumblr_inline_o3h0jiV5Pk1sjejya_1280.jpg)
Mitt Romney. (Photo: Rogelio V. Solis/AP)
Romney’s broadside came as part of an escalating and increasingly desperate-feeling GOP establishment attack on [Sleezebag], whose Super Tuesday romp left him the party’s 2016 front-runner. The effort includes ramped-up efforts by the anti-[Sleezebag] Our Principles Super PAC .
It’s not clear whether any of this will work. It’s late in the cycle. [Sleezebag] voters seem to regard even accurate media coverage as an illegitimate attack on their guy. And his opponents have yet to catch fire with Republican primary voters, or do much to take down [Sleezebag], who has also shrugged off campaign-trail criticisms from former president George W. Bush. Meanwhile, in Washington, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan has scolded [Sleezebag] for failing to denounce the KKK sufficiently loudly – and drew a threat in response.
“Paul Ryan, I don’t know him well but I’m sure I’m going to get along great with him. And if I don’t, he’s going to have to pay a big price, OK?” [Sleezebag] said at his Super Tuesday-night press conference.
Romney’s attacks were awkward in part because he courted, and secured, [Sleezebag]’s endorsement in 2012 – after the brash-talking New Yorker made himself the standard-bearer for racist-tinged “birther” claims that President Barack Obama was ineligible for the White House.
Still, Romney assailed [Sleezebag]’s calls for banning Muslims from entering the United States, as well as his regular blasts against Latino immigrants.
“He’s a man, who as you know, begged me, and I mean begged me for my endorsement four years ago,” [Sleezebag] said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a few hours before the speech.
“We backed him and I helped him and raised money for him, and I did everything, but he didn’t do the job, he didn’t have the capability to do the job,” [Sleezebag] added.
Romney argued that it’s not too late to derail the [Sleezebag] train. And he even proposed a strategy in which Republican voters should cast their ballots for whichever of [Sleezebag]’s rivals seems most likely to beat him in a given state - an effort to deny him the majority of delegates. That could lead to a brokered nominating convention, with an uncertain outcome.
In a recent Yahoo News interview, Romney’s top 2012 strategist , Stuart Stevens, suggested that the clash with [Sleezebag] was far from preordained.
“Donald [Sleezebag] had a choice in the very beginning: to become a serious candidate for president or to run as kind of a Jesse Ventura candidate,” Stevens said, referring to the blunt-speaking former professional wrestler and action movie actor who starred in “Predator” and later became governor of Minnesota.
“Had he become a serious candidate for president, he would have taken the time and done the work to study policy, and really learned a lot. He, in Iowa, would have been meeting with business people, small-biz people, asking their ideas,” Stevens continued. “He would have been meeting with teachers and students and parents and talking about education. He would have been doing these things that candidates that want to succeed and are serious do.”
But “instead, what he’s done is what he enjoys. He’s at a point in his life where he doesn’t do anything he doesn’t enjoy,” the consultant said. “What does he enjoy? He likes having these big rallies and going out and ranting for an hour. That’s fine — it just has very little correlation to what you need to do to get elected president.”
I doubt if Romney changed many minds. The party establishment probably said "YEAH!!" and the [Sleezebag] supporters probably see it as proof they are taking over, and it's time to press on.
Buncle on the "empire" thing, you came out of WW2 with huge "soft" power influence due to loans and a system of international treaties, most of which were designed to create buffer between you and your enemies.I'll only say that A.) think of it as more reason to trust the US, that so many of us worry about such stuff, and B.) you're the first time in my years on the web that a European has told me the US rocks. That's pretty refreshing, sir.
NATO, WTO, Marshall plan, India Green Revolution, etc., are/were all designed so that with some help, locals would become useful both to U.S. as well as improve themselves.
Apart from some misguided policies (mistakes happen) in Central America and probably a few others, the countries U.S. historically helped, were better off with U.S. than without.
As you can also see, even if U.S. holds influence, it is neither absolute, nor irreversible, nor unsurmountable as would be the case with real empires (at least until they are close to disintegrating).
Just see "Castro & Cuba", "Merkel & Germany", etc.
For a person who has lived in a real empire, U.S. people saying they have an empire sounds like you're in a different world.
We used to look up to U.S. the entirety of soviet years, especially the years before disintegration.
Even with the problems U.S. had (nobody's perfect) it was a "dreamland" of the type found in fairy tales compared to the murky place we were in.
People literally would not believe it can be so good as they tell about the level of prosperity and individual freedoms in U.S..
We had this Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty thing which was mostly just telling as it is and people were saying it's all "capitalist propaganda" because it could not be true and would not work that way.
When we joined NATO, there was a celebration in the streets. We joined it by a referendum. A dozen countries did.
Are empires built by referendums w/o foreign troop presence?
There was no real opposition to joining NATO & WTO in most countries that did.
Compare it to joining EU, where doubts remain even after living in it for decades and reaping a lot of benefits from that (see Brexit).
U.S. until recently was THE center of good in the world not because it's perfect or has no problems, but because it is still an order of magnitude better than almost every other country of global significance and because people trust U.S. not to outright annex them, which is not the case with pretty much any other influence they could come into, and thus view U.S. as a kind of protector which has little if any interest in themselves other than keeping them intact/free.
---If I thought he talked like he does to grief us, exactly, I'd have gleefully perma'd him six months ago. No, not in my opinion, a troll. He just believes the infuriating stuff he says, and hasn't adjusted to our forum culture to adopt a more sophisticated way of expressing it. -That IS a very serious problem, however, getting troll-y as the failure to take the rough edges off and be appropriate to the crowd here gets older and older. See a good deal of the last two pages of the stickied rules thread in Command Nexus for my policy musings on members who are bad for the community without necessarily actually breaking the rules. (Protip: don't be that guy - you won't forever, here.)
I guess vonbach is the residental forum troll?
I assumed he was serious, but the medieval tax comment cleared all doubts.
---
I'm not a U.S. citizen, and even if I were, I know politics from inside a little - the basic learning is, politicians are like cars on used car lot.This was just rude. Your assumptions are insulting, undiplomatic, and your argument bad persuasive strategy - much as I enjoyed Romney calling those people "suckers", that never works. You've come on strong with your passionate anti-communist message, and I've chosen not to engage it directly much, but you need not assume that silence=anything. I wasn't particularly inspired to discuss something that smelled of a fight, okay?
You may like this one better visually or this one could be more fit for your needs, but don't fall in love with any or you're likely in for a disappointment.
I am also not promoting anyone, just pointing out that some of the "features" of candidates which you either ignore or even consider beneficial are not, as well as some of the background you are using to evaluate candidates and the way your country is going, is based in false assumptions, such as the "american guilt"/"we have enemies because what we did" myth or that your taxes are high.
Mr. Kasich is talking today about the likelihood of a brokered convention - I still think he's dreaming, but given the fellows ahead of him, he could come off looking like the only grownup in the room to the Party, if it came to that.
It appears Mr. Rubio is thinking along similar lines, but between his Senate attendance record and the savaging he took recently from Mr. Christie, the mass media group mind seems to be congealing around the idea that his window of opportunity has passed. -And nobody likes Cruz.
You're the first time in my years on the web that a European has told me the US rocks. That's pretty refreshing, sir.Many Europeans suck.
Points off for using Maggie Thatcher on me. For someone who claims to 'get' the west better than the westerners -that is something you've been trying to tell me, that I don't know the challenges and problems of my own country and you're setting me straight- that's colossally tone-deaf. Snipped, and you're unlikely to ever get any traction trying to sell me on the evils of socialism with the clear implication that Sanders leads to Stalin. Leninism and its various derivatives around the world were indeed bad to be on the same planet with - stipulated. The lot were murderers and tyrants, stipulated. -The rest of your line does not necessarily follow, and this will continue to be a no-sale.That you don't personally like Thatcher does not mean she did not understand the topic or was not right on it.
This was just rude. Your assumptions are insulting, undiplomatic, and your argument bad persuasive strategy - much as I enjoyed Romney calling those people "suckers", that never works. You've come on strong with your passionate anti-communist message, and I've chosen not to engage it directly much, but you need not assume that silence=anything. I wasn't particularly inspired to discuss something that smelled of a fight, okay?I'm not a native English speaker, so some things may sound sharper than they are meant.
Not your fault that we had some serious trouble in the 50s in the US with fanatical anti-communists who weren't fanatically in favor of the Bill of Rights, but coming on too strong with that sort of talk has unfortunate associations to Americans not of the fanatical right persuasion. Joe McCarthy was a lot more dangerous to my parents than Stalin ended up being. Now you know.You like Stalin too much. That's like in the joke about every internet discussion ultimately going down to Hitler. :)
For a while, everybody thought that [Sleezebag] would eventually screw up, and they wanted to inherit his supporters, so they were polite, or circumspect. Either that, or the media would take him down. They love to do that, it creates stories and new frontrunners. He actually did screw up, as expected.
If I thought he talked like he does to grief us, exactly, I'd have gleefully perma'd him six months ago. No, not in my opinion, a troll. He just believes the infuriating stuff he says,No. I'm not a troll. I don't care about the opinion of anyone but Yahweh (god) and I haven't learned to sugar coat things.
People are so pissed off that there is almost no way for [Sleezebag] to screw it up.This is true, sadly.
People in general are simply fed up with both parties. Both of them blame each other
so the voters take them at their word and blame both.
TL;DR version - they're spoiled. There's a lot of that going around in the First World. We're talking like Boring Old Farts, but the kids still really are spoiled.QuoteYou're the first time in my years on the web that a European has told me the US rocks. That's pretty refreshing, sir.Many Europeans suck.
They've grown up in capitalism, had most of the stuff they wanted and never knew any other system nor cared to check the available evidence and are clamoring for those others with religious conviction.
Additionally, in youth there is massive sense of entitlement.
Regardless of the fact that their parents started their careers in very humble jobs before arriving at their current prosperity, many youths refuse to work in those same low-level jobs that business often considers stepping stones to higher levels.
Instead, they claim that, because they have this high level of education, they should immediately be placed in a corresponding level of responsibility.
In some countries with worker deficit, like Latvia, this happens with very bad results to overall business efficiency, in others, like Spain, this results in huge (almot 50%) youth unemployment, them being replaced by immigrant workers, who are happy to fill those low paid jobs and later advance their career to fill the same spots youth was aiming at in the first place.
Also, learning history or just checking basic facts which are now publicly available in seconds due to internet age, seems to not be "in", which contributes to rise of the European Trumps - Le Pen, Corbyn, Farage, Orban, Kaczynski, Podemos and others.
Paradox or information availability - the easier to check the facts, the more popular are liars.
That you don't personally like Thatcher does not mean she did not understand the topic or was not right on it.I predict that Sanders will get a couple of more liberal planks on the Democratic platform at the convention, make a speech endorsing HRC, and proceed to campaign for her, having nudged her left with his success.
Similarly, I never claimed Sanders leads to Stalin.
None of the quotes from Kasparov or Thatcher seem to imply that either.
Rather, they are talking about impact of socialism on society and economy.
I've witnessed this impact firsthand and many people who have travelled from west to post-soviet countries and vice versa, express the same opinions.
The perils of socialism described in those quotes have nothing to do with Lenin or Stalin or any other murderers or tyrants.
They don't even mention any human rights abuses, so I wonder where are you getting this "line" I'm not even trying to sell.
I'm not a native English speaker, so some things may sound sharper than they are meant.This is too many different subjects at the same time, but a few remarks:
But I also like to say things as they are.
If somebody comes to discussion and goes at length about exorbitant U.S. taxes, when information of the contrary is available in seconds, I don't consider it rude to point out that they should do the most basic of homework. It's simply the truth.
My point was, "the american guilt myth" and others named are simply myths.
Nobody knowing anything about Middle East history thinks U.S. is "guilty" of the Middle East turmoil now happening. This is something that would have happened sooner or later for reasons I explained before.
Similarly, nobody in their right mind thinks U.S. is "guilty" of any of these:
- Korean war
- Vietnam war
- Gulf War
- Afghanistan war
Some can dispute Iraq war, but Iraq would be Syria's clone now, should Saddam stayed.
For very similar reasons and with very similar results.
As I already pointed out, vonbach actually put the root of this myth - the idea that your enemies are such because you did something to them.
Truth is, your enemies are mostly such because they hate what you are as it is in direct conflict with their worldview.
Some convinced "enemies of U.S." live next door to me.
I can talk with them any day and I know there is nothing rational in their hate. At best you can write it off to envy.
If you bring up atrocities/civilian deaths as reason to feel guilt, consider the following:
1. Rationalist argument.
Both sides caused civilian deaths and had atrocities.
In some cases, the regime which filled the vacuum after you left caused more death and misery than you ever (could have) inflicted.
And you did not start most of these wars.
2. Moralist/human rights argument.
The mere fact you CAN discuss the problems caused by your intervention and publicly feel guilty is a sign of moral superiority.
In most cases, the other side would suppress any and all discussion about their own failings and/or evil deeds, to the point of deliberately deleting/covering up large numbers of deaths and misery beyond recovery. E.g. nobody knows exactly how many people have died of communist regime brutality during and since Korean War in North Korea, but chances are, the number is huge. Similarly, it is entirely possible that Vietnamese villages that cooperated with americans in any way were burned to the ground after U.S. left, but in the statistics these would be counted as "burned by americans". At least that's what USSR used to do with "disloyal" villages in own territory ("burned by Nazis").
As a (barely) Millennial, I have to say: the reason so many of us believe we ought to have everything right away is that we were persistently taught it for our entire lives. How much did we learn about the importance of self-esteem in school? How many movies did we see where some bright-eyed schmo triumphs against all odds by following his dreams and enduring a thirty-second training montage? When we were told about our career options, how much stress was laid on innate ability or available opportunities? Go into any third-grade classroom and you'll find at least three kids planning to be president, with another five each interested in sports and entertainment. Nobody will ever caution these children to have a back-up plan.Has the teaching you mentioned in the past been your main line of work?
I pursued an English major for years. Nobody--not parents, not friends, not college officials--warned me that it would be useless for getting a job. I took it for granted that I'd find a job waiting for me when I graduated because nobody had ever told me any differently. They all said college---->career. It didn't help that I was arrogant and lazy, but the only reason I'm not drowning in debt as a double-employed foodservice worker right now is that I had a fantastic personal support network and my education was paid for. I can see how somebody with $40K left in student loans and nothing to show for it might be angry. There's something wrong with this picture.
I pursued an English major for years. Nobody--not parents, not friends, not college officials--warned me that it would be useless for getting a job. I took it for granted that I'd find a job waiting for me when I graduated because nobody had ever told me any differently. They all said college---->career.
Well, we don't really starve in this country.Almost 20% of the country is on food stamps.
Ignoring the previous, which I find to be 100% turns-out-not-to-be-the-case...There is a reason people are voting for [Sleezebag]. They hope he can get us out of this mess.
For all that even von himself admits he's an outlier, this is what it's come to.What did they expect to happen? How much did they think we were going to take?
...This is what it's come to...Yes. Worse means someone like Pinochet who will simply start giving people helicopter rides.
von, just so you know, I don't want to talk politics with you, ever -that's not personal, just a fact- and you put me, as host, in a bad position when you talk like that. This evening's series of posts manage to at least not be infuriating/offensive, but the reality you live in is not reconcilable with the rest of us, you're not in any danger of persuading anyone here, and I just don't see any point to it, when it's neither entertaining nor educational. It ends up being Serially Vexatious and little else.
The other guys can just choose not to engage you, but I don't feel like I have that luxury, as owner. I'm out of ideas. I'm rude to you constantly, far more than I'd allow someone else to be to someone else, and I hate Being That Guy on top of it. I REALLY hate Being That Guy with the banhammer even more, just so you know - but I'm out of ideas.
Some of this is just the inevitable price of being an active member on a forum I manage without backup - there goes objectivity in tricky matters. (But that's also why I'll still be here in two years doing the janitor work and be the only non-absentee forum owner I know of; it's a trade-off.) Maybe I should ask Uno to moderate in here. I'd have to let him be the Boss of Me in Rec Commons, but that would probably be a Good Thing...
Screw it; Uno? You've offered several times - still game?
Sanders: GOP debates make Democrats want to ‘invest in mental health’https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-gop-debates-make-democrats-want-to-035256908.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-gop-debates-make-democrats-want-to-035256908.html)
Yahoo!
Caitlin Dickson Breaking News Reporter March 06, 2016
FLINT, Mich.— More than halfway through the CNN-MLive.com Democratic presidential primary debate on Sunday, Hillary Clinton remarked on the content of the ongoing discourse, contrasting it with the chaos of recent Republican debates.
“You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week,” Clinton said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, drawing laughs from the audience, added: “You know, we are, if elected president, going to invest a lot of money into mental health. And when you watch these Republican debates, you know why we need to invest in that.”
The Clinton camp was apparently not entirely amused by his remark. Moments after Sanders made the comment, Clinton’s deputy digital director, Jenna Lowenstein, tweeted, “Mental health is a serious issue. Cheap shots like this are a bad look.”
Later on in the debate, Clinton insisted that if chosen as the Democratic nominee, she does not “intend to get into the gutter” with whomever the GOP nominates for president.
(Cover tile photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
Sanders: “I am very proud to be Jewish”https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-i-am-very-proud-of-being-jewish-042728000.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-i-am-very-proud-of-being-jewish-042728000.html)
Yahoo!
Jerry Adler Writer March 06, 2016
It isn’t exactly a secret that Bernie Sanders, if nominated and elected, would be America’s first Jewish president, a milestone that once would have loomed large in American politics. But that factlet hasn’t attracted much comment on the campaign trail — until Sunday night’s Democratic debate, when, in response to a question from CNN moderator Anderson Cooper, Sanders opened up about his religion and his childhood in Brooklyn, at a time when it was not unusual to see neighbors with concentration-camp numbers tattooed on their forearms.
The exchange was prompted by a question from a Flint resident, Denise Ghattas, who asked Sanders if he thought “God is relevant.” Sanders, who probably mentions God less often than any candidate in recent American history, responded that “The answer is yes,” but managed to define “God” in a way that comports with his own secular, socialist views: “I think when we talk about God, whether it is Christianity, or Judaism or Islam or Buddhism, what we are talking about is what all religions hold dear. And that is to do unto others as you would like them to do unto you.”
Cooper followed up by citing a recent newspaper article that he said claimed of Sanders that “you keep your Judaism in the background,” to the disappointment of some Jewish leaders.
“I am very proud to be Jewish, and being Jewish is so much of what I am,” Sanders replied. “Look, my father’s family was wiped out by Hitler in the Holocaust. I know about what crazy and radical and extremist politics mean. I learned that lesson as a tiny, tiny child, when my mother would take me shopping, and we would see people working in stores who had numbers on their arms because they were in Hitler’s concentration camp.
“I am very proud of being Jewish, and that is an essential part of who I am as a human being.”
Kasich talks [Sleezebag], Hillary and the 2016 racehttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/kasich-katie-couric-2016-gop-race-ohio-live-144309250.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/kasich-katie-couric-2016-gop-race-ohio-live-144309250.html)
Yahoo!
Dylan Stableford Senior editor March 07, 2016
Forget what the polls might say. Ohio Gov. John Kasich believes his Republican presidential campaign has enough momentum now that voters are starting to get a taste of his brand of political soft drink.
“It’s sorta like, ‘Coke, Pepsi, Kasich,’” he told Yahoo News’ Katie Couric from Monroe, Mich., on Monday. “‘I don’t think I like Coke or Pepsi all that much, and this Kasich, kinda interesting, but I don’t know much about him … so maybe I ought to go with the standard brands.’”
According to a Monmouth University poll released Monday, Kasich is gaining ground in Michigan, which holds its primary on Tuesday.
“I never thought I would really win here,” Kasich said. “I think finally people are starting to hear my message. And there isn’t any doubt that the last debate helped me because I was finally able to speak more. You know, we were sitting in the debate hall and the first 12 or 13 minutes they didn’t call on me, and people in the crowd were yelling my name, like, ‘Call on the guy, already.’”
But the Ohio governor dismissed a recent Quinnipiac University poll that showed him trailing Republican frontrunner Donald [Sleezebag] by five points in his home state.
“He’s not ahead of me. These polls are goofy,” Kasich said. “It’s not legitimate.”
Kasich admitted, however, that [Sleezebag] has tapped into “legitimate anxiety” among the GOP electorate.
“The key is to explain to these people who have this legitimate anxiety about the path forward, about who can actually diagnose the problem, treat it and fix it,” he said. “And that’s what I’ve been doing.”
And according to the governor, there’s still a long way to go in the race for the Republican nomination.
“We’re probably at halftime,” Kasich said. “If you’re an NBA fan, you kinda watch the fourth quarter, you know? I mean, we know what happens in the fourth quarter.”
“Many people never thought I’d be the last governor standing,” he noted. “And we’re having momentum. So we’ll see how it goes, day after day, one foot in front of the other. Like climbing Mount Everest.”
Kasich also blasted Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s call for Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder to resign over the water crisis in Flint.
“I think he has been held accountable. I think this is a guy who has had many sleepless nights,” Kasich said. “When Hillary starts talking ‘He should resign,’ what about the server in her house and the possibility she had classified information on that server?”
“That is demagoguery out of her,” he added. “I know her, and I don’t like that. I’m really agitated with the fact that here she is calling on someone else to resign, with her history and the history of her family? Give me a break.”
So, is there any real traction outside of Utah for Romney putting on a superman cape and saving the day? (it's all I hear locally)
Florida’s Sun Sentinel: No GOP candidate worth endorsinghttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/floridas-sun-sentinel-no-gop-candidate-worth-163139142.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/floridas-sun-sentinel-no-gop-candidate-worth-163139142.html)
Yahoo News
Michael Walsh Reporter March 08, 2016
The Sun Sentinel, a major South Florida newspaper, is refusing to make an endorsement in the Republican presidential primary because “the kind of person who should be running is not in the race.”
In an editorial published Friday, the paper’s editorial board argues that businessman Donald [Sleezebag], Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz are unqualified to be president of the United States. Though Ohio Gov. John Kasich would be the best of the remaining candidates, the editorial continued, he does not have a chance of securing the party’s nod.
“We showed our cards a year ago, before the extraordinarily large field of Republican candidates shaped up,” the editorial reads. “We favored the adult in the room, Jeb Bush, a smart, experienced and principled conservative. But the nation wasn’t ready for another Bush, and our former governor wasn’t ready for the anti-establishment edge in today’s Twitter-fueled campaign era.”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, an establishment favorite, raised over $150 million but failed to gain traction amid [Sleezebag]’s rambunctious rise to political prominence. Bush ultimately dropped out of the race in February.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/2ghlTaoldNINK4o.0uAqow--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTg3MjtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/652ee0ad93be9b0a2b342dc6d07dfa6f9b17d604.jpg)
Sen. Marco Rubio speaking at a campaign rally in Sanford, Fla., on Monday. (Photo: Paul Sancya/AP)
The Sun Sentinel outlined the shortcomings of each contender left in the once overcrowded GOP field.
It said [Sleezebag] may be entertaining but lacks the experience and temperament to be commander in chief.
“[Sleezebag] would shake up Washington, no question,” the board wrote. “He might even unite Republicans and Democrats against a common enemy — himself. But given his smug, erratic, often petulant demeanor, do you really trust him with the keys to our nuclear arsenal?”
Rubio, it continued, has incredible political skills, knowledge of the issues beyond talking points and a great life story, but has almost no experience beyond running for office and doesn’t show up to work much.
“Because Rubio has failed to do his job as a senator, broken the promises he made to Floridians and backed away from his lone signature piece of legislation on immigration, we cannot endorse him for president,” the board wrote.
The Sun Sentinel said that Cruz is anti-Washington, makes decisions based on the Bible, does not compromise on social issues and was willing to shut down the government for 16 days, “America’s economy be damned.”
“Cruz scares us. He also should scare Republicans who want to win in November. Cruz has not earned your vote,” the board said.
As for Kasich, the paper notes he is a mainstream Republican who averages a 7.4-point lead over Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton in recent national polls and enjoys a 62 percent approval rating among Ohioans, the people he was elected to serve.
The Sun Sentinel says that he has not built a viable campaign in part because the GOP base is in rebellion mode.
“Perhaps in a more-rational election year, the Sun Sentinel would endorse John Kasich. But we can’t urge you to vote for someone who doesn’t have a chance of winning the nomination.”
The Sun Sentinel did not experience the same difficulty choosing a Democratic candidate, strongly endorsing Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The paper says she may be too cozy with Wall Street and too secretive but is also the most qualified candidate for the Oval Office in years.
The Florida primary will be held on March 15.
So, is there any real traction outside of Utah for Romney putting on a superman cape and saving the day? (it's all I hear locally)
Fascinating.
Well, people will listen to him speak, but that's about it. He tends to be seen as the author of Obamacare. He's also the Loser who re-elected Obama.
Theocons always say that losses are because the candidate wasn't enough of a Christian Conservative.
I saw some recent Romney poll results, and he was getting beaten badly.
Presidential as the guy may be, he's relegated to senior statesman. Well, maybe he'll be Ambassador Romney someday.
I read a nice piece about Bloomberg deciding not to run as an independent, because spoiler. I've copy/paste if it didn't mention a certain someone so much but here: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bloomberg-didnt-want-to-be-spoiler-leading-to-180855743.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bloomberg-didnt-want-to-be-spoiler-leading-to-180855743.html)
I really liked the thing Katie Couric quoted him in the video as saying, about loving this country too much to do it...
(Rusty our exchange about Atwater, Carvell and party strategy makes me, once again, wish we could get Arnelos over here. I like the cut of his jib, and calm, rational, insider/operative POV. I'm sure on party discipline and Republican schizophrenia, his insights would be useful to figuring it all out...)
The proprietor of that very liberal popular culture blog I've mentioned following and sometimes commenting on has gone into adamant Bernie should quit mode...
Yes, I think global trade is a good thing on the whole. It creates interconnectedness, and is a cause for peace. Our economy depends upon it. So do the Clintons.This dances up to something I had intended to talk about WRT free trade. It's a diplomatic issue/tool and has profound national security implications. Those are not simple subjects with simple answers, to say the least.
Bernie and [Sleezebag] are strongly against it. So too, apparently is much of America.
-Also, I understand that his campaign funding is in good shape, and if I'm wrong and he ran thinking he could win - she could drop dead. She could get caught with her girlfriend. She might snap and poop on the stage in the middle of a speech. Anything might happen, and he doesn't get to be President if he quits - why back off in the investment he's made now?Two thing to elaborate on here:
And I'd argue that he does her more good than harm just by being there and giving her someone to debate while the right's getting the lion's share of the coverage with freaks and clowns. The interestingness balance is terribly in their favor as it is. It would be worse without any hint of a horse race to hype on the left...
So, is there any real traction outside of Utah for Romney putting on a superman cape and saving the day? (it's all I hear locally)
Fascinating.
Well, people will listen to him speak, but that's about it. He tends to be seen as the author of Obamacare. He's also the Loser who re-elected Obama.
Theocons always say that losses are because the candidate wasn't enough of a Christian Conservative.
I saw some recent Romney poll results, and he was getting beaten badly.
Presidential as the guy may be, he's relegated to senior statesman. Well, maybe he'll be Ambassador Romney someday.
Quote from: Rusty Edge on Yesterday at 06:53:24 AMOf course most people in the USA are against it we're the ones paying for it.
Yes, I think global trade is a good thing on the whole. It creates interconnectedness, and is a cause for peace. Our economy depends upon it. So do the Clintons.
Bernie and [Sleezebag] are strongly against it. So too, apparently is much of America.
In Bernie's case, assuming he's as sincere as he seemsRusty, in case bin has not given up on us, we seem to be in agreement that Sanders has run a classy campaign and strikes both us as, right or wrong, -see also our agreement in the other direction about Dr. Paul's personal qualities- a fellow of unusual good character for a politician running for President.
Clinton shows her vulnerable side: ‘I’m not a natural politician’https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-shows-her-vulnerable-side-im-not-a-035711888.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-shows-her-vulnerable-side-im-not-a-035711888.html)
Yahoo News
Lisa Belkin Chief National Correspondent March 09, 2016
When asked why her “untrustworthy” rating is so high after 25 years in public office, Hillary Clinton winced. “It’s painful for me to hear that,” she said, perhaps remembering the 2008 New Hampshire debate in which she was asked almost exactly the same question, but with fewer years. “Well, that hurts my feelings,” she had said then.
The more voters get to know her, the more they like her, she answered, citing her popularity as senator after New Yorkers “saw me in action.” Then she got personal.
“I’m not a natural politician, in case you haven’t noticed, like my husband or President Obama,” she said. “So I have a view that I just have to do the best I can, get the results I can, make a difference in people’s lives.”
There was no follow-up question for Sen. Bernie Sanders on why voters might not like him.
Any particular foreign leader whose executive stewardship you admire and might want to emulate as president?
Well, I have to say that I highly admire Angela Merkel. I’ve known Angela since the 1990s, she and I actually appeared on a German TV show together. I have spent personal time with her. She is, I think, a really effective strong leader and really right now the major leader in Europe, not just in Germany. I admire her political skills and her principles, her strong work ethic. I just find her to be an incredibly important person in the world today and I look to her to see how she’s managed it.
http://time.com/4166539/hillary-clinton-woman-governing-campaigning/
Hillary has said she wants to model her presidency on Angela Merkel.
For those who don't know she's the one who's invited the "refugees" into Europe.
I would be telling her that she's never going to win the 'beer with' criterion with anyone ever, so be the smartest guy in the room - and don't be afraid to just be a girldog once in a (long) while; think of the meme on the plane doing texting smack that you said "Somebody finally gets me". -And don't be afraid to sound like a progressive when/if that's what you believe in your heart - devoted conservative Rusty Edge would like and think more of you for that.
Be as radical as you wanna be, Ma'am, and show us the REAL Hildog. Nobody wants or likes a candidate who gets their opinions chosen by focus groups.
Focus groups suck, anyway - the format leads them to nitpick crap badly that they wouldn't in real life...
The caveat would be with regard to the constitution?
;nod
-Momma said something I liked coming back from voting - that she's not wild about the socialism thing with Bernie, but it's just Christian for people to look out for each other.
Why don't you ever hear that from church people 'voting their principals'?
[poop] could actually deliver lower annual deficits than the others.You were doing so well before the end. National bankruptcy is not an option.
Sharp.
My brother and I used to say that if Jesus were around today, he's sound much more like McGovern and Humphrey than the Republican Christians. Except he's be saying that the church should be performing some of these functions rather than the government.
It’s Time to Support Real Family Valueshttps://berniesanders.com/time-to-support-real-family-values/
June 17, 2015 | by Bernie Sanders
The right has claimed the mantle of “family values” for far too long. When my Republican colleagues use the term they’re usually talking about things like opposition to contraception, denying a woman’s right to choose, opposition to gay rights, and support for abstinence-only education.
Family values: let’s talk about what those words mean.
When a mother can’t spend time with her newborn child during the first weeks and months of life, that is not a family value.
When a husband can’t get time off from work to care for his cancer-stricken wife, that is not a family value.
When a mother is forced to send her sick child to school because she can’t afford to stay home, that is not a family value.
When parents and children can’t spend any time on vacation together during the course of an entire year, that is not a family value.
In fact, these things are an attack on everything the family stands for.
When it comes to supporting real family values, the United States lags behind virtually every major country on earth. We are the only advanced economy that doesn’t guarantee its workers some form of paid family leave, paid sick leave or paid vacation time.
Or, to put that another way: Workers and families in every other major industrialized country in the get a better deal than we do here in the United States.
That’s wrong. It’s a travesty. And it should be an embarrassment to anyone who claims to speak for family values in this country.
Time for parents and children
It’s an outrage that millions of women in this country are forced back to work after giving birth, simply because they don’t have the income to stay home with their newborn babies.
Virtually every psychologist who has studied this issue agrees that the first weeks and months of life are enormously important to a newborn’s emotional and intellectual development. It’s understood that and fathers should spend this time bonding with the new person they have brought into the world.
The Family and Medical Leave Act we signed into law in 1993 is inadequate for the task. Today, according to the Department of Labor, nearly eight out of ten workers who are eligible to take time off under this law cannot do so because they can’t afford it. Even worse, 40 percent of American workers aren’t even eligible for this unpaid leave.
In my view, every worker in America should be guaranteed at least twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave. That’s why I am a proud cosponsor of the FAMILY Act, introduced by Senator Gillibrand, which does just that. Under this measure, every employee would receive twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave: to take care of a baby, to help a family member who has been diagnosed with cancer or another serious medical condition, or to care for themselves if they become seriously ill.
This would be funded through an insurance program, like Social Security. Workers would pay into it with every paycheck, at the price of roughly one cup of coffee per week. There is no reason not to pass this bill now.
Sick leave for all
We must also make sure that workers in this country have paid sick leave. It is insane that low-wage workers for companies like McDonald’s must work when they are sick just because they can’t afford to stay home.
That’s bad for the workers – and it’s also a public health issue.
The Healthy Families Act, introduced by Sen. Patty Murray, would fix that. It would guarantee seven days of paid sick leave per year for American workers. It would benefit 43 million Americans who don’t have access to paid sick leave today. It would also establish a minimum standard for employers who already do offer sick leave.
We need a vacation
Millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. They are overworked, underpaid, and under enormous stress. Today 85 percent of working men and 66 percent of working women are working more than 40 hours a week. Millions of people are working incredible hours – some with two or three jobs – just trying to care for themselves and their families.
That is why I have introduced legislation which would require employers to provide at least 10 days of paid vacation per year. This is already done in almost every country in the world. My proposal would allow workers to take two weeks of paid leave each year – to rest and recuperate, travel, visit loved ones, or simply spend time at home bonding with their families.
Companies like Virgin Group and Netflix have adopted generous paid vacation policies aimed at boosting productivity and increasing worker loyalty. But nearly one in four workers gets no paid vacation time at all.
Studies show that nine out of every ten Americans report that their happiest memories come from vacations. Vacations have been shown to reduce stress, strengthen family relationships, increase productivity, and even prevent illness.
American workers are being denied a benefit that workers in every other advanced economy already enjoy. Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand … we are the only nation that doesn’t require employers to provide at least 10 days of paid vacation time.
There is no reason for that. Our country is every bit as prosperous as theirs – and it is prosperous because the men and women of this country work so hard.
I’m not asking for the most generous vacation policy in the world. This is nothing like what they get in France, Austria or Belgium. But I intend to push for a standard which befits a great nation.
There is no reason not to pass this bill. It would benefit workers while also helping employers, the economy, and society as a whole.
Real family values
Last place is no place for America. It is time to join the rest of the industrialized world and live up to our ideals by ensuring that every worker in this country has access to paid family leave, paid sick time and paid vacations – just like they do in every other wealthy country on the planet.
The next time you hear a politician talking about “family values,” you may want to ask whether they support measures which really help American families. These bills will help families spend more time together, in greater happiness and security.
Those are values every family can believe in.
I'm seeing a LOT of coverage of violence breaking out at Hog-calling contests allasudden, and the reporter lady who got manhandled by the campaign manager. Does anyone know how unusual that actually is for a major polarizing presidential candidate? I'm asking.
QuoteQuote from: Rusty Edge on Yesterday at 06:53:24 AMOf course most people in the USA are against it we're the ones paying for it.
Yes, I think global trade is a good thing on the whole. It creates interconnectedness, and is a cause for peace. Our economy depends upon it. So do the Clintons.
Bernie and [Sleezebag] are strongly against it. So too, apparently is much of America.
Its strip mining jobs and livelihoods for short term profits for a few.
Interconnectedness also means if one domino falls they all fall. Its one of the
reasons global trade was avoided in the past.
And not a big huge fan of Israel?
Funny thing - back before your time at WPC, a drunk German kid happened to make the point that Jews are very well-represented in finance and showbiz and some very powerful lines of work.
-I made the counterpoint "So? They're a bunch of overachievers."
http://wtop.com/prince-william-county/2016/03/local-[Sleezebag]-supporter-says-shes-facing-harassment-vandalism/slide/1/
WASHINGTON — Someone has stolen the Donald T rump signs from her yard, spray-painted her house with messages and a motorcyclist stopped to threaten her life.
But a Gainesville, Virginia, woman says that while she’s frightened and exhausted by the ordeal, she won’t be intimidated. Judy Beaty, 70, has put up more T rump yard signs.
She says she’s been told by Virginia State Police that they will provide additional security measures.
“I can’t even tell you how hard it is to deal with something like this. I feel like I’m very violated, at this point, and very threatened,” says Beaty.
She awoke Wednesday morning to find the T rump signs gone and her neat, white house spray painted with the words “revolution” and “can you see the new world through the tear gas.”
She says she would be less frightened if the incident stopped there, but the threats have continued.
“I get all these nut cases riding by here going, ‘Feel the Bern,’ ‘[Expletive] the T rump signs.’ I had one guy, yesterday, telling me I was going to die,” Beaty says.
Quotehttp://wtop.com/prince-william-county/2016/03/local-[Sleezebag]-supporter-says-shes-facing-harassment-vandalism/slide/1/
Local T rump supporter says she’s facing harassment, vandalismQuoteWASHINGTON — Someone has stolen the Donald T rump signs from her yard, spray-painted her house with messages and a motorcyclist stopped to threaten her life.
But a Gainesville, Virginia, woman says that while she’s frightened and exhausted by the ordeal, she won’t be intimidated. Judy Beaty, 70, has put up more T rump yard signs.
She says she’s been told by Virginia State Police that they will provide additional security measures.
“I can’t even tell you how hard it is to deal with something like this. I feel like I’m very violated, at this point, and very threatened,” says Beaty.
She awoke Wednesday morning to find the T rump signs gone and her neat, white house spray painted with the words “revolution” and “can you see the new world through the tear gas.”
She says she would be less frightened if the incident stopped there, but the threats have continued.
“I get all these nut cases riding by here going, ‘Feel the Bern,’ ‘[Expletive] the T rump signs.’ I had one guy, yesterday, telling me I was going to die,” Beaty says.
T rump sounds like an overweight backup dancer to rapper The Braggadocious T.R.U.M.P.I wonder whether or not the above error of T rump originates from the manipulation of symbolic messages by BUncle. I know it likely originates from an error in formatting, but the error appears convenient because it only occurs with the word "[Sleezebag]."
Torrential
Racism's
Ultimate
Malicious
Purpose
-Sorta like ODB without as much looks, talent and good sense...
Win or lose, Bernie Sanders has changed Hillary Clintonhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/win-or-lose-bernie-sanders-has-changed-hillary-155024964.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/win-or-lose-bernie-sanders-has-changed-hillary-155024964.html)
Liz Goodwin Senior National Affairs Reporter March 14, 2016
At the CNN Democratic debate in Flint, Mich., earlier this month, Bernie Sanders used his opening statement to call for the governor of Michigan to resign over the city’s lead crisis, a position Sanders staked out months ago.
“I believe the governor of [Michigan] should understand that his dereliction of duty was irresponsible. He should resign,” Sanders said.
When Hillary Clinton got her turn to open, she echoed Sanders’ stance for the first time.
“Amen to that,” she said. “I agree. The governor should resign or be recalled.”
This new position was a surprise to anyone who tuned in to the debate’s preshow, where Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that if the governor stepped down, it wouldn’t “make a difference in the everyday lives of the people” of Flint.
But the change shouldn’t have been too shocking, since Clinton has matched Sanders’ positions on a whole host of issues during the unexpectedly hard-fought Democratic contest between them — a tactic that has implications for the former secretary of state as she attempts to move past Sanders and position herself for the general election. Clinton calls Sanders a “single issue” candidate on the stump, but the 74-year-old senator from Vermont has pushed Clinton to the left on far more than Wall Street reform, his most high-profile campaign agenda.
“Bernie has had great success in getting Hillary Clinton to adopt his issues and his rhetoric during the course of this campaign,” Sanders’ chief strategist Tad Devine said after the Democratic debate in Miami last Wednesday. “Let’s talk about the [Trans-Pacific Partnership], for example, which she evolved from someone who praised it on the record 45 times and calling it the ‘gold standard’ of trade agreements to opposing it.”
Clinton says she changed her mind on the TPP after it evolved into a deal she couldn’t support. Her run against Sanders has put her in the awkward position of opposing free trade, when she has a long record of supporting trade deals. In the Miami debate, Clinton boasted that she “voted against the only multinational trade agreement that came before me when I was in the Senate.”
Devine also flagged the Keystone Pipeline, which Clinton initially supported and then later joined Sanders in opposing on environmental grounds. And then there’s Wall Street. Clinton has attempted to tap into the same populist anger that fuels Sanders’ campaign by talking tougher on big banks and America’s culture of corporate greed.
Clinton often reminds people that she called for better regulating of Wall Street starting at least in 2007, and that she’s not new to the issues of fighting income inequality and reining in corporate excess. But there’s no question that her rhetoric on the issue has sharpened in response to Sanders. After her victory in Nevada, Clinton delivered a tough message to “the men and women who run our country’s corporations.”
“If you cheat your employees, exploit consumers, pollute our environment, or rip off taxpayers, we’re going to hold you accountable,” she said. (Clinton added, however, that when CEOs contribute to the economy, she will stand with them.)
“I think that clearly she has responded to a lot of [Sanders’] statements and his focus, which moves her somewhat to the left. I don’t think there’s any question about that,” said Richard Riley, the former governor of South Carolina and education secretary under Bill Clinton. Riley is supporting Clinton.
“Saturday Night Live” recently spoofed this dynamic with a mock Clinton ad aimed at winning over Sanders’ young supporters. As the ad goes on, Clinton picks up more and more of Sanders’ verbal and physical tics. First, wire-rim glasses appear on her nose. Then, she’s in a dark blue suit, waving her hands next to her face and saying she’s “sick and tired of hearing about my own damn emails” in Sanders’ signature old-school Brooklyn accent.
“I’m whoever you want me to be, and I approve this message,” a physically transformed Clinton says at the end of the spoof.
To be fair, Sanders has also been forced to shift emphasis on certain policies by his opponent, particularly to court black and Latino voters, more natural constituencies for Clinton. His recent emphasis on criminal justice reform and Flint followed Clinton’s deeper commitment to those issues. Still, it is Sanders’ populist progressive challenge that is largely responsible for pushing the Democratic discourse to the left, even as the Republican candidates stake out positions further and further to the right.
In Miami, both candidates agreed they wanted to give all undocumented immigrants in the country citizenship, and both vowed to never deport children. Clinton said she didn’t want to deport any immigrants unless they were committing crimes or plotting terrorist attacks, insisting that she would not be as tough as the Obama administration on enforcing immigration law. Meanwhile, the Republican frontrunner supports mass deportation.
It’s conceivable that some of these Sanders-influenced positions could alienate more moderate Democrats or independents during the general election should Clinton beat Sanders (or that some Sanders supporters will not want to support Clinton even though she’s adopted some of his issues). But if Clinton faces off against Donald T rump, it’s likely that the controversial candidate will galvanize the left and center-left and soften the doubts of those lukewarm on Clinton. (Sixty percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of T rump, compared with 53 percent who don’t like Clinton, according to RealClearPolitics’ polling averages.)
And if she faces off against T rump, some of her more populist positions on trade could actually help her. “She probably would have had to move against free trade to a certain degree even without Sanders,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “The Republicans seem to be questioning trade policy.”
Several of Clinton’s surrogates said they do not agree that Sanders has pushed her to the left, and they insist that there’s no position she’s staked out that will hurt her during the general election.
“I think everything that she’s proposed will be seen rightly as squarely in the mainstream as what Americans think are the big problems, and that includes reining in Wall Street. It includes getting big money out of politics,” said David Brock, founder of the pro-Clinton Correct the Record PAC.
Clinton has also hugged Obama tightly in the primary, painting Sanders as a critic of the president. Obama remains extremely popular with Democrats, so embracing his policies should also help in a general election.
“I think her alignment with the president is in keeping with most Democrats’ alignment, and she’s certainly not going to put at risk her base,” said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Clinton supporter. “I don’t think she’s been caused to move as far left as some people might assume.”
“Every poll that I’ve seen, position by position, her position has been the majority position,” Malloy said. “So why should she change that?”
Perhaps more important, a single, populist-fueled primary season is not enough to erase the Clintons’ brand as center-left Democrats. One of the reasons the “SNL” skit is funny is that no one actually believes in the “radical” Hillary in the ad.
“You could still categorize her as center-left. She’s in the center, always. She always has been,” Riley said.
Is Ohio’s primary a presidential bellwether?https://www.yahoo.com/politics/is-ohios-primary-a-presidential-bellwether-184124853.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/is-ohios-primary-a-presidential-bellwether-184124853.html)
Yahoo Politics
Michael Walsh Reporter March 15, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/QzUh6EaqRbqbAAk_L52Oxw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/9f19c018d808cd90f75356ccd27738a4524d6bce.jpg)
Ohio Gov. John Kasich after voting in the primary. (Photo: Matt Rourke/AP)
We’ve heard it before: Republicans need to win Ohio if they want to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. In fact, the state’s governor, John Kasich, likes to cite this as a reason why Republicans should support his presidential candidacy, despite his having lost in every other state so far.
Kasich argued that Ohioans have a history of picking the country’s presidents because they reject extremism in both parties.
“Ohio’s status as the national bellwether is not a reputation, it’s a fact. No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. Ever,” his campaign website reads.
That has been the case since the Republican Party began in 1854. But what does that mean for this year’s election?
Eric Ostermeier, a research associate at the University of Minnesota and founder of Smart Politics, says there is a lot of data to suggest that the battleground state is the ultimate bellwether in the general election: It has the current longest “winning streak” for voting for the winning presidential candidate in the general election. Since 1964, in 13 consecutive cycles, the candidate who won Ohio also won the White House.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/pikg._XyJ_K71wPHlaJnow--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/3d9dd5223473636e6267f7a94158c251fc575747.jpg)
Kasich in Westerville, Ohio, after casting his ballot. Will he be the “favorite son” who wins the primary and then the presidency? (Photo: Matt Rourke/AP)
“That’s the eighth longest streak in U.S. history, and if they do so again in 2016, that will be tied for the third longest ever, at 14 in a row,” Ostermeier said in an interview with Yahoo News. “So it’s a very long streak, especially in the modern political era.”
But that does not necessarily translate to the primary on Tuesday.
“The way I hear candidates talking about this, they are sort of conflating carrying Ohio in the primary versus the general election,” Ostermeier said. “It’s not been the case that Ohio has been a perfect bellwether in picking the party’s nominee.”
But, he noted, it has been true in the modern primary era. Each of the past 11 GOP nominees did win the Buckeye State primary — from Richard Nixon in 1972 to Mitt Romney in 2012. There are eight other states where this is true.
“On the continuum, it’s been more of a bellwether than most states,” Ostermeier said, “but there are caveats.” Before the modern era, there are many examples where this was not the case.
In 1912, former President Teddy Roosevelt won Ohio but lost the Republican nomination to friend-turned-foe and then incumbent President William Howard Taft (who was from Ohio).
Several “favorite son” candidates won the Ohio primary but never won the nomination, such as Ohio Sen. Robert Taft in 1940, 1948 and 1952 and Ohio Gov. James Rhodes in 1964 and 1968.
“That’s a different era of politics, and primaries did not have the weight that they do now,” Ostermeier said. “But it’s fair to say that in the modern primary era, the winner of the Ohio Republican primary has been the nominee.”
Although, he pointed out, in several of those cycles — especially in the 1970s and 1980s — Ohio held its contests much later in the calendar year (in May or June), so much of the drama had already passed and the nominee was essentially known. It wasn’t until the 1996 cycle that Ohio’s primary was moved to March.
From 1912 until 2012, there have been 26 presidential primaries in Ohio, so it’s a fairly small sample size and the conditions behind these elections have changed, so it’s somewhat difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions about its predictive power.
To say that this year’s Republican primary race has been unusual would be an understatement. The overcrowded field prevented many campaigns that might have wooed voters in other years from gaining traction. And boisterous real estate magnate Donald T rump’s ascent to the top of the pack vastly changed the tone of the debates and media coverage. With all these elements converging, many prognosticators and top brass in the Republican Party have been left scratching their heads — and wondering whether the old rules, like the one about Ohio, will still hold true.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/14/[Sleezebag]-rises-national-support-rubio-falls-and-carso/
CLOSE MENU ×8)
T rump breaks 50% in national support for the first time
T rump breaks 50% in national support for the first time
Showing little sign of a "ceiling", Donald T rump has only grown in support with the exit of Ben Carson and Marco Rubio's collapse
Follow @YouGovUS on twitter and stay up to date with the latest news and results
Follow
In the last two weeks, Republican frontrunner Donald T rump has won more delegates in primaries and caucuses, even while his opponents have launched new attacks and questions have been raised about his supporters. The week’s Economist/YouGov Poll finds T rump still at the top of GOP voters’ preference with a wider lead, while Florida Senator Marco Rubio seems most damaged by the two weeks of attacks and counter-attacks.
Cough cough lol.Speaking of manners, this is rude and makes you look unsophisticated. No more sentences ending in "lol" - and any further smilie use that can be taken as gloating is right out, too.
Moderator?Quotehttps://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/14/[Sleezebag]-rises-national-support-rubio-falls-and-carso/QuoteCLOSE MENU ×8)
T rump breaks 50% in national support for the first time
T rump breaks 50% in national support for the first time
Showing little sign of a "ceiling", Donald T rump has only grown in support with the exit of Ben Carson and Marco Rubio's collapse
Follow @YouGovUS on twitter and stay up to date with the latest news and results
Follow
In the last two weeks, Republican frontrunner Donald T rump has won more delegates in primaries and caucuses, even while his opponents have launched new attacks and questions have been raised about his supporters. The week’s Economist/YouGov Poll finds T rump still at the top of GOP voters’ preference with a wider lead, while Florida Senator Marco Rubio seems most damaged by the two weeks of attacks and counter-attacks.
Today's gleanings.
#1) Rubio is talking about Utah, regardless of whether he wins or loses his home state today. Apparently he refuses to quit if ( when ) he fails to win.
Sanders Sends Vegan Thugs to Attack Peace-Loving Nazishttp://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sanders-sends-vegan-thugs-to-attack-peace-loving-nazis (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sanders-sends-vegan-thugs-to-attack-peace-loving-nazis)
The New Yorker
By Andy Borowitz March 14, 2016
(http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/borowitz-sanders-vegan-thugs-[Sleezebag].jpg)
Credit PHOTOGRAPH BY J. D. POOLEY / GETTY
CINCINNATI (The Borowitz Report)—Republican front-runner Donald T rump was crying foul on Monday after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders allegedly dispatched an army of vegan thugs to attack a rally of peace-loving Nazis in Cincinnati.
According to T rump, he had begun to address a group of “orderly and civil Nazis” at a downtown arena when his audience was suddenly set upon by an unruly mob of angry vegans, many menacingly clad in Birkenstocks and sustainable garments.
The Sanders supporters, singing an alarmingly militant version of Simon & Garfunkel’s “America,” marched into the arena and began “intimidating and threatening” the Nazis, T rump said.
“Make no mistake about who is starting the violence at these rallies,” T rump said. “It’s the vegans.”
Carol Foyler, a Nazi from suburban Cincinnati, said that she feared for her life when one of the vegans “ripped a T rump sign” from her hands and “tried to recycle it.”
Harland Dorrinson, a Kentucky Nazi who drove to Ohio to hear T rump speak, said he would never have attended the rally if he had known “there would be troublemaking vegans there.”
“One of them tried to swing an NPR tote bag at my head,” the terrified Nazi said.
Donald [Sleezebag] is a fan of Pete Rose, but the love isn’t necessarily mutual.
Rose’s attorney, Ray Genco, told The Washington Post on Monday his client never sent the signed baseball of which [Sleezebag] boasted receiving the previous day. Genco added that Rose, an Ohio native and hero, did not endorse [Sleezebag]’s presidential candidacy ahead of Tuesday’s primary in the Buckeye State.
“We do not know how Mr. [Sleezebag] got the ball,” Genco said. “I can’t authenticate the ball from some Twitter picture.
“I can’t speak to how [Sleezebag] got the ball. Pete didn’t send it. I made that clear.”
Genco further clarified Rose’s stance on this year’s presidential election.
“Pete has made a point not to ‘endorse’ any particular presidential candidate,” Genco wrote in a letter to The Post later in the day. “Though he respects everyone who works hard for our country — any outlet that misinterpreted a signed baseball for an endorsement was wrong. Pete did not send any candidate a baseball or a note of endorsement.
“That said, through my discussions with Pete about this cycle, I’ve learned that he believes that who to vote for is a decision each voter should decide for him or herself. Pete knows and has impressed upon me that, above politics, it’s leadership and teamwork (that) make all the difference. Both the left and right are baseball fans — and it is those institutions and their people that make America exceptional.”
[Sleezebag] on Sunday shared a photo of a baseball, which appeared to bear Rose’s signature and the candidate’s campaign slogan. [Sleezebag]’s campaign declined to answer The Post’s questions about whether Rose actually sent him the ball, so we’ll have to take Genco at his word.
Rose is staying out of this one.
Shortly after [Sleezebag]'s tweet on Sunday evening, baseball fans began to question the authenticity of the ball, including making the case "Pete Rose will put anything on a ball for $75" one collector said.
In his own tweet, John Fischesser showed various other balls signed by Rose in a tongue-in-cheek manner that read, "I was the first man on the moon," or "Sorry I screwed up the economy."
FiveThirtyEight.com noted Rose has also written things like "Sorry I shot JFK" and "Sorry I broke up the Beatles."
Sanders Sends Vegan Thugs
What’s next for Marco Rubio?https://www.yahoo.com/politics/whats-next-for-marco-rubio-032224287.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/whats-next-for-marco-rubio-032224287.html)
Yahoo Politics
Jon Ward Senior Political Correspondent March 15, 2016
MIAMI — The big question facing Marco Rubio is not what he does next but how he chooses to do it, based on the lessons he draws from his defeat.
Rubio, whose U.S. Senate term ends in January and whose bid for the White House splintered on the shoals of his home state Tuesday night, could run for Florida governor in 2018. He could leave politics for a time, go into business and make some money, or start a nonprofit and then run for president again in 2020. But it is hard for many to see him fading altogether from the political scene.
“It is not God’s plan that I be president in 2016, or maybe ever,” Rubio said in his concession speech here Tuesday night. His use of the word “maybe” was a clear indication that, already, 2020 is on his mind.
Assuming his time in public life is not at an end, the dilemma facing the 44-year-old, still-baby-faced politician is who he chooses to become after his bruising experience in the time of [Sleezebag].
Does he retain the hopeful, optimistic tone and message that facilitated his rise to national office in 2010? Or does he try to somehow chase the worship of celebrity and the rage in the electorate that has been exposed, and encouraged, by Republican frontrunner Donald [Sleezebag]?
“I do worry that he learns the wrong lessons from this cycle, and thinks he lost because he wasn’t angry or insane enough,” said Steve Schale, a top Democratic operative in Florida who has admired Rubio’s political skills as a member of the opposition party.
“If he learns the wrong lessons, he’ll go off and do crazy, insane things for the next few years, and that won’t end well,” Schale said.
Schale’s advice could be self-serving — he’s close to one Democrat who may run for governor herself in 2018, Rep. Gwen Graham — but his recommendation for Rubio would be to not run in 2018, and to go into business instead.
“Go keep your head down and do something outside of politics,” Schale said. “In the modern world, you don’t need a political platform to succeed in politics. He’s a young and talented guy, and success in the real world would allow him to mount a comeback at almost any time.”
There is some logic to that argument. Certainly in this election, any whiff of time spent in elected office has been politically poisonous. [Sleezebag] had nearly universal name ID with the electorate due to his years in reality TV and before that, from his life as a New York businessman who dabbled in the world of sports entertainment.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/N4B3pxmKjEyT83Qtsfy3JQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTg1NDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/ffc19897db19fc70242615e99874c93377c2613d.jpg)
Marco Rubio announces the suspension of his campaign during a rally in Miami on Tuesday. (Photo: Carlo Allegri/Reuters)
[Sleezebag] has made a career of courting controversy. Rubio, if he wanted, could dive headfirst into the world of celebrity. That is the route to take if the lesson of 2016 is that the best route to political success is to copy the [Sleezebag] model — that all publicity is good publicity, shame is passé, and thinking through how you might govern before you rouse passions is for losers.
Of course, it’s possible Rubio already learned his lesson about attempting this, having tried to beat [Sleezebag] at his own insult game in the last month, only to overstep and have it backfire.
Another interpretation of Rubio’s humiliation is that voters just decided he needed to slow down and grow up a little, or maybe more than a little. He’s been in a hurry his entire adult life, and his impatience to get to the next level of political power has led Rubio to leave friends and allies in the dust. Many of the pre-defeat obituaries on Rubio’s career during the last week suggested that he had forgotten where he came from.
“I don’t think the lesson here is that he wasn’t Donald [Sleezebag],” said Alex Castellanos, a Cuban-born Republican operative who has advised numerous presidential candidates. “The lesson for him is, one, that it wasn’t his time. And that in an uncertain moment, people wanted strength and experience.
“If he goes out into the real world and enjoys business success or becomes governor and actually runs something, that would position him for success,” said Castellanos.
Rubio was told by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and by 2008 GOP nominee Sen. John McCain to wait his turn. And Rubio mocked that advice often on the campaign trail.
“This is not a time for waiting,” Rubio said. He continued to ridicule “elites” in his concession speech Tuesday.
“There are millions of people in this country that are tired of being looked down upon. Tired of being told by these self-proclaimed elitists that they don’t know what they are talking about and they need to instead listen to the so-called smart people,” Rubio said.
“I’ve battled my whole life against the so-called elites, the people who think that, you know, I needed to wait my turn or wait in line or it wasn’t our chance or wasn’t our time. So, I understand all of these frustrations,” he said.
But the voters spoke loud and clear. Out of 32 primaries and caucuses, Rubio won only three. And a longtime associate of Rubio’s said Tuesday as the polls were closing that there are some hard truths in that fact.
“He can’t try to please everyone,” said Al Cardenas, a longtime fixture in Florida Republican politics who brought a young Rubio into his law firm in the mid-’90s.
Cardenas pointed to the 2013 immigration fight as one of the most damaging periods in Rubio’s career, not because he backed a comprehensive bill, but because he cut and ran, leaving others in the lurch. As I wrote with Andrew Romano a year ago, Rubio panicked.
“He was a proud promoter of that bill. He enlisted myself and a number of other leaders to get behind him, put their political capital on the table,” Cardenas told me over a patchy phone line late Tuesday. “And you can’t just leave by yourself and leave everybody else behind and to their own devices.
“People don’t mind going down fighting, but they do mind going down fighting without the fellow who brought them to the dance to begin with,” Cardenas said.
Going forward, Cardenas said, Rubio “needs to stand his ground on issues of importance more often, although there is a short-term price to be paid.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/cp03i8QHfW8UoazacLrYsg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTg2NztpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/95f412c3b28d25a467cb99044d31160647f52940.jpg)
Rubio gets a hug from his family after a primary night rally Tuesday in Miami. (Photo: Angel Valentin/Getty Images)
In addition, Rubio developed a reputation over the years for giving short shrift to the hard work of legislating, another sign of his impatience. Cardenas also said this hurt Rubio’s ability to win over voters in his home state.
“He’s got to work harder at a larger group of dependable supporters on the electorate side, not just the donor base. That takes a lot of hard work, collegiality, and it takes showing up,” Cardenas said.
The challenge in all this for Rubio is that he has not settled on a political identity. He has dabbled here and flitted there, leaving voters with the impression he lacks a true center.
In his speech Tuesday, Rubio hit some of the notes that are part of his core message. At the heart of it was an attempt to give fuller voice to the frustrations of everyday Americans, but moving from that place of empathy to a place of hope.
“America is in the middle of a real political storm, a real tsunami. And, we should have seen this coming. Look, people are angry, and people are very frustrated,” he said.
“I know that we are living through this extraordinary economic transformation that is really disruptive in people’s lives. Machines are replacing them, their pay is not enough. I know it’s disruptive. But I also know this new economy has incredible opportunity,” he said.
Rubio seemed to sense that he had not worked hard enough to voice the frustrations of many American voters. Any politician who hopes to inspire anguished voters must first of all convince them that he understands them, and that he hears them.
His appeal to optimism summoned the nation’s history and heritage.
“We are the descendants of pilgrims. We are the descendants of settlers. We are the descendants of men and women that headed westward in the Great Plains not knowing what awaited them,” Rubio said. “We are the descendants of slaves who overcame that horrible institution to stake their claim in the American Dream. We are the descendants of immigrants and exiles who knew and believed that they were destined for more, and that there was only one place on Earth where that was possible.
“This is who we are, and let us fight to ensure that this is who we remain. For if we lose that about our country, we will still be rich and we will still be powerful, but we will no longer be special,” he said.
These were just the first soundings of any coherent message Rubio might attempt to reimagine.
Defeats and setbacks lead to times of reflection, and Rubio will now have plenty of time for that. He can use it to engage in political calculus and strategy. Or he can look inward, acknowledge his weaknesses as a candidate and as a person, and by so doing, begin the process of overcoming them.
At the conclusion of his speech Tuesday, Rubio said: “I will continue every single day to search for ways for me to repay some of this extraordinary debt that I owe this great country.”
A big night for Clinton, as she sweeps all five stateshttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/a-big-night-for-clinton-as-she-wins-ohio-florida-013801150.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/a-big-night-for-clinton-as-she-wins-ohio-florida-013801150.html)
Yahoo Politics
Hunter Walker and Liz Goodwin March 15, 2016
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Tuesday was always supposed to be one of the most important nights in the Democratic presidential primary race, but for Hillary Clinton, it was even bigger than she and her team expected.
Clinton swept the night, winning Ohio, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and maintaining a narrow lead in Missouri, which is so close that the losing candidates are allowed to request a recount. The victories put her firmly on course to defeat her primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who had hoped to upset her in at least one of those Midwestern states. As the results were announced on Tuesday evening, Clinton took the stage before a boisterous crowd of supporters here and seemed to pivot toward the Republican frontrunner, Donald T rump, who also won in Florida.
“We are moving closer to securing the Democratic Party nomination and winning this election in November!” Clinton declared.
Clinton came into the presidential race as the overwhelming frontrunner for her party’s nomination. After faltering in the early states, she began to pull ahead, with a massive victory in South Carolina on Feb. 27. She followed that win with a string of victories on Super Tuesday, March 1. Those wins had a campaign source predicting to Yahoo News that Clinton’s delegate lead over Sanders would be “effectively insurmountable” once this evening’s votes were counted. Sanders’ team also knew this evening’s numbers would be crucial, and in early strategy sessions, they cited March 15 as a turning point, after which they would know whether or not his underdog bid was truly viable.
It looked as if Sanders might prove the Clinton campaign’s bullish prediction wrong after he won a stunning upset in Michigan on March 8, but Clinton’s victories on Tuesday helped her stop Sanders’ momentum and establish a seemingly unbeatable lead.
Though Clinton was expected to win the primaries in North Carolina and Florida on Tuesday, polls showed her potentially losing in Ohio, Arizona, Missouri and Illinois. Even if Sanders had won all of the states that were in play on Tuesday, he would still have faced an uphill battle. However, by taking Ohio and Illinois, Clinton definitively pulled ahead.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Ej2OuYmc6hn39yoBqBJdOg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTg0ODtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/6a22c371a11961cbe6d65b0ea65f7b404fa4fd06.jpg)
Hillary Clinton greets supporters at the Palm Beach County Convention Center after winning the Ohio, Florida and North Carolina primaries on Tuesday. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Though the results in Arizona, Missouri and Illinois still had not been projected at the time she spoke, Clinton pointed out that her trio of victories had allowed her campaign to “add to our delegate lead to roughly 300.”
“I’ll tell you, this is another Super Tuesday!” Clinton said.
Her lead only grew as the night wore on.
After congratulating Sanders “for the vigorous campaign he’s waging,” Clinton turned to T rump, framing the election as “one of the most consequential campaigns of our lifetimes.” She specifically criticized several key aspects of his platform, including his positions on immigration and waterboarding.
“When we hear a candidate for president call for rounding up 12 million immigrants, banning all Muslims from entering the United States, and he embraces torture, that doesn’t make him strong, it makes him wrong!” Clinton said. “We should be breaking down barriers, not building walls.”
Clinton went on to directly invoke T rump and take a shot at his campaign slogan, “Make American Great Again.”
“To be great, we can’t be small, we can’t lose what made America great in the first place,“ said Clinton, adding, “And this isn’t just about Donald T rump, all of us have to do our part.”
Sanders took the stage shortly after Clinton’s appearance in Florida and addressed more than 7,000 of his cheering supporters in a convention center in Phoenix with his usual stump speech. The 74-year-old senator mentioned raising the minimum wage, getting money out of politics, fixing free trade deals and reforming the criminal justice system, among other typical stump-speech issues.
What Sanders didn’t mention were the five states that voted in the Democratic primaries Tuesday night, and what the results meant for his viability as a candidate. This was in contrast to Sanders’ election night appearance on Super Tuesday, when he explicitly downplayed his mixed showing and reassured his supporters that he would take the fight to “every” state. In contrast with most election night gatherings, there were no TVs showing primary results in Phoenix, so Sanders’ supporters were not shown Clinton’s wins racking up in the background as the evening progressed. Arizona’s Democrats vote next Tuesday, and Sanders is expected to do well in the state.
“The reason we have done as well as we have, the reason we have defied all expectations, is that we are doing something very radical in American politics: We are telling the truth!” Sanders said. No major cable network carried his speech, which coincided with Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s remarks and later, as Sanders continued speaking, with Donald T rump’s victory speech. The senator urged Arizonans to show up at the polls for him next week at the end of his address.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/xO_eIxFMzY7bLi6QYJ2AFw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTgxMztpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/20d8d563830789597aaeeb29b91d65366fca38a9.jpg)
Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at a campaign rally in Phoenix. (Photo: Nancy Wiechec/Reuters)
Sanders’ top advisers have stressed that the senator will continue his well-funded campaign until the end of the primaries, and last week’s surprise win in Michigan appeared to breathe new life into Sanders’ bid. But Clinton’s sweep significantly dims his chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. Sanders had hammered Clinton on her past support for free-trade deals, but she still pulled out a win in Ohio and Illinois.
Sanders’ top aides did not come out to speak to reporters at his event in Phoenix. However, in Florida, the Clinton campaign’s communications director, Jen Palmieri, took questions shortly after Clinton’s speech. Palmieri noted she had just “bid farewell to a very happy Hillary Clinton.” Palmieri also said Clinton and Sanders had not yet spoken to each other.
Palmieri spoke before results were announced in Illinois and Missouri. She acknowledged those states would be “close” and could go either way, but argued that the night still sent a decisive message.
“Sen. Sanders spent over $7 million in the last week running pretty negative ads … stepped up rhetoric attacking Hillary Clinton,” Palmieri said. “I think the results today prove that approach is rejected by the voters. They’re looking for someone who is offering solutions, particularly on the economy, not just talking about the problem.”
Palmieri also addressed the fact that several of the upcoming contests in the Democratic primary, particularly in states that hold caucuses, could favor Sanders. Still, Palmieri pointed to Clinton’s steadily increasing lead.
“Our delegate lead is very high, I would say, so we understand that there are a lot of contests … that we have yet to face, and we will face them, but … it’s going to be very hard to overtake her,” Palmieri said, adding, “And I think that the results tonight, even if there are contests that we don’t do well in, will continue to speak for themselves.“
Though Palmieri expressed confidence that Clinton will secure the nomination, she repeatedly stressed that the campaign remains “focused” on the Democratic primary rather than the general election. Multiple reporters asked if Clinton or her allies would begin pressuring Sanders to drop out. Palmieri deflected the question several times by saying it was not “up to” Clinton’s staff to make that decision.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/IOdLAjvZWMyuwLP65dVO.w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTkyODtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/a6dcc0f15cfcb5b6111a03483a9f56b3763fa280.jpg)
Clinton supporters cheer as results come in during an election night event at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Fla. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
“When she ran against President Obama in 2008, she stayed in till the end,” Palmieri said of Clinton, adding, “She said that she would never call on someone to drop out. … That’s not up to us.”
Palmieri also strenuously denied that Clinton was making a pivot to campaigning against T rump, even though the Republican frontrunner was named in her speech.
“I’m going to let the speech speak for itself, but I wouldn’t assume that those comments were directed at any particular one candidate,” Palmieri said.
[Sleezebag] wants to ban Muslims.
But if we learned anything from Prohibition, it's that people will just make Muslims in their bathtubs.
How Kasich became National Republican Grownuphttp://news.yahoo.com/how-kasich-became-republican-grown-up-105740374.html (http://news.yahoo.com/how-kasich-became-republican-grown-up-105740374.html)
Yahoo News
By Matt Bai 6 hours ago
(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/5wwihQXLiuw5.Vg9QDv5ow--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://40.media.tumblr.com/0785c154d5ef576ba27c25b6054c5a24/tumblr_inline_o46jqqqxD21tdop5d_1280.jpg)
Ohio governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich speaks at Villanova University in Villanova, Pa., on Wednesday. (Photo: Dominick Reuter/Reuters)
Normally, it wouldn’t be a very big deal for a popular two-term governor to win a presidential primary in his own state, especially if it’s the first of 29 states (and a couple of territories) he’s actually won. But normalcy isn’t even on speaking terms with politics this year, and so it was that John Kasich — after laboring as an afterthought through weeks of primaries and a dozen debates — woke up yesterday to a changed reality.
On the Villanova campus, where I caught up with him, something like 1,000 students jammed into an auditorium and an adjoining overflow room to see Kasich, who often sounded more like a dad than a presidential candidate. (“Here at Villanova, there’s a lot of lonely kids,” he said at one point. “Invite them to go out for pizza. Invite them to the basketball game.”)
Afterward, Kasich wandered into an impenetrable swarm of TV reporters, whose aggressive and overlapping questions — almost entirely about Donald [Sleezebag] and delegate math — he politely deflected.
Then I followed him out the back door, where his Ohio State Police detail was holding off another sizable throng of onlookers and photographers. We jumped into his black Suburban.
“Do you believe this, Matt?” Kasich said, turning around from the front seat to face me as the car surged forward. “Can you even believe what you saw there today? It’s incredible. Holy cow.”
I had to admit: It was something.
I’d interviewed Kasich on the eve of his announcement last July, and what we’d talked about then was temperament. As a young and ambitious congressman, and even in his early years as governor, Kasich had been known as impulsive and impolitic, quick to offend and quicker to retaliate. He chafed endlessly against the established order of his own party.
The knock on Kasich then was that he could never be disciplined or measured enough to project a presidential stature. Seriously.
Now here he was, the last man standing against [Sleezebag] and Ted Cruz, the only candidate left with governing gravitas. And more improbably, it seemed the campaign had transformed Kasich himself, or at least the public perception of him.
Somehow, the brash, prickly boy wonder of the Gingrich revolution — a guy still reviled by a lot of his liberal adversaries in Ohio for his evident moral certainty — had been elevated to the position of his party’s designated grownup.
Not only had Kasich managed to contain his famous temper over the last several months, but he had emerged as the most relentlessly upbeat candidate in either party, the favorite Republican of editorial boards and just about every voter who wasn’t planning to vote in Republican primaries.
I asked him if he thought he’d grown into this role during the campaign.
“There has been a big change in me, and that’s that I realized that people need encouragement,” he said. “More than I thought they did. They need to believe in themselves and their ability to change the world. I know that.
“I guess there’s an evolution as I’ve aged, and there’s my family and all that,” Kasich went on. “I’m not a kid anymore, you know? I’m 63 years old. Everybody grows up, I hope.”
But if it’s true that Kasich has mellowed (and I think it is), then it’s also true that his metamorphosis has a lot to do with the contrast he’s drawn. If this year’s Republican field were led by, say, John McCain or Mitt Romney, Kasich would probably seem like a slightly less irascible, less impulsive version of the guy who took the stage on the night of his first gubernatorial election and shouted: “I’m going to be the governor of Ohio!”
But as we and most alien civilizations surely know by now, this year’s field has been dominated by a crass showman who plays with extremist language as if the entire campaign were a Mad Lib. And every overshadowed governing candidate has had to make a decision, at one point or another, about how to remain relevant without losing all dignity.
Jeb Bush vacillated between punchless attacks and plaintive whines. Marco Rubio descended for a pivotal week into Triumph-the-Insult-Dog territory, then regretted it just as quickly. Chris Christie befriended the bully and now seems to occupy the organizational rung just below [Sleezebag]’s butler.
Alone among his peers, Kasich decided that if this was the last campaign of a long career, he was going to go out his way, with seriousness of purpose. And if espousing pragmatism while ignoring [Sleezebag] has made him seem, for much of the campaign, like a man oblivious to the moment, it has also earned him broader admiration than all the balanced budgets in the world.
Kasich said this week that he would weigh in soon on [Sleezebag]’s attitude toward women. I asked him if this signaled that a new, combative phase in his campaign was about to begin.
“I’m going to say things when I feel compelled to say them,” he replied, shaking his head. “More combative? I don’t like the sound of that. I’m not interested in being combative, but every once in a while, when you see something that makes your blood boil, I think you should say something about it.”
[Sleezebag]’s rhetoric isn’t new, so why had he waited this long to get incensed?
“I had a lot of stuff I didn’t know,” Kasich told me. “You might say, ‘Well, how could you not have known about what was happening at those rallies? How could you not have known about his rhetoric?’ Because I didn’t know. I’m running my own thing.
“And when I’ve seen it,” Kasich continued, “frankly I’ve been stunned by the coarseness. It’s beyond coarse, the insulting and incendiary nature of some of what he has done.”
I couldn’t be sure whether Kasich was really the last American with a television to find out about [Sleezebag]’s verbal recklessness, or whether he simply couldn’t afford to ignore it anymore. As much as he’s burnished his image by remaining at an Olympian remove, the mathematical fact is that Kasich can’t win without somehow taking [Sleezebag] down.
Even if Kasich were to consolidate his vote with most of Rubio’s (which is unlikely), it wouldn’t be enough to beat [Sleezebag] and Cruz in most states, as long as they continue to pile up the kinds of pluralities they did this week. Kasich would have to peel off some sizable segment of voters from both candidates, and even then all he can do is keep [Sleezebag] from clearing the threshold needed to clinch the nomination.
“I have a unique opportunity, because we’re now gaining momentum,” Kasich told me, shrugging off the obstacles. “What would you rather have, momentum in the first quarter or momentum in the fourth? Cruz didn’t win anything last night. I did.
“And you know what? People across the country are celebrating that victory in Ohio. Because they believe it sends a message that somebody who has a record, somebody who can bring us together — that there’s hope for that yet.
“I don’t see that anybody is going to have enough delegates,” Kasich told me. “And then you have a convention. I mean, why are people hyperventilating about that?”
Kasich’s plan, in other words, is to keep [Sleezebag] from amassing the 1,237 delegates he needs, and then to effectively declare a reset at the convention. His campaign added a team of serious party insiders this week — among them the superlobbyist Vin Weber and the longtime strategist Charlie Black — to begin preparing for a delegate war.
But as Kasich well knows, the “hyperventilation” in some circles comes from imagining what will happen if Republican operatives try to overturn the will of their own voters. And this is why Kasich needs to do more than simply keep [Sleezebag] under the magic number; he also needs to win a bunch of states that aren’t his own between now and early June.
In the end, an establishment-led challenge will be viable — or at least something less than suicidal — only if the leaders of various delegations can plausibly make the case that Kasich was the party’s strongest candidate by the time the primaries ended.
If nothing else, there’s little question that he’s now the most electable of the bunch. I asked him if it felt odd, despite his sharply conservative record and evangelical fervor, to have become the Republican Democrats like best.
“I have always been able to attract the independent and conservative Democrats,” Kasich told me as the car came to a stop. “When their party’s turned hard left and they feel left behind, we’ve always had an ability to get those votes.”
We were sitting in the driveway of a country club in Merion, Pa., where Kasich was about to attend a fundraiser. I thanked him for spending a little more time with me on what I knew was a rough day.
Kasich laughed, as if deeply amused.
“It’s not a rough day,” he said.
Filling Scalia’s seat: Democrats think it’s a win-win for themhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/filling-scalias-seat-democrats-think-its-a-020011431.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/filling-scalias-seat-democrats-think-its-a-020011431.html)
Yahoo Politics
Olivier Knox Chief Washington Correspondent March 16, 2016
Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit will most likely not become Justice Merrick Garland of the Supreme Court, at least not while President Obama remains in office. He seems unlikely to get even a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, or a vote either by that panel or the whole Senate.
And it may be partly because it’s hard to imagine an Obama nominee more likely to win confirmation, if the Republicans allowed a vote.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated on Wednesday what he said just hours after the late justice Antonin Scalia died in mid-February: There will be no Judiciary Committee hearings, and no votes on confirmation while Obama resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
“The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the person the next president nominates,” McConnell said, apparently extinguishing even the dim prospects of a vote in the lame-duck session after the November elections.
Still, the pitched political battle over Garland’s fate could turn in unexpected ways, and will shape — and be shaped by — the 2016 race: not just Donald [Sleezebag]’s unprecedented presidential race but the fight to control the Senate, in which a platoon of Senate Republicans are facing stiff challenges.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/rzUXrdWrVcscYciQzBNC.A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTg1MztpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/b734b11a78b36f34c424bba923d9cbd74a0254a9.jpg)
President Obama introduces federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, his nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, at the White House on Wednesday, March 16, 2016. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
Garland, 63, is a judicial moderate who earned the support of a majority of Republicans for his 76-23 confirmation to the appeals court. Seven of the Senate’s current 54 Republicans supported him, while five opposed him, including McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Garland is a well regarded former federal prosecutor who walked in the ruins of the 1995 terrorist attack in Oklahoma City while emergency workers were still pulling out bodies, and he supervised the case that led to the death penalty for convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh. Conservatives say he is unsympathetic to their views on gun rights, but no one has seriously suggested he lacks the credentials to sit on the republic’s highest court. In fact, the GOP argument so far is not that he’s unqualified, but that someone who is not Obama should pick the next justice.
Garland’s nomination would need 14 Republicans to disrupt an inevitable filibuster, and five to be confirmed. Even if McConnell had not drawn that early line in the sand, that would not have been easy, but it would not have been impossible, and surely would have carried shorter odds than if Obama had chosen a nominee closer to the base of the Democratic Party. Put differently, there would be comparatively little political danger to the GOP in considering, and rejecting, a liberal firebrand, even one plucked from the ranks of women or minorities.
Republicans know that the main prize in play is the ideological shape of the Supreme Court. The late justice Antonin Scalia wasn’t just “a” conservative jurist. He was arguably the most influential conservative jurist of his era. Republicans know they’re highly unlikely to get another Scalia, but would settle for putting another conservative in the seat that the acerbic Italian-American held for decades, continuing their run of 5-4 rulings on many contentious issues. The problem for Republicans is not that Garland may turn out to be liberal — it’s that he’s sure to be a lot more liberal than Scalia, tipping the overall balance of the court to the left. To avoid that, the GOP has to gamble that they will recapture the White House come November.
For the Republican base, the issue is even more stark: It’s not just a question of how Garland would vote; it’s their refusal to countenance handing Obama any sort of victory. Polls conducted before Garland’s nomination found nearly seven in 10 Republicans saying Obama shouldn’t even try to fill the seat.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus captured the two notions — the court’s potential shift, anger at Obama — on Twitter. “We won’t stand by while Obama attempts to install a liberal majority on #SCOTUS to undermine our Constitution & protect his lawless actions,” he said.
White House aides have long said that having an actual nominee will force Republican intransigence to crumble, and that vulnerable Senate Republicans will ultimately press their leaders to hold hearings and votes. They point to conservatives like former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who have called for the Senate to take up the nomination. McConnell will cave, they predict confidently.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/7EPU9zqVaTVFLovTOjo5bg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTg4MDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/bb1c5c060a7216a69d62c0d58316ffb62dcbc4e8.jpg)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., leaves the Senate chamber after vowing that the body will not hold hearings on whether to confirm Garland. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)
McConnell will not cave, those close to him counter. Vulnerable Republicans don’t need to hold the line the way he does — they can meet with Garland, something their leader refuses to do — but they need the GOP base in November more than they need Democrats or up-for-grabs independents. If core Republicans stay home, the candidates lose. Swing voters are less likely to be won or lost on whether McConnell lifts the roadblock than on the parties’ standard-bearers, economic conditions or other factors.
One big variable, officials of both parties agree, is the [Sleezebag] factor. Back in March, an aide to a vulnerable Republican senator told Yahoo News, “I’m not sure we want to be in the business of telling voters that we’d rather risk having Donald [Sleezebag] nominate the next Supreme Court justice.” The brash marketing whiz has said he supports McConnell’s position. But the big unknown is how [Sleezebag] the GOP Nominee affects Garland’s fate. Fairly large numbers of Republican primary voters have told pollsters that they will not back the tinsel-haired entrepreneur in the general election. If they stay home, Republican candidates in down-ballot races may need to rely more heavily on independents.
Some Democrats think that this is a fight they can’t lose.
“We have forced them into a telescoping series of untenable positions, where even agreeing to meet with the guy is a cave in the view of their base,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide.
“It’s a win-win situation. Either we get the confirmation and change the balance of the court for a generation, or they have to fight to November defending the most extreme, untenable position of no-votes, and we’ll annihilate them on that,” the aide said. “And then President Clinton nominates” Scalia’s successor.
So, the aide said, “I don’t care if McConnell caves or not.”
Ted Cruz’s biggest challenge yet is making nice with his Senate colleagueshttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/ted-cruzs-biggest-challenge-yet-is-making-nice-162432067.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ted-cruzs-biggest-challenge-yet-is-making-nice-162432067.html)
Yahoo News
Dan Friedman March 17, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/kI_ZhN8.zNQI5plM5zDwag--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/e977a131e88f3d1ae36854866e395545cd94b28b.jpg)
Photo: Molly Riley/AP
Republican senators’ least favorite Washington politician is not Hillary Clinton. It’s not Chuck Schumer or President Obama. It is Sen. Ted Cruz.
Senate Republicans revile Cruz with special fervor because of their sense that he has used his short time in the Senate primarily to engage in political stunts and mock them as corrupt imbeciles in order to promote himself.
The insults sting all the more because they have worked. With Florida Sen. Marco Rubio now out of the presidential race and Ohio Gov. John Kasich unable to capture the GOP nomination outright, Senate Republicans face what South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham has described as a choice between being shot or poisoned in a two-way fight between Cruz and Donald [Sleezebag].
Eager to consolidate support, Cruz is offering his version of an olive branch, asking select Senate colleagues to unite behind him through the rest of the GOP primary fight.
At the same time, Senate Republicans’ dislike of Cruz runs so deep that many plan to sit on their hands in the coming months and await a nominee. In more than 20 interviews and conversations over the past week, Republican senators and staffers described deep antipathy toward Cruz.
“Now is the time for Republicans to unite for all of us who want a brighter future for our nation to come together and stand as one,” Cruz said Tuesday night, urging Rubio supporters and others to join him against [Sleezebag].
Cruz recently began calling Senate Republican colleagues “with a pitch for party unity against Donald [Sleezebag],” said Josh Holmes, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
McConnell is not among those Cruz has called, said Holmes, who is president and a founder of Cavalry LLC, which provides political consulting to Senate campaigns and others.
Graham did receive a call from Cruz after musing publicly about backing him over [Sleezebag]. The Texas senator emphasized areas of agreement, according to Graham, including the suggestion that “he will be a more reliable supporter of Israel than Donald will.”
Cruz’s fellow Texan, Sen. John Cornyn, the second-ranking Senate Republican, said last week that his suggestion that Cruz “engage with members of the Republican conference” drew interest from Cruz.
“The relationship could use some improvement,” Cornyn added.
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, who endorsed Rubio, said that he doubts Cruz can convince senators who haven’t backed him yet to change course before the convention.
“I’m not sure what he could do that he couldn’t have been doing all along,” Inhofe said. “There are a lot of negative feelings.”
In a possible signal to establishment Republicans that he wants their help, Cruz said on Monday that he “could absolutely see a place for” Rubio and Kasich in his Cabinet if elected to the White House.
Cruz’s campaign is currently working to line up support from pledged delegates in anticipation of a potential convention fight in which many delegates could switch to support him after the first ballot. The odds of pulling off such an upset are already low, and Cruz could surely use help from Republican senators who might influence delegates from their states.
But Cruz’s outreach has so far borne little fruit. A Cruz endorsement last Thursday by Utah Republican Mike Lee, probably the Texan’s staunchest Senate ally, was notable primarily for how late it came.
“He’s a uniquely flawed messenger for a unity pitch given his proclivity to throw Republicans under the bus every time he’s had an opportunity to improve his own standing,” Holmes said. “Almost any other candidate in the field would be able to bring the party together behind their candidacy at this point. But everyone else might need to be eliminated before that happens [for Cruz].”
Cruz’s role in forcing the 2013 government shutdown is only the most prominent on a long list of grievances Senate Republicans have compiled against the Texas senator since his 2012 election. His support for the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee that often endorses conservative challengers bidding to oust Senate Republican incumbents, has left lasting anger.
And so the idea that Cruz would be a preferable nominee to [Sleezebag] is not a given for many Republicans. Alabama’s Jeff Sessions, the only senator to have endorsed [Sleezebag], is hardly the only GOP senator unsold on Cruz.
“It’s a real open question whether people ultimately conclude Ted Cruz is any more palatable than Donald [Sleezebag],” said Holmes. “Conservatives certainly think Ted Cruz is ideologically more predictable than Donald [Sleezebag]. But he has less experience than anyone in the field and is more personally disliked than any candidate in modern history.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/.ciAnfovd.WuKaaQz6DYEw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1125/a6956046c4daa9b1007e4e3d81b30f8480b5c26a.jpg)
Sen. Lindsey Graham, seen laughing with Cruz at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in July 2015, is among the GOP colleagues Cruz has reached out to. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
Senators say Cruz should get to work if he hopes to improve his Senate relations.
“Show some interest,” said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the longest serving Senate Republican, when asked how Cruz could win colleagues’ support. “Quit running down the Congress as though we’re a bunch of imbeciles.”
Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts cited Neil Diamond’s “Sweet Caroline” as instructive. “How’s it go?” Roberts said. “Hands, touching hands. Reaching out…”
“I am sure there will be people who will start moving in his direction,” said South Dakota’s John Thune, who heads the Senate Republican Conference. “But in terms of the relationship up here, he certainly can improve his outreach.”
But while Cruz can try to reduce animosity among colleagues, he is unlikely to seek or receive many endorsements as he takes on [Sleezebag], senators and aides said.
Cruz, who has worked in federal and state politics for most of the past 16 years, still hopes to cast himself as a more legitimate Washington outsider than [Sleezebag], who has never held any office. “Donald [Sleezebag] is the system,” Cruz said Sunday. “He is Washington.”
Cruz often cites his lack of support from GOP senators as evidence of his refusal to trade conservative values for Beltway popularity, and he has suggested that lawmakers who dislike him are part of the “Washington cartel” he is fighting.
That rhetoric gives Cruz a pitch he can hardly swap now for the blessing of the alleged “cartel” bosses.
“I am not sure that so-called establishment help is what he wants,” Thune said.
That view was borne out Wednesday when Cruz seemed to reject a suggestion, first reported by CNN, that he apologize to McConnell for calling the senior Republican a liar in remarks on the Senate floor last year.
Cruz told Fox News he will not “come on bended knee, with my hat in hand and suddenly say, ‘Oh, all the Washington politicians were right.’
“I’m gonna continue standing up to Washington, to the bipartisan corruption that got us in this mess,” Cruz said.
Ultimately, lawmakers planning to help or simply not oppose Cruz suggested their approach results mostly from a dispassionate decision to try to stop [Sleezebag] and the electoral catastrophe they fear will result from his nomination. Cruz, rarely seen in the Senate these days as he campaigns, just needs to stay out of the way.
Even so, Republican lawmakers and aides believe Cruz will experience no big wave of support from fellow senators unless he first captures the Republican nomination.
North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, who in January denied an Associated Press report that he told campaign donors he would vote for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders before Cruz, said there is only one way for Cruz to win Senate GOP support.
“Win the nomination,” Burr said. “At the end of the day, we’re going to be supportive of our nominee.”
Many GOP senators said they welcome Cruz’s seeking their support. But the likely result may be subtle.
“It affects the enthusiasm with which you’ll back him, certainly, or statements you’ll make,” said Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. “It never hurts.”
Hatch said he hopes to hear from Cruz soon.
“We all make mistakes. We all have to change some things, You’ve got to allow room for the younger people who are new to the process to make mistakes,” Hatch said. “Ted’s learning a lot from this. It’s been good for him.”
So dumb question from someone who's never done the whole preliminary thing before (it's normally decided by the time we get to Utah):
What happens to delegates after a candidate drops out? (determine whether I would vote for the one I like most or the one best suited to beat [Sleezebag])
What is the purpose/consequence of registering as a party? (I'm presently registered independent, but the reps don't let anyone but reps vote)
Bernie is first out the gate with commercials. I'm actually a bit surprised, I don't think any democratic presidential candidate has ever spent money in Utah.
Obama poised to lead (economic) invasion of Cubahttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-poised-to-lead-economic-1388547385655350.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-poised-to-lead-economic-1388547385655350.html)
Yahoo News
Olivier Knox Chief Washington Correspondent March 19, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/DBsYb81zKac.Kc_0gecXyQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzU1O2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/a8f5c4537f0f37a286f30ce729db9ce4/tumblr_inline_o496sd4JLF1sjejya_540.jpg)
A recent view of downtown Havana. (Photo: Alexandre Meneghini/Reuters)
For nearly 50 years, the United States tried various ways to end the Castro regime that rules Cuba. The disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion led to the convoluted scenarios laid out in “Operation Mongoose,” including plots to poison Fidel with a cigar, or a wet suit, or hiring organized crime figures to kill him. Later, the crippling U.S. economic embargo aimed to convince the island’s population to rise up and overthrow the Soviet ally just 90 miles off Florida’s shores.
Both the use of force and economic pressure failed to bring about the desired result — while Castro boasted of surviving CIA hit jobs and blamed poor living conditions in socialist Cuba on the U.S. The bearded revolutionary outlasted U.S. president after U.S. president, and his government even survived the collapse of the Soviet Union, which deprived Havana of aid from Moscow. The end of the Cold War also set the stage for American allies, like Mexico, Canada and France, to carve out lucrative niches in Cuba’s tourism industry, leaving the United States isolated.
When Pres. Barack Obama arrives in Havana on Sunday, it will be at the head of what amounts to a different kind of U.S. invasion. There will be air power: Airlines clamoring to be able to run direct flights to Cuba. There will be naval power: Cruise lines launching routes to Cuba. Marriott, looking to become the largest hotel chain in the world through a merger with Starwood, wants to establish a beachhead. And the president has potentially enlisted tens of thousands of infantry by recently loosening restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba to such an extent that, while a ban on simple tourism remains on the books, it’s easy, in practice, to travel there to take in the sights.
“Our central premise,” Obama told Yahoo News in an interview in December, is that if “they are suddenly exposed to the world, opened to America and our information and our culture and our visitors and our businesses, invariably they’re going to change.”
The president will arrive in Cuba on Sunday evening with first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters, Malia and Sasha, for a whirlwind visit — a little less than 48 hours in Havana.
“I look forward to being the first U.S. president to visit Cuba in nearly 90 years — without a battleship accompanying me,” Obama said recently, referring to Calvin Coolidge’s 1928 trip aboard the USS Texas.
The historic trip will highlight his efforts to make his policy changes irreversible, even if a Republican retakes the White House in November’s elections.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/g7cG5yOcVQcylHJsqrE3Mw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzU3O2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/355608d9d0863e0bffe32bd3013b595a/tumblr_inline_o496sexeJJ1sjejya_540.jpg)
Workers repair the street in front of the Capitolio in Havana, March 14, 2016. (Photo: Ramon Espinosa/AP)
The president will meet with his Cuban counterpart, Raúl Castro, but not with Fidel, who used to delight in delivering roaring seven-hour speeches, but has been seen in public less and less since handing his brother the reins in 2008. He’ll take in some of the sights in Havana, and attend an exhibition baseball game pitting the Tampa Bay Rays against Cuba’s national team. There will be a state dinner. He will also deliver a speech about steps that must still be taken to further improve relations, a message that White House aides say will be broadcast on Cuban television. He will meet with Raúl Castro at the Palacio de la Revolución, the seat of government, and criticize his regime’s human rights record both there and in a meeting with hand-picked dissidents.
“We’re trying a new approach,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Friday. “Our approach now is that the president of the United States is going to get on Air Force One, he is going to fly to Havana, Cuba, and he is going to sit down with the leader of Cuba and say, ‘You need to do a better job of protecting the human rights of your people.’”
White House officials have taken pains not to predict a speedy democratic revolution in Cuba. Instead, they say, American investment, tourism and trade will raise Cuba’s standard of living, while even modestly expanded communications, including Internet access, will help Cubans engage with the wider world.
“We know that change won’t come to Cuba overnight,” White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Thursday. “We believe that engagement — including greater trade, travel and ties between Americans and Cubans — is the best way to help create opportunity and spur progress for the Cuban people. “
Obama is not expected to nominate an ambassador to Cuba on the trip. The current top U.S. diplomat there, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, is a widely respected career State Department staffer. Naming an ambassador, Obama aides say privately, would pack too many risks and too few rewards. It would not alter the day-to-day diplomatic work, while embroiling the White House in yet another battle with Republicans in Congress. And failure to win confirmation would deal a sharp symbolic blow to Obama’s policy.
Obama still seeks ambitious changes on both sides of the Florida Straits. In the United States, he wants Congress to lift the embargo. In Cuba, he wants the government to take its own big steps, like allowing American businesses to hire directly, bypassing the patronage system that helps Castro hold on to power.
“A real game changer would be a situation in which you have a direct employer-employee relationship,” Obama told Yahoo News in December.
Cuba’s government, though hungry for foreign investment, has not eagerly embraced the idea of political change. The official Communist Party newspaper, Granma, recently editorialized that the country would retain its “unconditional commitment to its revolutionary and anti-imperialist ideals,” and emphasized there remains “a long, difficult road” to a full restoration of relations.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/CY1Pulnxd2ZS4TkU_ShQFw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzYzO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/d7c281a27fee4cfb8ed15293790851b0/tumblr_inline_o496sfR88D1sjejya_540.jpg)
A man fishes as commuters take a ferry to Havana, March 2016. (Photo: Ramon Espinosa/AP)
Obama himself told Yahoo News last year that Raúl Castro is looking to harness the benefits of American investments without embracing democratic reforms.
“What he probably wants to pull off is a transformation of the economic system to make it more productive and more efficient and raise standards of living — without letting go of the political reins,” the president said.
That’s what happened in Vietnam, the country Obama aides often mention in conversations about Cuba.
It’s a cautionary tale. When Bill Clinton announced plans to normalize relations in July 1995, he drew a straight line connecting American investment and tourism to improved human rights.
“I believe normalization and increased contact between Americans and Vietnamese will advance the cause of freedom in Vietnam, just as it did in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union,” he said.
Twenty years later, the State Department’s annual human rights report about Vietnam deplored “severe government restrictions of citizens’ political rights, particularly their right to change their government through free and fair elections; limits on citizens’ civil liberties, including freedom of assembly and expression; and inadequate protection of citizens’ due process rights, including protection against arbitrary detention.”
Still, Obama told Yahoo News last year, “Raúl Castro recognizes the need for change,” and wants to “help usher in those changes before he and his brother are gone,” leaving a successor without the clout to transform Cuba either politically or economically.
After all, Obama said, “nobody’s got better street cred when it comes to, you know, Cuban revolutionary zeal than one of the original revolutionaries.”
Kasich on a brokered convention: ‘Everybody chill!’
Yahoo News
Dylan Stableford Senior editor March 20, 2016
John Kasich has a message for members of the Republican Party unnerved over the prospect of a brokered convention: Chill!
“I don’t think anybody is going to get there with the delegates that they need to win,” the Ohio governor said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “So, let’s just everybody chill out.”
Kasich, with 143 delegates, trails GOP frontrunner Donald T rump (678) and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (423) in the race for the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio — who suspended his campaign after losing the primary in his home state — has 169.
If no one reaches the 1,237-delegate figure, the nominee will be determined in July during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
“We will go into Cleveland with momentum, and then the delegates are going to consider two things,” Kasich said. “No. 1, who can win in the fall — and I’m the only one that can, that’s what the polls indicate — and number two, a really crazy consideration, like, who could actually be president of the United States.”
“The delegates will take everything seriously,” Kasich said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “They will take a look at people’s experience and their electability. And that’s fine. What’s everybody so panicked about this? Everybody needs to take a little chill pill, to tell you the truth.”
“I am not playing a parlor game,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “The convention is an extension of the process of nominating somebody. I was there in ‘76 when [Ronald] Reagan challenged the sitting president [Gerald Ford]. They didn’t like him doing it either. But, you know what? His vision, his message mattered. Listen, nobody’s going to that convention with enough delegates. And at the end, do you know why I’ll get picked? Because I can win in the fall. And secondly, because I have the experience and the record to lead this country.”
Kasich called T rump’s prediction that there would be “riots” if he doesn’t get the nomination in a brokered convention “outrageous.”
“When he says that there could be riots, that’s inappropriate,” Kasich said on “Face the Nation.” “While we have our differences and disagreements, we’re Americans. Americans don’t say, 'Let’s take to the streets and have violence.’”
The Ohio governor said he has no interest in the vice presidential nomination should he not emerge as the GOP nominee.
“Under no circumstances,” Kasich said on “Meet the Press” when asked if he would consider becoming T rump’s running mate.
What about Cruz?
“No. I’m not going to be anybody’s,” Kasich said. “I’m running for president.”
And if Kasich does become president, he won’t be using as much confetti at the victory party as he did after his Ohio primary win.
“Here’s what happened,” Kasich explained on CNN. “[We] blew it the first time with a weak confetti shot. So, it was like porridge. He went from too cold to too hot. And all I can say is, I don’t want that much confetti again.”
Right wrong or indifferent, touching Cuba and Cuba policy is the gutsiest thing I've ever see from Bakrama, and having the political courage to try to break an impossible third-rail of a logjam -older than he is- is my favorite thing he's done as president.
SALT LAKE CITY — Donald [Sleezebag] faces an uphill battle in Utah's caucuses Tuesday, but he could still walk away with delegates if sharp divisions within the party prevent anyone from winning a majority.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is likely to do well in Utah, a conservative state that prizes civility and religiosity. Cruz has been helped by the support of Mitt Romney, the GOP's last presidential nominee who holds clout among the state's predominantly Mormon voters. On Monday the Texas senator also picked up the endorsement of Utah Gov. Gary Herbert.
But Ohio Gov. John Kasich is fighting back in Utah, hoping his more pragmatic approach and longtime governing experience will net him delegates there. He has invested heavily in Utah in recent days, airing $215,000 in ads -- the fifth highest amount he's spent in any state so far. That includes one web ad that falsely implies Romney backed him, rather than Cruz in Utah.
According to Utah state regulations, if no candidate wins more than half of the caucus votes, each of the three candidates will be awarded delegates proportionally. The candidate who can win Utah by more than 50 percent will walk away with all 40 delegates.
[Sleezebag] could significantly benefit from those rules if Cruz doesn't win the majority, since it would ultimately bump up his lead. The former reality television star goes into Tuesday's contests as the national front-runner with 680 delegates in hand. Cruz has 424 and Kasich has 143.
Ultimately, both Cruz and Kasich increasingly share a mutual goal — both want to stop [Sleezebag] from gaining the required 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination, ultimately forcing a contested convention to take place in July.
Kasich made a series of campaign stops in the state on Friday and Saturday, drawing rebuke from Cruz.
"Donald [Sleezebag] wants people to vote for Kasich because it divides his opposition," Cruz told reporters during a trip to the Arizona border Friday.
On Monday, Utah Republicans received a pre-recorded call from Romney urging them to back Cruz, not Kasich. "At this point," Romney said on the call, "a vote for John Kasich is a vote for Donald [Sleezebag]."
The Kasich campaign says it's logical to compete in Utah. "It would be malpractice to cede delegates to somebody who you don't think is going to be the nominee and who you don't think can win the general election," spokesman Chris Schrimpf said.
The split among Utah voters and its Republican establishment mirrors the widening divide among Republicans nationwide. A total of all the votes cast thus far reveals that a majority have opted for someone other than [Sleezebag]. But with no single standard-bearer in the running, the billionaire real estate developer has managed to amass a majority of delegates.
"I don't know if there are huge disagreements on policy but there are temperamental differences at play," said Paul Mero, former head of a conservative think tank in Utah. "Kasich just taps into a fundamental Utah establishment seriousness."
Kasich has netted the backing of former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt and onetime Sen. Bob Bennett -- who was ousted by the tea party movement in 2010 and replaced by Sen. Mike Lee, who is now backing Cruz. The Texas senator, an unapologetic conservative firebrand, often lashes out against Republican establishment figures, many of whom traditionally thrive in Utah. But leaders like Romney and Herbert have consolidated around Cruz because he is seen as the only one who can catch up to [Sleezebag]'s delegate lead.
Asked if he would vote for [Sleezebag] if he gets the nomination, Herbert said, "Let's hope that doesn't have to be my decision."
Dave Hansen, a Republican operative in Utah, is confident that the state's highly-engaged voters will figure out that Cruz has the better chance to get to 50 percent and block [Sleezebag].
"They are the kind of people who record CSPAN for viewing later," Hansen said.
Frankly, I think Kasich made a huge tactical error. According to Kasich, he doesn't think debates are a good way to chooses a candidate, he thinks everybody should be present, and he doesn't really like them. Well, my guess is that he doesn't really like asking for money, but he still does it.
Obama says Cubans can learn from U.S. election campaignhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-tells-cubans-to-learn-from-the-2016-race-201427307.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-tells-cubans-to-learn-from-the-2016-race-201427307.html)
Yahoo News
Olivier Knox Chief Washington Correspondent March 22, 2016
HAVANA — In the keynote speech of his historic visit to Cuba, President Obama on Tuesday pointed to the messy 2016 U.S. election campaign as a sign of American progress over the past 50 years.
“It isn’t always pretty, the process of democracy; it’s often frustrating — you can see that in the election going on back home,” Obama told an audience that included Cuban President Raúl Castro.
“But just stop and consider this fact about the American campaign that’s taking place right now: You had two Cuban-Americans in the Republican Party running against the legacy of a black man who was president, while arguing that they’re the best person to beat the Democratic nominee, who will either be a woman or a democratic socialist,” Obama told the full house at the ornate Gran Teatro, drawing laughter. “Who would have believed that back in 1959? That’s a measure of our progress as a democracy.” He was referring to Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, himself, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Obama’s description of the contest omitted GOP frontrunner Donald T rump, whom Obama has sharply criticized.
Obama’s unprecedented speech reached beyond the audience listening to him in the theater to Cubans watching an American president speak directly to them for the first time via state-run television, which broadcast the address.
“I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas,” Obama said. “In many ways, the United States and Cuba are like two brothers that have been estranged for many years, even as we share the same blood.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/3bHK.txctuVGniR8hA31pQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTc2MDtoPTM4NDA7aWw9cGxhbmU-/http://40.media.tumblr.com/f5fd897c10c7c8b0e49e9ac3bc64e488/tumblr_inline_o4gim5DiKD1sjejya_1280.jpg)
Obama waves to the crowd before he delivers his speech. (Photo: Desmond Boylan/AP)
The president used the address to defend his economic and diplomatic opening to Cuba. Castro has largely resisted Washington’s pressure to couple market-style reforms with an easing of restrictions on political activity. Republicans have accused Obama of taking steps that legitimize the Castro regime’s stranglehold on power. White House aides counter that the five-decade-old embargo only served to give Cuba’s government an excuse for economic hardships and did nothing to foster democratic reforms.
“Many suggested that I come here and ask the people of Cuba to tear something down,” Obama said, in a nod to Ronald Reagan’s “Tear down this wall” message to Moscow in Berlin in 1987. “But I’m appealing to the young people of Cuba who will lift something up, build something new.”
Still, he cautioned Cubans against “the blind optimism that says all your problems can go away tomorrow.”
The speech in some ways resembled the U.S. president’s annual State of the Union speech. Cubans in the room stood, clapped and cheered when he called for an end to the embargo the United States imposed in the years after the 1959 Cuban revolution that swept Fidel Castro to power. A delegation of American lawmakers applauded when Obama declared, “I believe voters should be able to choose their governments in free and democratic elections.”
Raúl Castro sat in the front row of the lowest balcony, surrounded by stone-faced officials. He made no outward show of emotion. At the end of the speech — which Obama closed with “sí se puede,” Spanish for “Yes, we can,” which was his election slogan— Castro rose quickly and waved as the crowd cheered him. He did not stay long.
Obama later met with some of the Castro regime’s most stalwart opponents — dissidents and civil society leaders. The group included longtime human rights champion Elizardo Sánchez, as well as Ladies in White leader Berta Soler and LGBT activist Juana Mora Cedeño.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/V76d__2Rr3y3FNHdvyliRQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDQ4ODtoPTI5ODg7aWw9cGxhbmU-/http://41.media.tumblr.com/09df127c4988b167bc8984ca4ab91930/tumblr_inline_o4gio1K3bx1sjejya_1280.jpg)
Cuban President Raúl Castro gestures to the audience as he takes his seat before Obama’s speech. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
“We cannot and should not ignore the very real differences that we have about how we organize our governments, our economies and our societies,” Obama said in his speech.
Still, he said, “I believe my visit here demonstrates that you do not need to fear a threat from the United States.”
At the same time, Obama said, “you need not fear the different voices of the Cuban people and their capacity to speak and assemble and vote for their leaders.”
“I am hopeful for the future, because I trust that the Cuban people will make the right decisions,” Obama declared. “I’m also confident that Cuba can continue to play an important role in the hemisphere and around the globe. And my hope is that you can do so as a partner with the United States.”
From the meeting with dissidents, Obama headed to the Estadio Latinoamericano to watch an exhibition baseball game pitting the Tampa Bay Rays against Cuba’s national team.
The matchup began with a moment of silence for the victims of the bombings in Brussels earlier in the day. Obama and Raúl Castro stood somberly side by side.
A white-robed choir sang both national anthems — with Cuba’s first — and the rowdy crowd erupted in cheers at the end of the “Star-Spangled Banner.” It was unclear whether this was a show of friendship or reflected their obvious eagerness for the game to start.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/yk3ElfiYILdZMTvFrFe5dA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MzUwMDtoPTI1MjE7aWw9cGxhbmU-/http://41.media.tumblr.com/49ac9b8a1bec24b403eda07119c7ec76/tumblr_inline_o4gisnfAGn1sjejya_1280.jpg)
President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters, Malia and Sasha, accompanied by Cuban President Raúl Castro, right, observe a moment of silence for victims of terrorist attacks in Brussels prior to a baseball match in Havana. (Photo: Alejandro Ernesto/EPA)
Clinton edges closer to nomination with Arizona winhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-edges-closer-to-nomination-with-arizona-033001123.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-edges-closer-to-nomination-with-arizona-033001123.html)
Yahoo News
Hunter Walker National Correspondent March 22, 2016
Hillary Clinton continued her march toward the Democratic presidential nomination with a win over Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., in the coveted Arizona primary on Tuesday evening.
Sanders was projected to win the Utah and Idaho caucuses.
Clinton came into Tuesday ahead of Sanders by more than 300 delegates, after winning all five states that voted on March 15. Her existing delegate lead is so big, he would have to win all remaining contests with at least 60 percent of the vote to overtake her. Any loss, or victory with a smaller margin, puts Sanders farther behind.
Speaking to her supporters in Seattle, Clinton declared she was “very proud to have won Arizona tonight.” Calling attention to the bombings that rocked Belgium on Tuesday morning, the former secretary of state pivoted to the general election and attacked the top Republican candidates for their responses.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/AUs_lAuh0GHLdNU8LMIrdQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9Mjg3NztoPTE4MTY7aWw9cGxhbmU-/http://40.media.tumblr.com/6d84cee4a68490f0183f9644ffee2e20/tumblr_inline_o4h5ry9iWD1tedrp5_1280.jpg)
Hillary Clinton at Chief Leschi School in Puyallup, Wash., on Tuesday. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
“The last thing we need, my friends, are leaders who incite more fear. In the face of terror, America doesn’t panic. We don’t build walls or turn our backs on our allies,” Clinton said. “We can’t throw out everything we know about what works and what doesn’t and start torturing people. What Donald T rump, Ted Cruz and others are suggesting is not only wrong, it’s dangerous.”
At an event in San Diego, shortly after Clinton’s win in Arizona was announced, Sanders made a speech emphasizing that he began the primaries as an underdog.
“When we began this campaign about 10 months ago, we were 3 percent in the polls, about 70 points behind Secretary Clinton. As of today, last poll that I saw, we are 5 points behind, and we’re gaining,” Sanders said, before adding, “We have now won 10 primaries and caucuses and, unless I’m very mistaken, we’re going to win a couple more tonight.”
Massive turnout in Arizona led to long lines at the polls, and there were still people waiting to vote after news organizations projected the results. On Twitter, the Sanders campaign posted a message urging Arizonans to “stay in line.”
“Every vote counts,” the tweet said.
Though the delegate math appears daunting for Sanders, he has indicated that he is in the race for the long haul. Sanders and his campaign believe some of the upcoming states on the primary calendar, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, are more favorable to him. In an email to supporters on Tuesday, Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said they “said all along that March 15 would be the high-water mark for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”
“Now the map shifts in our favor, and we’re going to begin clawing back delegates in state after state until we capture the lead on June 7,” Weaver wrote.
I wouldn't trust that source if they claimed the sun just set in the west - and I saw it do that just now...
So here, how is Kasich staying in going to help keep T rump from the nomination from a delegate standpoint?
This question is coming from a guy in a state Kasich SHOULD have won, but the local republican leadership all universally come out and said a vote for Kasich is a vote for T rump, you need to rally behind Cruz and hope Kasich comes out of the convention at the end.
Kasich and Cruz split more votes than Kasich and T rump?
Maybe the worry was with Utah's oddball laws that someone had to win by more than 50% to make sure T rump got nothing here. I don't know.
Bernie Sanders Says Victory Means More Than Beating Hillary Clinton
Mic
By Luke Brinker 3 hours ago
Facing long odds of overcoming Hillary Clinton's significant delegate lead, Bernie Sanders is a long way from the heady days following his landslide win in New Hampshire, when there was talk of burning down Clinton's firewall in Nevada and South Carolina — setting the former secretary of state up for a repeat of her 2008 loss.
Clinton's uneven but undeniable comeback has Democrats thinking ahead to a post-Sanders world, and while he vows to remain in the race through the final nominating contests in June, he's already articulating what he'd like to hear from Clinton, should she emerge as the Democratic standard-bearer.
"If I can't make it — and we're going to try as hard as we can until the last vote is cast — we want to completely revitalize the Democratic Party and make it a party of the people rather than one of large campaign contributors," Sanders told the Young Turks host Cenk Uygur.
Sanders said he wants to see Clinton throw her support behind a "Medicare-for-all" single-payer health care system, a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour, new infrastructure spending, a "vigorous effort" to tackle climate change, tuition-free public college, ending corporate tax loopholes and imposing new regulations on Wall Street.
Still, Sanders told Uygur he's not merely running a protest campaign, and that he's mounting a campaign focused on securing the Democratic nomination and the presidency.
But should he come up short in that effort, the 74-year-old Vermont senator doesn't sound like a man vying for a role as national spokesman of the American left.
"I'm not big into being a leader," Sanders said. "I'd much prefer to see a lot of grassroots activism."
Watch Sanders' full interview with Uygur below. The comments on Clinton come around 17:30:
Garland nomination fight centers around disrespect for Obama, not the judgehttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/garland-nomination-fight-centers-around-disrespect-184014332.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/garland-nomination-fight-centers-around-disrespect-184014332.html)
Yahoo News
Liz Goodwin March 25, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/hscPncHzGpjM99ewDptFrQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/4ea379909a2628ab5c93f9397d4434ab/tumblr_inline_o4lwt03Wt01sjed45_1280.jpg)
President Obama with Judge Merrick B. Garland before announcing his nomination to the Supreme Court at the White House, March 16, 2016. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
How do you get the Democratic base fired up about nominating a moderate white man in his 60s to the Supreme Court?
The progressive groups leading the charge in support of Merrick Garland’s nomination think they’ve found the answer. In social media blasts and in-person calls to action around the country, they are casting Republicans’ near-unanimous refusal to consider President Obama’s nominee as part of a history of disrespect and disdain shown to the president — a disrespect that is racially motivated.
“I talk to black audiences, and I say, look, this is part of a larger pattern of disrespect,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which is part of the push to get Garland a hearing. “It goes back to when Speaker [Mitch] McConnell says we’re going to make him a one-term president. You have someone like Rep. Joe Wilson [R-S.C.] saying, ‘You lie.’ You have [former Arizona Gov.] Jan Brewer shaking her finger in his face. These are signs of disrespect that would have never been justified with another president. Race is a factor.”
After Antonin Scalia died last month, civil rights groups and members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the president to nominate a black woman to the court — a historic pick that would have rallied women of color to the cause. When the president took another, less barrier-breaking route, it was unclear whether the left would be as enthusiastic about fighting the inevitable Republican opposition to his choice.
The Democrats vying to replace Obama have seemed lukewarm about his pick. Sen. Bernie Sanders has said he would rather choose his own justice if elected, noting that there are “more progressive judges out there.” Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has been buoyed by support from women of color, dodged a question on Monday about whether she’d keep Garland as her nominee if she were elected and his nomination was still pending. (Asked if he was a good choice, she said he has a “tremendous reputation.”)
But one way to motivate the Democratic base is to point out that Republicans are disrespecting the president — who remains incredibly popular with Democrats — by refusing to even consider his pick. The progressive groups have coalesced around the message “Do your job,” and they emphasize that if Republicans refuse to bring up the nomination, it will be the first time a Supreme Court nominee has ever not been given a vote.
Henderson tells audiences: “He’s the 44th president, not three-fifths of a president.”
“Our members care about Obama as a president and his presidency a great deal,” said Jo Comerford, a campaign director for the progressive grassroots organization MoveOn. “We’ve used the ‘disrespect’ language in our communications to our members because of their loyalty.” Comerford said the GOP opposition to the president is seen by many MoveOn members as an attempt “to undermine his authority and his presidency.”
“It is flagrantly disrespectful, and it is new in the sense that we’ve never seen this kind of rank knee-jerk obstruction to a nominee,” said Stephen Spaulding, legal director of the nonpartisan Common Cause, a nonprofit that promotes accountable government and is also part of the coalition.
MoveOn and the other groups fighting for Garland’s hearing flew airplanes trailing “Do Your Job” banners over several senators’ hometowns as they returned for a two-week recess earlier this week. They plan on meeting senators with demonstrations when they return to the Capitol, as well.
It’s unclear if all the pressure will work. So far, Repubican Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and Jerry Moran of Kansas have broken with party leadership and said they believe Garland should be granted a hearing. Several other Republican senators, including Pat Toomey of Pennsylania and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, have said they would meet with Garland as a courtesy but that they don’t believe the Senate should even consider him.
The right is, if anything, more fired up than the left. The National Rifle Association, in particular, is lobbying hard against giving Garland a vote. And as the Washington Post pointed out Thursday, only two people showed up to one of the planned protests against Republican Sen. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. Inside the event, Johnson offered a personal “guarantee” to his supporters that he would not allow Garland to be elected, eliciting the loudest cheers of the night.
“A lot of people say, ‘Do your job.’ You know what? I’m doing my job!” Johnson said. “We need somebody that can replace Scalia.”
Some Sanders supporters say it’s ‘Bernie or Bust’ and they will never vote for Hillary Clintonhttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/some-sanders-supporters-say-its-bernie-or-bust-155205844.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/some-sanders-supporters-say-its-bernie-or-bust-155205844.html)
Yahoo News
Hunter Walker National Correspondent March 26, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/IZPHdBp17qMd4UY942pS6Q--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/bc7cea8c98b14ec71897a8e474ff14c5/tumblr_inline_o4nlbbMXJ11tedrp5_1280.jpg)
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders greets his supporters at a rally at Key Arena in Seattle, March 20, 2016. (Photo: David Ryder/Reuters)
Bernie Sanders has dubbed his presidential campaign a “political revolution,” but some of his supporters are rebelling against the very party he is hoping to lead.
A voluble group of die-hard Sanders backers is vowing online that it’s “Bernie or Bust,” saying they will never support his presidential primary opponent — and, at this point, likely Democratic nominee — Hillary Clinton.
Nearly two months after voting began in the Democratic primary, Clinton has racked up a lead among pledged party delegates that makes a Sanders victory increasingly implausible. In seeming recognition of this mathematical challenge and the need to begin aiming fire outside the party, Sanders in recent weeks has pivoted away from Clinton and toward Republican frontrunner Donald [Sleezebag]. Yet at the same time Sanders is making the case that he’s actually more electable in a matchup with [Sleezebag], he has also started talking about the circumstances under which he would endorse Clinton. His senior adviser, Tad Devine, has even suggested that Sanders would consider serving as Clinton’s running mate.
Despite these glimmers of reconciliation with his rival, Sanders may have unleashed a rebellion that will be beyond his power to control when it comes time to unify the party. Some “Bernie or Bust” stalwarts say they won’t back Clinton even if Sanders joins her ticket.
After Clinton’s string of victories in the first weeks of March, this weekend begins a stretch of the primary calendar that’s expected to kick off with wins for Sanders on Saturday in the Alaska, Washington state and Hawaii caucuses. This momentum means there’s little reason for some Sanders backers to reconsider their primary season passions anytime soon.
Russ Belville is an Internet radio host and marijuana legalization advocate based in Portland, Ore. In late February, he wrote a column for the Huffington Post laying out the bones of the “Bernie or Bust” position. In a conversation with Yahoo News earlier this month, Belville said Clinton couldn’t get his vote even by joining forces with Sanders.
“If Bernie Sanders were to accept a vice presidential bid from Hillary Clinton, it would so disillusion me to the integrity of Bernie Sanders that I don’t know what I would do. I can’t even conceive of him accepting that offer,” Belville said.
James Scolari, a photographer in Los Angeles, echoed that view.
“I would never vote for Hillary Clinton, and, God, I hope Sanders wouldn’t serve as her running mate,” Scolari said. “I don’t believe he would.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/pWxFidDK_sO5NY3kN6SMLQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/c826951b8e8d3d690aca4951239ef4c0/tumblr_inline_o4nl9utvVt1tedrp5_1280.jpg)
A lady has her picture taken with a poster at a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I- Vt., Wednesday, March 23, 2016, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Michael Owen Baker)
Clinton’s campaign declined to comment on this story. The “Bernie or Bust” voters who spoke with Yahoo News cited several areas where they view Clinton’s policies as insufficiently progressive, including her stance on military intervention in the Middle East, fracking, the minimum wage, Wall Street regulation and campaign finance reform. They also pointed to instances where she has changed her positions, such as on gay marriage, the Keystone pipeline and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
“I just can’t see myself voting for someone that’s a warmongering person,” cinematographer Andy Kirn of Los Angeles said of Clinton. “There are certain things about Clinton that are so unsavory and so undesirable that I can’t see myself legitimizing that with a vote, and I don’t think I’m alone there.”
Belville argues that Clinton is a “Rockefeller Republican” in Democratic clothing. “I have longed for the return of moderate Republicans, just not in the Democratic Party,” Belville told Yahoo News. “I think my basic objection is: I’m on the left. I’d like there to be a party that represents me.”
Michael Moore, a 36-year-old Iowan who volunteered for Sanders in his home state and neighboring Nebraska, said he won’t vote for Clinton if she’s the party’s nominee.
“She has always embodied whatever was most politically expedient at the moment, and she has come very clearly on the … neoliberal corpus of hawkish foreign policy and pro-corporate policies that very often harm individual Americans,” Moore said.
Data compiled by Twitter for Yahoo News shows there were about 110,000 total tweets sent with the #bernieorbust hashtag in the month from Feb. 8 and March 8. The number of messages peaked on Feb. 28, the day Clinton began to pull ahead with a huge win in South Carolina’s Democratic primary. A search on Facebook showed that as of Friday afternoon, there were about 100,000 conversations with the #bernieorbust hashtag on that site.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/lLU5_f6BxSAUYtZk4Xn42g--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/6e4357fb713bb3e380f1a0b645238a50/tumblr_inline_o4nlcpOkYX1tedrp5_1280.jpg)
A child holds a sign supporting Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., while awaiting his arrival at the San Diego Convention Center Tuesday, March 22, 2016. (AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi)
“Bernie or Bust” is not a position Sanders would want his supporters to take, says liberal radio talk show host and author Bill Press, a longtime ally of Sanders’ who hosted an early strategy meeting for Sanders’ campaign at his home in Washington, D.C.
“I do not belong in that camp. … I don’t think Bernie belongs in that camp. I haven’t talked to him about it, but I’m pretty sure he does not belong in that camp,” Press told Yahoo News. “He told me early on, the first time we talked about the possibility that he might run for president, that … if he’s not the nominee, he would do nothing to hurt the … Democratic nominee’s chances. He would do nothing, in other words, that might help a Republican get the White House.”
Sanders is not exactly a part of the mainstream Democratic establishment. For more than two decades in Congress, Sanders identified as an independent, though he generally voted with Democrats. He only officially registered as a member of the party last year after announcing his presidential bid. Naturally, many of Sanders’ supporters are independent voters rather than party stalwarts, as well.
Press is similarly distant from the party establishment. Last month, he published a book that made the case that President Obama “let progressives down.” The back cover featured an admiring blurb from Sanders. Nevertheless, Press is adamant that his fellow liberal Sanders supporters should back Clinton if she manages to win the primary.
“Just to make it clear, I’m for Bernie. If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, in a New York heartbeat I’m for Hillary, enthusiastically. Enthusiastically!” said Press, repeating himself for emphasis.
Press argued there is “too much at stake” for progressives to war among themselves and potentially aid a Republican candidate. Indeed, “Bernie or Bust” has generated backlash from liberals who believe the phenomenon could benefit the GOP. This criticism has been particularly fierce since Donald [Sleezebag] is currently leading the Republican pack and many Democrats view him as an especially dangerous candidate.
However, many of the “Bernie or Bust” voters who spoke to Yahoo News are undeterred by the prospect of a [Sleezebag] presidency. Matt Rogina, an assistant chef’s instructor in California, said he’s more concerned about sending a message to the Democratic leadership.
“If it hands the election to Donald [Sleezebag], that is the direct fault of the Democratic national party. They’re the ones that have set the policy, they’re the establishment, they’re the status quo that we’re tired of,” Rogina explained. “We’re tired of them pretty much being another corporate party, being a ‘Republican light’ party.”
Belville, the radio host who wrote the “Bernie or Bust” column, argued that electing Clinton could cement American politics in a “far right/center right” state. Though he acknowledged [Sleezebag] could “do some dastardly things” in office, Belville believes those problems “would open up a lot of people’s minds to more progressive solutions” and move the country to the left.
Moore, the Sanders campaign volunteer from Iowa, is also unconcerned about the possibility he could help the GOP by hewing to “Bernie or Bust.”
“I’m not given to voting based on fear,” said Moore. “I believe that the two parties have, through the use of this fear of the other side, brought us to where we are today, where they throw up horrible candidates who are part of the oligarchic system, basically just two sides of the same coin.”
Scolari, the photographer, took things a step further. He said he plans to vote for [Sleezebag] if Sanders bows out.
“To me, ‘Bernie or Bust’ means I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. And if that means I get a President [Sleezebag], I feel like he’ll be farther left than she would be anyway,” Scolari said. “At least he’s a Beltway outsider. … He’s a lunatic, but I think he’s probably going to be pretty easily handled by a professional Cabinet.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/tyH7cD3CkfLwt.EZTfWTIA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://41.media.tumblr.com/c940d471c00f3527d087cc9b662e378e/tumblr_inline_o4nledhUzI1tedrp5_1280.jpg)
Supporters wave signs as Bernie Sanders speaks during a campaign rally at West High School on March 21, 2016, in Salt Lake City. (Photo: George Frey/Getty Images)
Primary season divisions leading to vows to never back the opponent are neither unprecedented nor restricted to Democrats. Some conservatives are currently rallying around a #nevertrump hashtag and declaring their plans to refuse to back the Republican frontrunner. And when Clinton lost the Democratic presidential primary to Obama in 2008, some of her supporters promised not to back the future president. These Clinton loyalists called themselves PUMAs, an acronym for “Party Unity My Ass.”
Obama survived the PUMA rebellion — and data shows Clinton’s standing within the party is similar to what his was at this point during the 2008 election.
A Bloomberg/L.A. Times poll from February 2008 showed that Obama had a net favorability of 78 percent among Democrats while just 13 percent viewed him unfavorably. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Tuesday found that Clinton has a nearly identical net favorability of 74 percent among Democrats. While her net unfavorability was 25 percent, higher than Obama’s, she has universal name recognition among Democrats. In 2008, about 10 percent of party members said they had not heard of Obama or did not know enough to have an opinion.
Press cited his experience in a past liberal primary rebellion as evidence of why he won’t vote “Bernie or Bust.”
“My very first political campaign was 1968, [Eugene] McCarthy for president. … When McCarthy was denied the nomination and it went to Hubert Humphrey … a whole bunch of us, we all boycotted the election,” Press recounted. “We didn’t vote for Humphrey. … And so what did we get? We got Richard Nixon. Lesson learned.”
Though he disagrees with the “Bernie or Bust” strategy, Press said he understands the sentiment behind it.
“We have two centrist parties right now, and the Democratic Party has become — not as much as the Republicans — but very much the party of corporate America and Wall Street,” said Press, adding, “I think Bernie’s mission is to win the presidency but also to push the progressive agenda and get the Democratic Party to adopt the progressive agenda.”
Indeed, all of the “Bernie or Bust” voters who talked to Yahoo News said they voted for Obama in 2008 and were disappointed when his administration was not sufficiently progressive.
“I voted for him twice, and I respect the man, and I think he was in some ways a splendid president, but he didn’t end the Bush doctrine and the terrible war on terror,” Scolari said of Obama. “In fact, he expanded drone warfare in a way I find shameful and shocking. … He didn’t get Guantánamo closed.”
Kirn, the cinematographer, said he was aiming for someone like Sanders when he voted for Obama in 2008.
“We were thinking we were getting what Bernie is,” Kirn said. “Well, he didn’t follow through.”
Moore, the Sanders campaign volunteer, said he has been drawn to a more activist approach since voting for Obama. That attracted him to Sanders — and it’s also why he won’t follow along if Sanders lines up behind Clinton.
“In the process of going from 2008 to the present, I’ve kind of come into the revolution that was part of the Occupy movement and is now being embodied in the Bernie Sanders campaign,” Moore explained. “But that revolution isn’t Bernie’s revolution. He is just the current battle in the revolution, and if he doesn’t stand with the revolution, then I have no reason to support him.”
President Barack Obama on Monday laid some of the blame for the tone of the presidential campaign on political journalism that has been pinched by shrinking newsroom budgets and cheapened by a focus on retweets and likes on social media.
In a speech to a journalism awards dinner, Obama urged journalists to ask tougher questions of the candidates vying to be president. He voiced dismay over the vulgar rhetoric, violence at rallies and unrealistic campaign pledges that have continually grabbed headlines, in a thinly veiled reference to Republican front-runner Donald [Sleezebag].
"The number one question I'm getting as I travel around the world or talk to world leaders right now is, 'What is happening in America?' about our politics," Obama said, describing international alarm over whether the United States will continue to function effectively.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
"It's not because around the world people have not seen crazy politics. It is that they understand America is the place where you can't afford completely crazy politics," he said.
"When our elected officials and our political campaigns become entirely untethered to reason and facts and analysis, when it doesn't matter what's true and what's not, that makes it all but impossible for us to make good decisions on behalf of future generations," Obama said.
He said the media landscape has changed since his first presidential campaign in 2008, when "there was a price if you said one thing and then did something completely different.
"The question is, in the current media environment, is that still true? Does that still hold?" he said.
He said news organizations have a responsibility to dig deeper despite the faster pace of "this smartphone age" and steep financial pressures in the news business.
Voters "would be better served if billions of dollars in free media came with serious accountability, especially when politicians issue unworkable plans or make promises they can't keep," Obama said.
The New York Times earlier this month reported that [Sleezebag] has so far earned almost $1.9 billion worth of media coverage, compared with $313 million for the next closest Republican challenger, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and $746 million for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
(Reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Leslie Adler)
It's going to take time to whittle down T rump.
His negatives are too well known for harping on them to work, but people hate politicians THAT MUCH. Thus far the "campaign" has played PERFECTLY to that, too. YOU CAN'T GO NEGATIVE ON T rump. Why? BECAUSE he's so polarizing. Thus far, all the candidates that have attacked him have targetted his well known negatives, which just plays fully into his hands because he has a ready made "that's because I'm not a politician/I'm not politically correct/ the system is broken" answer, and IT WORKS.
Last night, questions directed his way were PURPOSELY focused on the apparent negatives he has. And, while I THINK this is attempting to be done to make the public wake up to the fact he has no chance in hell on a national stage, it's NOT how to tackle him in the primaries when the average Joe is going on name recognition and sound bites.
Maybe I'm just THAT pessimistic in thinking the public is inherently stupid, but that's my stance.
You want to take down T rump, you gotta stump him on the actual issues that he is in no way ready to handle. One of the smartest things Kasich did that I saw (before I took Talia shopping for a skirt) was to NOT dismiss T rump out of hand over the boarder issues like other candidates did (or attack him on it, that's a losing proposition), but rather acknowledge T rump has struck a chord, but there are other solutions than just his sound bite answers.
It's going to take time to whittle down T rump.
His negatives are too well known for harping on them to work, but people hate politicians THAT MUCH. Thus far the "campaign" has played PERFECTLY to that, too. YOU CAN'T GO NEGATIVE ON T rump. Why? BECAUSE he's so polarizing. Thus far, all the candidates that have attacked him have targetted his well known negatives, which just plays fully into his hands because he has a ready made "that's because I'm not a politician/I'm not politically correct/ the system is broken" answer, and IT WORKS.
Last night, questions directed his way were PURPOSELY focused on the apparent negatives he has. And, while I THINK this is attempting to be done to make the public wake up to the fact he has no chance in hell on a national stage, it's NOT how to tackle him in the primaries when the average Joe is going on name recognition and sound bites.
Maybe I'm just THAT pessimistic in thinking the public is inherently stupid, but that's my stance.
You want to take down T rump, you gotta stump him on the actual issues that he is in no way ready to handle. One of the smartest things Kasich did that I saw (before I took Talia shopping for a skirt) was to NOT dismiss T rump out of hand over the boarder issues like other candidates did (or attack him on it, that's a losing proposition), but rather acknowledge T rump has struck a chord, but there are other solutions than just his sound bite answers.
QUOTED FOR PRECIENCE.
I was looking for that quote, because I often think of the gist of it.
Somebody should have listened to Uno and paid him a consulting fee.
It appears that T rump made comments that unnerved U.S. Allies on the Nuclear Security Council. President Obama responded with statements that reassured our allies on the Nuclear Security Council about T rump's lack of foreign policy experience.
It appears that T rump made comments that unnerved U.S. Allies on the Nuclear Security Council. President Obama responded with statements that reassured our allies on the Nuclear Security Council about T rump's lack of foreign policy experience.
I cannot adequately articulate how utterly wrong the remarks he made were on that front, and wish someone would really call him to task on them. (caveat, I've seen absolutely no news since Friday, and unlikely to for a week)
North Carolina shows GOP split extends to states, toohttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0402/North-Carolina-shows-GOP-split-extends-to-states-too (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0402/North-Carolina-shows-GOP-split-extends-to-states-too)
Political shifts in thought Republican factionalism is now playing out in states where LGBT rights vs. religious liberty is the new flashpoint.
The Christian Science Monitor
By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer April 2, 2016
(http://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2016/04/973813_1_Charlotte%2C%20N.C.%20LBGT%20rights%20protest_standard.jpg?alias=standard_600x400)
Demonstrators protesting passage of legislation limiting bathroom access for transgender people stand in front of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center in Charlotte, N.C., Thursday, March 31, 2016. Approximately 100 people gathered for the rally, many chanting and carrying signs. (AP Photos/Skip Foreman)
Atlanta — In North Carolina, a bakery, a Christian bookstore, and a packaging company have put their names on a letter of support for a new law that bars transgender people from any bathroom where the stick figure sign doesn’t match their birth gender.
Threatening to boycott the state over the same law? Google, Apple, and Fox.
For many socially conservative Americans, it’s a little like David vs. Goliath, pitting the giants of commerce against the will of the regular people – or at least their representatives.
Yet after signing the bill late last month, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory faces mounting pressure to tweak or repeal the law – or face a blow to the state’s economy. Proponents say a majority of North Carolinians don’t care; they say allowing transgender people to choose which bathroom they want to use “defies common sense,” as Governor McCrory put it.
The new law stands as a major victory for Evangelicals and social conservatives in the wake of the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage last summer. It shows how, in the words of Jane Robbins of the American Principles Project, matters of faith can thwart “corporate bullies” demanding that Christians set aside fundamental values in the name of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights.
But longer-term, political scientists say, the pressure cooker in North Carolina suggests that national fractures within the GOP are not limited to the presidential race or within Congress. They are increasingly playing out in states, too, where the party seems at war with itself over matters of faith and business, of trade and entitlements. The quandary for Republicans is to what degree such fundamental disagreements are irreconcilable.
“The factionalism within the Republican party that we are seeing in national politics is beginning to play out within some states,” says Richard Fording, chair of the political science department at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
The state flash points are quickly mounting:
•On Monday, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R), who is not facing reelection, vetoed a religious liberty bill, saying his state did not need to “discriminate” against anyone. While the veto reassured those sensitive to LGBT rights, it alienated much of Governor Deal’s evangelical base, shaking his working relationship with Republican lawmakers.
•South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard, also a Republican, recently vetoed a bill requiring schools to enforce a “gender-at-birth-only” bathroom rule.
•Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslaam has slowed the movement of a bill very similar to the one in North Carolina. Governor Haslaam is a firmly pro-business Republican.
•This coming week, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant will decide whether to sign a new religious liberty bill. It's been described as the most radical religious freedom bill in the country, protecting from government sanctions anyone who refuses to serve LGBT people on the basis of religious beliefs. Gov. Bryant has said he sees no discriminatory intent.
In these cases, last year’s Supreme Court decision is playing a role, unleashing deeply held passions.
But the internecine statehouse battles also highlight other divides exposed by the candidacy of Donald T rump, whose attacks on banks and trade deals run contrary to long time pro-business, low-tax orthodoxy within the Republican Party.
Citing factional warfare on issues ranging from trade, foreign policy, entitlements and social issues, “the legislative battles … in state capitals across the country underscore the unusual level of disarray in a party that traditionally strives for order,” writes James Hohmann in The Washington Post.
North Carolina has emerged as a key battleground of ideas. After a list of boycott threats have grown and states and cities have begun issuing travel bans to North Carolina, McCrory faces a fundamental decision. He faces reelection this year and his opponent, Roy Cooper, is a Democrat who has called the law a “national embarrassment.” As another sign of how sensitive the issue is, the usually loquacious state Chamber of Commerce has remained mum.
The stakes are high. Google's investment chief has asked his employees to flag any venture capital ideas out of North Carolina. The state may even lose federal highway funding since the law contradicts federal guidelines.
On the other side, the success in passing a transgender bathroom bill in North Carolina has if anything emboldened social conservatives, including important voters that McCrory needs to win reelection.
It also comes as a group called First Liberty documented what it says are a spike in attacks on religious liberty at schools, in courts, in the public square, and in churches themselves.
Moves by social conservatives mainly in the South to push back against LGBT rights "is what the LGBT political machine has wrought ... they have to own up to that reality," William Perkins, editor of the Baptist Record in Mississippi, told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger this week.
Part of the looming problem for the party is that conservatives may be running out of room for compromise between the factions that Ronald Reagan famously called a “three-legged stool”: religious conservatives, national security conservatives, and economic conservatives.
In Georgia, lawmakers agreed to water down a more strongly-worded bill to exclude businesses from being allowed to reject gay people. But Deal vetoed it anyway, saying that there is no place in Georgia for discrimination.
That language, wrote conservative commentator Erick Erickson, essentially suggested that compromise on that issue is now off the table.
From the other angle, the focus by statehouse conservatives on curbing LGBT rights runs counter to a major partywide post mortem by Republicans after Mitt Romney lost to a vulnerable President Obama in 2012. One conclusion: Steer the party away from polarizing social issues.
What’s more, corporations, which have grown increasingly willing to take stands on social issues in order to attract values-conscious shoppers, have also been emboldened by the Citizens United ruling, which gave moneyed interests new levers to influence popular opinion.
Ralph Reed, the chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, told The Washington Post that probusiness and social conservatives are talking past each other on the fundamentals at hand, only compounding the disconnect.
His message to Republicans: Stop shouting so you can hear each other talk. The choice between money and morality is a myth. “The faith community needs to be clearer about what its objectives are, and some in the business community need to stop mischaracterizing what the legislation actually does,” he said.
Incidentally, I cannot help feeling profoundly hostile to the Mayor of San Francisco, Big Brother Google and the federal Department of Transportation thinking they've got any business telling my state to stop being so retarded - and ashamed that so much of the push-back has to come from outsiders.The power of the government to control power within the states originates from the distribution of catergorical grants and formula grants. The government can attach specific stipulations on the creation of grants that provide a significant portion of the funding for states activities. The non-compliance of the state with the federal guidelines results in the elimination of funds for the state.
-This is a stupid hill for anyone involved to choose to die on, BTW - it's a big, big deal over a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. The smart play would be to have the big fights over something not so desperately fringe; it's a classic progressive blunder - and swiftly becoming a classic social conservative blunder.
I'm thinking - look at what I said a long time ago about becoming President would mean giving up control of his business; either whomever runs it does a bad job and loses him money, perhaps all the money, or does well and becomes a rival, perhaps keeping control for good - then look at the superpac lady saying it was never a real campaign. I don't think I'm reaching wildly to wonder if he's finally found his exit strategy.I do not think Donald T rump acts like a great businessman because he inherited a significant portion of the wealth from his father.
If Bernie says what he is thinking (and I have no reason to not believe), he's nuts.Wouldn't it be great if he was the worst candidate for President?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/04/05/bernie_sanders_is_the_developing_world_s_worst_nightmare.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/04/05/bernie_sanders_is_the_developing_world_s_worst_nightmare.html)
Sanders keeps on winning — and losinghttps://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-keeps-on-winning-and-losing-023956134.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-keeps-on-winning-and-losing-023956134.html)
Yahoo News
Hunter Walker National Correspondent April 05, 2016
Sen. Bernie Sanders is on a roll.
Sanders was projected the winner in Wisconsin’s Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday night. It was his sixth victory in the last seven states. Sanders also won the primary for Democrats living abroad, which was announced on March 21. However, he still faces an uphill battle against his rival, Hillary Clinton.
While Sanders has performed well in the Midwest and Western states, Clinton’s earlier dominance, particularly in the South, has given her a delegate lead that her campaign has dubbed “nearly insurmountable.”
In spite of the long odds, Sanders and his campaign believe his current momentum can propel him across the finish line. In a fundraising email to supporters shortly after media outlets first projected his victory, Sanders noted the pessimistic forecasts many political observers have made for his campaign.
“The corporate media and political establishment keep counting us out, but we keep winning states and doing so by large margins. If we can keep this up, we’re going to shock them all and win this nomination,” Sanders said.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/NtfkgJEUa_iyZyHwGyWGGQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDU0OA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/76054bb5c49db596c74f2671c7a8f0f6)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who won the Democratic presidential primary in Wisconsin on Tuesday, gestures to supporters during a campaign rally in Laramie, Wyo. (Photo: Brennan Linsley/AP)
Wisconsin, with its large college population and tradition of progressive politics, has long been seen as fertile ground for Sanders. Most polls in the state showed him with a single-digit lead over Clinton heading into Tuesday’s election. However, Clinton’s existing lead and the fact that the state awards delegates by congressional district means Sanders will have to win by a much larger margin to make a dent in Clinton’s pledged delegate lead.
Whatever his margin of victory, his recent streak culminating with the win in Wisconsin certainly gives Sanders strong momentum heading into Wyoming’s caucuses on Saturday and the delegate-rich primary in New York on April 19. But the battle for the Democratic nomination won’t just be about the voters and the pledged delegates who are awarded based on ballots cast.
Indeed, momentum was the main theme of the victory speech Sanders delivered from an event in Laramie, Wyo., on Tuesday night. Sanders said the fact he had emerged as a serious challenger to Clinton after being behind in the polls and dismissed by many pundits demonstrates the true strength of his campaign. He also pointed to the fact that he has managed to build a substantial war chest without the help of super-PACs, which allow wealthy megadonors to back campaigns.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/uSne02epTzAxIRDyrtkRAA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDI1OA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/542fd869372f74acec39114ed5471aa1)
Supporters cheer while waiting for Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally in Laramie, Wyo., on Tuesday. (Photo: Brennan Linsley/AP)
“What momentum is about is my belief that if we wake up the American people, that if working people, and middle-class people, and senior citizens, and young people begin to stand up, fight back and come out and vote in large numbers, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish,” Sanders said.
Clinton attended a private fundraiser in New York City on Tuesday night and is not likely to make a public address.
Clinton has amassed a massive lead among Democratic superdelegates, who are not bound to vote at the party’s convention based on the results of their states’ primaries. Sanders and his campaign are hoping his recent wins can help convince some of these superdelegates to change sides. His team and supporters are lobbying superdelegates, particularly in states where he won decisive victories over Clinton, and arguing it would be undemocratic for them to go against the will of the electorate.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/ZA0ZMzRKlthaKLvkcJ3J.A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDI0Nw--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/d712d92a61936a9971d4e78990db8378)
Hillary Clinton takes a selfie with a supporter after speaking at a “Women for Hillary” town hall event in the New York City borough of Brooklyn on Tuesday. (Photo: Lucas Jackson/Reuters)
Former President Bill Clinton, who is a superdelegate in New York, has been hitting the campaign trail in support of his wife. At an event in Elmont, N.Y., on Tuesday morning, Yahoo News asked President Clinton about the superdelegate system and the frequently voiced criticism that it is unfair. Though he answered questions from reporters after a similar event in New York City last Thursday, Clinton was somewhat less forthcoming when Yahoo News asked about his role as a superdelegate.
“I don’t answer questions on a rope line, but I got a good answer for you,” President Clinton said. And then he moved on.
Sanders has edge over Clinton in fast-moving race in Wisconsinhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-has-edge-over-clinton-in-fast-moving-race-125904000.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-has-edge-over-clinton-in-fast-moving-race-125904000.html)
Yahoo News
Hunter Walker and Liz Goodwin April 05, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/usVYRmB2x444Vk4FrW8JOw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/63b3d947e2c30eb3d6be0bd340034d6c)
Sen. Bernie Sanders arrives for a campaign event in Milwaukee on Monday; Hillary Clinton speaks during a rally in Green Bay, Wis., on March 29. (Photos: Paul Sancya/AP; Patrick Semansky/AP)
Wisconsin has been a fast and furious fight for the Democratic presidential candidates. Both Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., set up operations in the crucial state, which votes Tuesday, only in the last few weeks.
Most polls show Sanders with a single-digit lead in the race for Wisconsin’s 86 delegates. The Midwestern state, could now serve as a springboard for Sanders, building on a three-week hot streak since March 15, during which he has won five states and lost only one.
But the Badger State might not be the answer to the senator’s prayers. Clinton’s current delegate lead means Sanders would need a huge win in the state — and in several more going forward — to threaten the frontrunner. But the favorable poll numbers have Sanders’ campaign aides hoping to build on the recent momentum as they seek to keep Clinton from clinching the nomination.
Clinton’s campaign is keeping expectations low for the state. On Monday, her team sent a fundraising email with the subject line “We could lose Wisconsin.” Clinton’s presidential campaign manager Robby Mook sent out a memo outlining her “path forward.” The memo cited Clinton’s current delegate lead and noted Sanders cannot defeat her without winning “roughly 60 percent of the vote” in “the four remaining delegate-rich primaries — New York, Pennsylvania, California, and New Jersey.” Mook didn’t mention Wisconsin.
Sanders has performed well in the Midwest, but so far those victories have not been enough for him to catch up to the lead Clinton built in the South and with minority voters. And Tuesday’s contest doesn’t look to be a blowout win for the Vermont senator.
Wisconsin’s progressives have been drawn to Sanders, particularly in liberal Madison, the second largest city in the state.
“He does well in Madison, he obviously does really well,” Jessie Opoien, a reporter who covers state government and politics for the Madison-based Cap Times, said. “He also does really well in the western part of the state, which is sort of that more traditional, progressive grassroots, kind of populist sensibility.”
While Wisconsin’s electorate may favor Sanders, local leaders are largely backing Clinton.
“I think people expect Bernie to pull it out … but there’s also a sense that, either one, it wouldn’t be a huge surprise,” Opoien said. “She’s got the establishment support. There’s no question of that.”
Sanders’ recent wins made Wisconsin an unexpectedly important race, leading both campaigns to set up shop in a state they had largely overlooked. Joe Zepecki, a Democratic operative who is a veteran of many campaigns in the state, including President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election bid, said the fight for Wisconsin was “certainly not a months-long campaign.” Zepecki, who is not working for either of the current Democratic campaigns, said Clinton’s team set up shop “a couple of days” after Sanders’ did.
Sanders’ Wisconsin director Robert Dempsey, who ran the show for the campaign in Minnesota as well, said the staff campaign effort in the state started about a month ago, and has focused on "very aggressive direct voter contact” through door-to-door canvassing and phone calls.
“We are reaching out to Wisconsinites across the spectrum,” Dempsey said, including members of the state’s Native American population, who are “very important for our overall strategy.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/x6s.Y7Qg1iOZjc0EdjSGfA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/d1b3257d7fc54b737deef8438def4094)
Wisconsin voters in Milwaukee cast their ballots for the state’s primary on Tuesday. (Photo: Charles Rex Arbogast/AP)
He adds that although the campaign has only been in Wisconsin for a month, there was “a pretty aggressive volunteer base operation” in place for months before his arrival.
Opoien agrees, noting that grassroots Sanders supporters have been mobilizing in Wisconsin for months now. She recalled seeing groups of Sanders supporters last September at “Fighting Bob Fest,” an annual progressive activist gathering in the state.
“There were three or four different Bernie Sanders groups with tables there,” Opoien said of the festival.
Clinton’s campaign would not comment directly on its strategy, but Clinton’s Wisconsin spokesman, Yianni Varonis, said her team has offices in seven cities across the state. Varonis said in a statement that Clinton has “a nearly insurmountable lead in pledged delegates” in the race overall but remains “committed” to Wisconsin.
Clinton’s team includes operatives with deep experience in the state.
The Clinton campaign in Wisconsin is run by Jake Hajdu, who was the executive director of the state’s Democratic party until last year and has extensive experience getting out the vote for Democrats in Wisconsin. Hajdu returned to Wisconsin after working for Clinton in Iowa and Maine.
“Having him come back here made sense for them obviously to get stuff rolling quickly,” Opoien said, adding, “She’s got a couple of other folks working for her that have been involved in party politics here.”
One possible wild-card factor is Wisconsin’s open-primary rules, which allow people from outside the party to vote in the race.
“We’re an open state,” Zepecki says. “There’s no registration by party. You don’t even pick a different ballot up. Both races are listed on the same ballot.”
But voters have to choose which primary they will vote in. In states that have voted so far, Sanders has done well with independents and in open primaries. Zepecki said Wisconsin may be decided by how many independents choose to vote on the Democratic side of the ballot. It could spell trouble for Sanders if the chance to vote for — or against — Donald T rump lures independents to vote in the Republican primary instead.
“The only way I could envision a surprise, and that’s how I would characterize Clinton winning here, is if the independents go over to the Republican side,” Zepecki said.
Another Wisconsin law that could impact the Democratic primary is a voter ID law that passed in the state in 2011 and has not yet been in place during a presidential race. Zepecki said the law could affect a key Sanders’ base — college kids.
“If there is confusion and people … are disenfranchised I think it’s likely to be on college campuses,” Zepecki said. But “I think the order of magnitude is likely to be pretty small,” he added. “I think the universities have done all they can to educate folks and help them get what they need, but it has been a little confusing.”
Sanders’ campaign has also tried to educate Wisconsinites on the new voter ID law, explaining to them that they must show up with a photo ID with their current address on it or some other proof of their residency. Sanders has called the law “voter suppression,” and Clinton has also denounced it.
Dane County and its major city, the college town of Madison, is the main base of support for Sanders, but Dempsey said they have worked to drum up support across the state to win as many delegates as possible. Delegates will be awarded in each of Wisconsin’s eight congressional tickets rather than simply based on the total number of votes.
“If we were running a governor’s race we’d look to jack up turnout in Madison and then we go home. That’s not how this works,” Dempsey said.
But the delegate math could prove problematic for Sanders unless he performs far better than his promising poll numbers. Zepecki pointed to 2008 where President Barack Obama won just ten more delegates than Clinton in the state, despite beating her by a statewide margin of 18 percent. So, while Zepecki said a “five or six point victory” for Sanders is “expected,” he doubted it would change the daunting delegate math for him.
“A horse-race win has always been nice in terms of momentum, but I’m not sure that the way the state sets up he’s going to be able to get a big delegate haul,” Zepecki said.
Watch CNN and NY1's Democratic debate, moderated by Wolf Blitzer, Thursday, April 14 at 9 p.m. ET.
Washington (CNN) — Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton is not "qualified" to be president, a sharp escalation in rhetoric in the Democratic primary.
"Secretary Clinton appears to be getting a little bit nervous," he told a crowd in Philadelphia. "And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am 'not qualified' to be president. Well, let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."
CNN has reached out to the Clinton campaign for comment, and its surrogates responded quickly on Twitter.
"Hillary Clinton did not say Bernie Sanders was 'not qualified.' But he has now - absurdly - said it about her. This is a new low," campaign spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted.
Clinton was asked Wednesday morning by MSNBC whether she thought Sanders was "ready to be president."
"I think he hadn't done his homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions," Clinton said. "Really what that goes to is for voters to ask themselves can he deliver what he's talking about."
Sanders and Clinton are barreling toward the New York primary later this month, and the duo are increasingly tangling in heated, tense campaign trail exchanges. Sanders' comments in Philadelphia were just the latest escalation in recent days. Clinton and her allies have been highlighting a recent Sanders interview with New York Daily News interview that was widely panned, suggesting it showed him unqualified for the White House.
In Philadelphia, Sanders turned that critique back on Clinton.
"I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you have supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs," he said to applause. "I don't think you are qualified if you've supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and, which as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy all over the world people to avoid paying their taxes to their countries."
Comments from the Daily News interview also drew attacks over Sanders' stance on guns from Erica Smegielski, a Clinton supporter and daughter of the Sandy Hook Elementary School principal who was killed at Newtown. Clinton highlighted the criticism by tweeting at Smegielski.
"@EricaSmegs remember, any hateful comments are just noise compared to your voice for change. With you in the fight to stop gun violence. -H" she tweeted.
The latest Quinnipiac poll of New York Democrats finds Clinton beating Sanders 54% to 42%. That survey came out March 31, several days before Sanders won the Wisconsin primary. In fact, Sanders has won seven of the last eight Democratic contests, though Clinton has a commanding lead among delegates.
In addition to a trove of delegates New York is an important symbolic contest. Sanders was born in the Empire State, and New York City has been at the center of the national political battle over income inequality -- a signature issue for the Vermont senator. But Clinton represented the state in the Senate, and her campaign headquarters is based in Brooklyn.
The two candidates will face off in a debate in New York on April 14, hosted by CNN and NY1
No link?
That's not a bad idea. They shouldn't quite so plugged into the same mass media group mind.I recently read an investigative article, for example, on al jazeera of a drug crisis in Mexico that stems from the influx of illegal drugs through the cartels. I could not find any other reference towards the story on U.S. Media outlets.
Obama says Hillary Clinton’s emails never jeopardized America’s national securityhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-fox-news-sunday-clinton-email-scandal-150010315.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-fox-news-sunday-clinton-email-scandal-150010315.html)
Yahoo News
Dylan Stableford Senior editor April 10, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/cRlQP6Bb2dlMLJZsCNV_og--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTE5NjtoPTc5NztpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://41.media.tumblr.com/51ae82086cf4b94f7c93912b4983b5cb/tumblr_inline_o5faziml4Z1tdoo3z_1280.jpg)
(Fox News Sunday)
President Obama says Hillary Clinton showed a degree of “carelessness” in using a private email server as secretary of state, but never jeopardized national security.
“I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security,” Obama told “Fox News Sunday” in a wide-ranging interview. “What I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.”
The president said that there are varying degrees of classified material being handled in the upper reaches of government.
“What I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are — there’s classified, and then there’s classified,” Obama said. “There’s stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source.”
“But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective,” he continued. “This is somebody who has served her country for four years as secretary of state and did an outstanding job.”
Obama was also asked if he could guarantee the White House will not interfere with the ongoing FBI probe into Clinton’s handling of her emails.
“I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or FBI — not just in this case, but in any case,” the president said. “Period. Full stop. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department. Because nobody is above the law.”
“I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations,” he said. “I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it.”
During the interview — his first with “Fox News Sunday” since becoming president — Obama discussed the GOP response to Judge Merrick Garland, his Supreme Court nominee.
“Originally, the Republicans said they wouldn’t meet with him at all,” Obama said. “Now a number of them have already had meetings. And the questioning that they’re having privately with Judge Garland is something that should be done publicly, through a hearings process, so the American people can make their own assessment. But I recognize there’s pressure on the other side. Our goal is just to make sure that the Senate does its job and treats him fairly.”
The president also defended his response to the recent terror attack in Brussels, dismissing critics who said he should’ve curtailed his diplomatic trip to Cuba and Argentina and returned to the United States.
“In the wake of terrorist attacks, it has been my view consistently — that the job of the terrorists, in their minds, is to induce panic, induce fear, get societies to change who they are,” Obama said. “And what I’ve tried to communicate is, ‘You can’t change us. You can kill some of us, but we will hunt you down, and we will get you.’ And in the meantime, just as we did in Boston, after the marathon bombing, we’re going to go to a ballgame.”
I find that article both hilarious and scary at the same time.
Joe Biden: "I Would Like to See a Woman Elected"
Mic
Luke Brinker, April 11, 2016
Vice President Joe Biden waded into the contentious back-and-forth between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders over Clinton's qualifications to serve as president, telling Mic in an exclusive interview that both candidates are "totally qualified" — adding that he'd "like to see a woman elected."
The remarks came during an interview with Mic correspondent Antonia Hylton centered on Biden's crusade against sexual assault, set to be released on Wednesday.
Asked whether Sanders' charge that Clinton's super PAC support and her votes for free trade agreements and the Iraq War rendered her unqualified represented another manifestation of sexism, Biden responded with an emphatic "no."
Sanders' remarks were "totally different" from the often-incendiary rhetoric espoused by Republican presidential candidate Donald T rump, Biden said.
Watch Biden's comments here:
The way the two-time presidential candidate sees it, the Democrats' war of words is par for the course in national campaigns.https://www.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-see-woman-elected-163000183.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-see-woman-elected-163000183.html)
"Look, they're both totally qualified to be president. They both get in a fight. Campaigns do this. It's like saying, you know, 'She's dead wrong' or her saying, 'He's dead wrong' on an issue," the vice president said.
Meanwhile, Biden noted, Sanders did not say Clinton is "not qualified because she's a woman."
Biden — who contemplated entering the 2016 fray himself, before opting against a bid in October — rejected the notion that Clinton is held to a higher standard because she's a woman.
"No, I don't think she's held to a higher standard. This country's ready for a woman. There's no problem. We're going to be able to elect a woman in this country," Biden said.
Asked whether he wanted to see a woman elected, Biden responded, "I would like to see a woman elected."
The vice president's staff then attempted to cut off discussion of the 2016 race, but Biden insisted he had "no problem" with discussing it — while making clear he would not go down "that rabbit [hole]" of offering a formal endorsement.
"The president and I are not going endorse because we both, when we ran said, 'Let the party decide.' But gosh almighty, they're both qualified," he said. "Hillary's overwhelmingly qualified to be president."
A complex history: Biden's remarks — simultaneously defending both Clinton and Sanders, delivering views that could conceivably irk either camp — are reflective of the larger role he's played in campaign politics since deciding against a run of his own.
Though Biden served alongside the former secretary of state in both the Senate and the Obama administration, he's leveled not-so-thinly-veiled criticism of his erstwhile colleague, including in his White House Rose Garden speech announcing his no-go decision.
In the speech, Biden railed against "the divisive partisan politics that is ripping this country apart," declaring, "I don't think we should look at Republicans as our enemies. They are our opposition. They're not our enemies." Those pointed remarks came just days after Clinton, in a Democratic debate, identified Republicans as among the enemies she was proudest of making.
Biden has also questioned Clinton's credentials as a warrior against income inequality, a signature Sanders issue.
In a January interview with CNN, Biden said it was "relatively new for Hillary to talk about" the issue, while "Bernie is speaking to a yearning that is deep and real. And he has credibility on it." Biden later walked those comments back a bit, saying he meant Clinton was a newcomer to the inequality debate because she'd been focused on global affairs as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
Are Hillary's big speaking fees being used to help fund her campaign?
Yahoo News
Michael Isikoff Chief Investigative Correspondent April 11, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/GYnj11U92vd2Z_A16gVeFQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://40.media.tumblr.com/a7909201af9f57af51ffb0f56f68dbb9/tumblr_inline_o5hl4oSZ0v1tdgnv1_1280.jpg)
Hillary Clinton with summer-camp entrepreneur and Clinton donor Jay Jacobs after her speech to some 3,000 summer-camp professionals at the Tri-State CAMP conference, March 19, 2015, in Atlantic City. (Photo: Mel Evans/AP)
Recently filed campaign finance reports may shed light on how Hillary Clinton is using some of the money she collected from her hefty speechmaking fees from Wall Street banks and other special-interest groups: She is plowing an increasingly large amount of her funds, $560,983 as of last month, back into her presidential campaign.
A Yahoo News review of Clinton’s campaign disclosure reports finds that in the weeks after launching her bid for the presidency in April 2015, the former secretary of state paid $278,821 to her campaign to cover so-called testing the waters expenses. These included consulting and legal fees, travel bills and salaries for top staffers like personal aide Huma Abedin and deputy political director Brynne Craig that were incurred during the early months of last year, when Clinton was officially weighing whether to run for president.
Since then, the reports show, Clinton has kicked another $282,162 into her campaign, with payments to her campaign committee, Hillary for America, averaging about $90,000 a month. Most of that revenue ($228,837) has gone to the Clinton Executive Services Corp., a Clinton family payroll operation that is compensating staffers engaged in campaign-related work for her chief surrogate, her husband and former president Bill Clinton, according to campaign reports and a Clinton campaign official.
The degree to which Clinton is seeking to self-fund her campaign has so far gotten virtually no attention from the media and pales in comparison to the $25 million Donald T rump has loaned his campaign.
Still, “the amount of money is striking,” said Lawrence Jacobs, the director of the Center for the Study of Politics at the Hubert Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. “It seems to be an important piece of the puzzle. One question [about Clinton’s speeches] is why she would take the risk of taking so much money from Wall Street and other interest groups. Now we see the full picture. It appears she needed some of the cash to finance her campaign.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/St3vcbKqrLArZFpBfRkotw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://40.media.tumblr.com/f3d2243e39646c16455c3757182af1ac/tumblr_inline_o5hlw49TOy1tdgnv1_1280.jpg)
Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton. (Photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)
A Clinton campaign official, who asked not to be identified, said there was “no connection whatsoever” between Clinton’s speaking fees and her later payments to her campaign committee. And campaign finance lawyers agree that Clinton, like T rump, is legally free to spend as much money as she wants on her campaign.
Clinton’s tax returns for 2014 (the last she has publicly released) show that the $10.5 million she earned from speaking fees that year — including talks to Deutsche Bank, GTCR, a Chicago private equity fund, Cisco, Xerox and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, among others — amounted to about two-thirds of her $16 million in gross personal income, with the remaining $5.5 million coming from book royalties. (Her husband reported another $9.7 million in gross income from speaking fees and $36,442 in book income.)
While Clinton’s campaign committee has raised a total of $159.9 million so far, the candidate’s own contributions make her by far the biggest source of funds, exceeding the amounts she has raised from partners and employees of major law firms like Paul Weiss ($232,684) and DLA Piper $225,363), as well as the executives and employees of major companies like Google ($224,817) and Morgan Stanley ($222,177), according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
That could prove awkward for a candidate who has portrayed herself as a campaign reformer and touted the importance of small donors in financing her candidacy. And the timing of some of Clinton’s speeches — especially when matched up against the payments to her campaign — raise questions about whether her lucrative speech fees effectively amount to a “pass through” of money from special interest groups to help bankroll her candidacy, according to Jacobs and other ethics advocates.
This would appear to be especially the case for the $1.4 million she collected for six speeches in the first three months of 2015. It was a time when the “testing the waters” period of her campaign had already begun and Clinton staffers were being hired in New Hampshire and Iowa. Campaign records show that campaign manager Robby Mook began racking up travel bills (later paid by Clinton herself) as early as Jan. 12, 2015; Abedin and Craig began doing campaign work (also later paid by Clinton) three days later. Her former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, began billing for campaign-related legal work on Feb. 2.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/q9oTIgdlU1yi1R.erJnFHA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://41.media.tumblr.com/e1087d0fe5fd040030354335ed65bebc/tumblr_inline_o5hlyb5viA1tdgnv1_1280.jpg)
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook, pictured here at a campaign office in February 2016 in Las Vegas. (Photo: Ethan Miller/Getty Images)
During this period, Clinton collected $674,500 for three speeches in Canada on Jan. 20 and 21, 2015 (one of them paid for and two of them co-sponsored by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.) On March 11, 2015, she received $315,000 for a speech to eBay employees in San Jose. That was followed by a $260,000 payment from the New York chapter of the American Camping Association for a talk in Atlantic City on March 19, her last speech before her April 12, 2015, formal announcement that she was a candidate. (Clinton began writing checks to her campaign the next day, on April 13.)
“It certainly seems like what she was doing was raising money for her campaign,” said Anne Weismann, executive director for Campaign for Accountability, a watchdog group that advocates for greater transparency in politics. “Everybody knew she was going to run at that point.”
Weismann said that under federal election rules, prospective candidates have wide latitude to conduct private business (and later spend their own money) for “testing the waters” expenses before they formally declare their candidacy. “It’s a squishy area of the law,” she said.
But she said the most problematic talk appeared to be the final speech before the camping association. The group is a small nonprofit whose $260,000 payment to Clinton (more than the $225,000 she received for talks to the Bank of America or Morgan Stanley) amounted to more than 10 percent of the group’s $2.1 million budget. That recently prompted the organization to add a special note in its annual tax filing with the charities bureau of the New York attorney general’s office, calling the payment to Clinton (described only as a “high-profile politician”) as a “one-time expense” that is “not expected to occur in the subsequent year.”
“It’s hard to see how it fits with the mission of that organization to pay $260,000 for a speaker who is about to run for president,” said Weismann. “It all kind of stinks.”https://www.yahoo.com/news/are-hillarys-big-speaking-fees-being-used-to-help-205257476.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/are-hillarys-big-speaking-fees-being-used-to-help-205257476.html)
The key figure who arranged the talk was the group’s former president, Jay Jacobs, a prominent summer-camp entrepreneur. He is also the Nassau County Democratic Party chairman, a million-dollar donor to the Clinton Foundation and a Clinton campaign bundler who is throwing a major fundraiser tonight at one of the six camps he owns, the North Shore Day Camp, in Glen Cove on Long Island.
“I made the ask” [to Clinton], Jacobs confirmed to Yahoo News, when asked how the former secretary of state came to speak to the camping group’s annual Tri-State CAMP conference in Atlantic City. Other top officials in the group approached him about the idea because of his well-known relationship with the Clintons, he said. Hillary Clinton, when recently pressed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about why she was paid by so much money ($675,000 for three speeches) from Goldman Sachs, replied, “that’s what they offered.”
But that does not appear to have been the case with the nonprofit camping group, according to Jacobs’ account. When he made the request to Clinton’s agent, the Harry Walker Agency, “that’s the fee they came up with,” Jacobs said.
But Jacobs rejected the idea there was anything inappropriate — or political — about Clinton’s talk to the organization. Unlike her speeches to Wall Street, Clinton’s appearance that day — a 30-minute talk followed by a 30-minute Q&A session with Jacobs — was open to the press and received largely positive reviews. She talked about her days attending Girl Scout camp, her angst when she sent Chelsea off to language camp for a week one summer (“It was our worst week — well I’ve had a few bad weeks. But it was up there.”) and how the problems of Washington might be solved if there were “camps for adults.” (“We can have the red cabin, the blue cabin, and have to come together and actually listen to each other.”)
“Nobody in the camping association would have had any thought about her campaign,” Jacobs said. “Nobody — including me — had any thought about the money going into her campaign.”
How Bill Clinton lost his legacyhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/how-bill-clinton-lost-his-1406972950126646.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/how-bill-clinton-lost-his-1406972950126646.html)
Yahoo News
Matt Bai National Political Columnist April 14, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/zvo244.wt2aXhk6XGX0riQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzYw/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/b425eb8e88cc515fad2f0aadcd148aa9)
Former President Bill Clinton at a benefit concert for his wife in New York City in March. (Photo: Mike Segar/Reuters)
When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, historians compared him to Teddy Roosevelt. Like the Bull Moose, the Big Dog was unusually young (only 54) and still popular when he finished his presidency. He established his base in New York, about 100 blocks from where Roosevelt was born.
For a while there was even talk of Clinton running for mayor, as Roosevelt once had. What a spectacle that would have been.
Looking back now, though, the comparison seems wildly off. Roosevelt, you may recall, ended up running for president again and then crusading against Woodrow Wilson’s pacifism. To the day he died in 1919, TR jealously protected his twin legacy of reform and internationalism.
Clinton, on the other hand, has run from every big ideological fight like a man on parole. From the moment he stepped out of the White House, the husband of a newly elected senator, his own political interests have been subservient to his wife’s.
Sure, he started a foundation and got crazy rich, but for the last 16 years — a period in which much of what he achieved has been steadily distorted and discredited — Clinton has been chained by the role of dutiful political spouse.
And so this is what it’s come to, as the most talented campaigner of the modern age apologizes for defending his own record and stumps cautiously for Hillary ahead of next week’s New York primary. What was supposed to be the final validation of Bill Clinton’s legacy inside the Democratic Party — the election of his wife as a successor — has now become the only thing left that can save it.
To be clear, Clinton’s governing legacy, unlike Roosevelt’s, featured little by way of transformative legislation. Though he presided over a surging economy, Clinton’s presidency played out mostly like a tragedy in three acts: first the stumble over health care; then the survival of Republican rule through compromise; and finally the sex scandal that crippled his second term.
Whatever lasting achievements Clinton might have claimed as world leader were probably washed away eight months after he left office, when the sudden strike of terrorists exposed a glaring failure of his tenure.
But Clinton’s more lasting political legacy — the thing for which he should have been remembered — was the transformation of the Democratic Party from a tired, marginalized coalition of interest groups to a governing entity that embraced modern realities.
As I was recently reminded watching “Crashing the Party,” an upcoming documentary about the founding of the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1980s, Democrats by 1992 had lost five of the previous six presidential elections and were losing ground everywhere else. They were perceived, fairly, as reflexively anti-military and anti-business.
Clinton’s central argument, which it took no small amount of courage to make in those early days, was that in order to both win and govern effectively, Democrats had to stop agitating for an ever more expansive government and start trying to build a better one.
That was the philosophy that underlay Clinton’s string of pragmatic achievements: free trade, a balanced budget, welfare reform, the crime bill. For a while, anyway, it seemed like he had left an indelible stamp on the party, widening its focus from the poor and excluded to encompass the broader middle class.
Except then came the Iraq War and the collapse of Wall Street, a crushing recession followed by an even more crushing recession and soaring inequality. Angry liberal populism reemerged as a powerful force, first in Howard Dean’s insurgency and then through the reborn John Edwards and now Bernie Sanders.
At first, both Clintons tried gamely to defend the underpinnings of what became known as Clintonism. “I think that if ‘progressive’ is defined by results, whether it’s in health care, education, incomes, the environment, or the advancement of peace, then we had a very progressive administration,” Clinton told me during an interview in 2006 for my first book, on Democratic politics.
When I had lunch with him in South Carolina the next year, while working on a cover piece for the New York Times Magazine about his legacy, Clinton readily agreed to talk more about it. By then, though, Hillary Clinton’s aides had decided that the more Bill went on about his own centrist legacy, the less helpful he became. They promptly quashed the interview.
Now, some eight years later, the DLC is long dead (succeeded by a group called Third Way), and Clinton’s legacy inside his own party is savaged as never before. He’s derided on the left as a shill for Wall Street, a racist for supporting mass incarceration, a conservative for overhauling welfare.
Clinton refuses to defend his own record at any length, and when he can’t help himself and plunges in anyway — as he did in rightly defending the crime bill to a couple of activists last week — he almost immediately retreats.
It’s hard now to escape the conclusion that Clinton did not ultimately transform his party, the virus of Clintonism having been expelled from its bloodstream. Ordinary Democrats still love the former president, but the Democratic leaders and activists reject pretty much everything he stood for.
In politics, you see, timing is everything. Bill Clinton arrived on the scene at a time when Democrats were desperate and dispirited, and they were willing to entertain any argument that might reverse their string of losses, even if it clashed with their own dogma.
Hillary never had that luxury. She’s trying to fend off her own Jerry Brown circa 1992 at a time when Democrats have been winning presidential elections, and winning parties tend to care a lot about ideological purity. She can’t have Bill out there excoriating populism and protectionism.
Maybe this is Bill Clinton’s penance — the price he pays for having humiliated his wife so publicly in 1998. Maybe in order to salvage what remained of his presidency and his marriage, he ultimately had to be willing to sacrifice his own case for historical relevance.
Maybe this is why Clinton seems so much older all of a sudden, the white hair more brittle, the eyes more watery, the cranelike movements of the arms slower and more deliberate. You can imagine how all that forced silence takes its toll, how physically ruinous it must be to keep the fury inside, when all you want to do is defend yourself.
What we know is that if Hillary Clinton goes on from New York to win the nomination, it will have more to do with the Obama record than with her husband’s. And if she’s elected in November, it won’t validate Bill’s legacy so much as offer him some path to redemption.
Bill Clinton once argued to me that Teddy Roosevelt didn’t see his own progressive legacy affirmed for 24 years after he left office, when his distant cousin, Franklin, was elected with the same name and a similar platform. That may or may not be a sound interpretation of history.
But you can see why it’s a comforting thought.
John Kasich suggests women can avoid rape by forgoing drunken partieshttps://www.yahoo.com/news/john-kasich-suggests-women-can-avoid-rape-by-213154951.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-kasich-suggests-women-can-avoid-rape-by-213154951.html)
Yahoo News
Alyssa Bereznak National Correspondent, Technology April 15, 2016
Another day on the campaign trail, another eyebrow-raising comment about what women should or shouldn’t do. This time the advice came from Republican presidential candidate John Kasich, the governor of Ohio.
At a town hall in Watertown, N.Y., a first-year student from St. Lawrence University asked Kasich what he’d do as president to help her feel safer regarding “sexual violence, harassment and rape.”
Kasich launched into a quick speech about ensuring rape kits and other resources are available to victims of sexual assault.
“In our state, we think that when you enroll you ought to absolutely know that if something happens to you along the lines of sexual harassment or whatever, you have a place to go where there is a confidential reporting, where there is an ability for you to access a rape kit, where that is kept confidential, but where it gives you an opportunity to be able to pursue justice after you have had some time to reflect on it all,” he said. “We are in a process of making sure that all higher education in our state — and this ought to be done in the country — that our coeds know exactly what the rules are, what the opportunities are, what the confidential policies are, so that you are not vulnerable, at risk and can be preyed upon.”
Continued the student, who had not finished saying her piece, “It’s sad that it’s something that I have to worry about just walking…”
“I’d also give you one bit of advice,” Kasich interrupted. “Don’t go to parties where there’s a lot of alcohol.” The room burst into applause.
With this comment, Kasich joined the ranks of those who place the onus for decreasing sexual assaults on female college students, asking them to alter their behaviors and avoid important campus social functions, while the lifestyles and habits of their male counterparts are treated as an unchangeable norm that does not need addressing. This line of thinking runs counter to recent national efforts to address sexual assault on campuses by encouraging bystander intervention and teaching men it is their responsibility not to hurt women, among other things.
It was hardly Kasich’s first time getting tripped up in response to a question by a young woman. Here are some other instances in which he has spoken to or about women awkwardly — or even, some would say, offensively.
Taylor Swift tickets
In an earlier run-in with a female college student, Kasich last October offended 18-year-old college newspaper staffer Kayla Solsbak when she raised her hand to ask a question and he reportedly said, “I’m sorry, I don’t have any Taylor Swift concert tickets.” She went on to pen an op-ed that called his comments condescending.
Women in kitchens
“How did I get elected?” Kasich asked at a campaign event on February. “I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.” Kasich later conceded women don’t hang out so much in kitchens these days, and later apologized if he offended anyone.
Social Security surprise
At another town hall, Kasich reportedly expressed bewilderment after a young woman asked him a Social Security question, wondering whether someone had told her to inquire about the topic. “I think for myself,” she replied.
The budget slim-down diet
During a November town hall in Iowa, Kaisch chose to describe balancing a budget to a female reporter by asking her, “Have you ever been on a diet?”
So there you have it. Young women questioners, you are John Kasich’s kryptonite.
Thing is, he's right, as far as that goes - but great, big F for that. Men, Republican men, do not get to say that in public. If he didn't have a SERIOUS butt-clench, I-can't-believe-I-said-that, moment as he finished the sentence, he's a moron.
Clinton vs. Sanders: It’s all about the ‘judgment’https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-v-sanders-its-all-about-the-judgment-020159796.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-v-sanders-its-all-about-the-judgment-020159796.html)
Yahoo News
Lisa Belkin Chief National Correspondent April 14, 2016
The first word out of the gate at the Democratic debate at the Brooklyn Navy Yard on Thursday was the one both campaigns have been using a lot lately — “judgment.”
Bernie Sanders began by questioning whether his opponent had it. “Does Secretary Clinton have the experience and the intelligence to be our president? Of course she does,” he said, attempting to separate résumé from philosophy.
“But I do question her judgment. I question the judgment that voted for the war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, voted for virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which cost us millions of decent-paying jobs, and I question her judgment about super-PACs, which are collecting tens of millions of dollars from special interests… I don’t believe that is the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need.”
Hillary came storming back, defending her judgment. “Sen. Sanders did call me unqualified,” she said. “I’ve been called a lot of things in my life. That was a first,” she continued, to laughter. “Well, the people of New York voted for me twice to be their senator … and President Obama trusted my judgment enough to ask me to be secretary of state for the United States.”
She then pivoted to the issue that everyone was anticipating, the awkward interview Sanders gave to the New York Daily News last week. “Talk about judgment,” she said, “and talk about the kinds of problems he had answering questions about even his core issue: breaking up the banks… He could not explain how that would be done. … I think you need to have the judgment on Day 1 to be both president and commander in chief.”
Bill Clinton gets himself in trouble, but he’s an asset for Hillary in New Yorkhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-gets-himself-in-trouble-but-hes-an-174525300.html?nhp=1 (https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-gets-himself-in-trouble-but-hes-an-174525300.html?nhp=1)
Yahoo News
Liz Goodwin April 17, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/lpzU_648i_6Lf.Tl4ROK.A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://40.media.tumblr.com/a501a53b0fdf182e0bf8ab1aabd15086/tumblr_inline_o5shh0oTnI1sjed45_1280.jpg)
Former President Bill Clinton campaigns in support of his wife at the headquarters of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. (Dennis Van Tine/STAR MAX/IPx)
NEW YORK, NY — “Yes!” a young man cried out, clutching his smartphone with one hand and using the other to push himself out of a throng of people. “I touched him!”
None of the other people gathered in the small courtyard at New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Friday seemed to notice the man’s moment of personal triumph. They continued to clutch their phones and shuffle closer to the 42nd president of the United States, his white hair gleaming in the spring sunshine.
Bill Clinton has crisscrossed New York City, stumping for his wife in the final weeks before Tuesday’s primary, meeting with Albanian-Americans in the Bronx, black churchgoers in Harlem, union workers in Midtown, and others. The former president has made a couple of high-profile mistakes here — including scolding activists for questioning his crime bill and mocking Bernie Sanders’ supporters. But Clinton’s team insists that his star power and gifted politicking will matter far more in the Empire State on Tuesday than his tendency to put his foot in his mouth.
“I think there’s what you see covered in the press and then there’s the impact he has on voters,” said Clinton strategist Jen Palmieri. “He’s effective everywhere but he’s particularly effective in New York. You’ll see how the election turns out, but there’s a reason we use him a lot here.”
Since leaving the White House, Clinton has rebranded himself as a New Yorker — basing his foundation’s offices in Harlem and befriending local politicians. Voters here feel like they know him.
“I love Bill Clinton!” said Marta Reyes, an administrator at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, who came outside to hear him speak on Friday. “I felt so hurt that he couldn’t run another time. And a lot of people felt that way.”
“I came to shake his hand,” said Margaret Gaines, a pharmacy technician at the event. “I want a selfie!”
Bill Clinton doesn’t just offer familiarity; he offers entertainment. The former president’s stump speech, in a refreshing contrast to his wife’s, can be unpredictable. “People are interested in what he says,” said Richard Socarides, a former aide in the Clinton White House who is running to be a Clinton pledged delegate in New York. “He’s still incredibly dynamic and … he’s often quite provocative.”
While Clinton generates excitement and press coverage, he also causes headaches for the much more on-message, conservative Hillary Clinton campaign. The former president has moments when he presents an argument for Hillary in a clear and folksy way that resonates with the room, when his pride in her achievements appears to charm the crowd. But other times, he gets sidetracked defending his own record or legacy, taking him off his wife’s message and occasionally even criticizing Obama. “I think it’s always going to be challenging to find the right balance between his role as a spouse and a role as former president,” Socarides said.
At an event in Philadelphia earlier this month, he shouted at two black protesters who came to speak out against his 1994 crime bill and Hillary Clinton’s advocacy for it. (Hillary Clinton referred to young people who commit violent crimes as “super predators” in 1996; she has since disavowed the term.) “You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter,” Clinton said.
He then launched into a lengthy defense of the bill, which Hillary has distanced herself from, making criminal justice reform a key part of her platform. “Because of that bill, we have a 25-year low in crime, a 33-year low in murder rate,” Bill Clinton said. It took him several minutes to get back to his wife. “Hillary didn’t vote for that bill, because she wasn’t in the Senate,” he finally said, adding that she was the “first candidate” who backed getting nonviolent offenders out of prison.
The Sanders campaign jumped on the exchange. “Our senior statesman should not be mistreating our young activists,” said Sanders surrogate and former head of the NAACP Ben Jealous. “I worry that he thought he was blowing his old dog whistle that day, and he should keep that dog whistle in his pocket.” (Clinton raised the ire of some African-American voters during the 2008 campaign when he referred to Obama’s candidacy as a “fairytale” and compared his presidential run to Jesse Jackson’s. When the Obama campaign objected to these remarks as racially tinged, Clinton argued that they “played the race card” on him.)
Then, on Friday, the former president joked at an event in Fort Washington that Sanders’ message to his young supporters is “just shoot every third person on Wall Street and everything will be fine.“ Sanders shot back on Twitter that the president was “disparaging” the young people who backed him.
It’s not his speeches, however, but rather what comes after them that can cause the most stress for the Clinton campaign. The former president almost never misses the opportunity to greet voters who crowd around him on the rope line after events — and he’s been known to answer questions from reporters who infiltrate the line. According to one Clinton aide, the former president’s press secretary, Angel Urena, follows him closely while Bill works rope lines after his events.
“Every rope line, he’s so stressed,” the aide said of Bill Clinton’s press secretary. “If he wants to answer a question, he’s going to answer the question.”
Even with his missteps and unpredictability, the Clinton campaign is grateful to have a former and largely popular president at hand to fill up organizing rallies and motivate the base. Hillary said at a recent debate that she’s not a “natural” politician like her husband, and it does seem clear that Bill enjoys himself, especially while working the rope line after events. He has heartfelt conversations with voters as others crush in, videotaping him. By the end of his hand shaking and selfie taking and stranger hugging, he will sometimes sprint back for one more voter interaction, like a sugar addict diving back to the candy jar. At a packed event in a Long Island restaurant earlier this month, he appeared to be halfway out of the venue before he dashed back to quickly grab a pink-swaddled baby for one last photo op.
He hoisted the baby above his head as voters squealed in delight.
A contested convention in the age of the smartphonehttps://www.yahoo.com/tech/a-contested-convention-in-the-age-of-the-154440585.html (https://www.yahoo.com/tech/a-contested-convention-in-the-age-of-the-154440585.html)
Yahoo News
Alyssa Bereznak National Correspondent, Technology April 15, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/dUNcsHgg5zzLGfb7QyiOEg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9NDA1O2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/fd8d64b866423233c31c6d9074dd34f0/tumblr_inline_o5seojFV4G1qchxpg_540.jpg)
Photo illustration: Yahoo News, photos: AP
This July, thousands of delegates, party officials, campaign staff and journalists will descend on the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland for the Republican National Convention. It is possible, or even likely, that no candidate will win the presidential nomination on the first or second ballots — something that hasn’t happened since 1952, back when the closest thing to a computer was a giant calculator, telephones required land lines, and the founder of Twitter had yet to be conceived. Though candidates were able to use broadcast television as a tool to influence results, any backdoor power brokering at the convention went relatively undocumented.
Technologically, the 2016 landscape is much different. In the era of the iPhone, the near 20,000-person crowd that will fill the Quicken Loans Arena will serve as both its own private media network and — depending on the capabilities of the venue — a bandwidth-swamping black hole. 2,472 people in that crowd will be the delegates who will vote to nominate the president. And, according to a recent report from Politico, each candidate’s team has already begun developing tech tools for tracking the faces, names, and home states of each of them. All of this political negotiating will take place as smartphone-toting supporters of Donald [Sleezebag], Ted Cruz, and John Kasich document the scene via Snapchat and Vine, producing their own real-time feeds full of rumors and disinformation.
But the precise technology that will be at play on the convention floor is still anyone’s guess. A [Sleezebag] convention strategist told Politico that his team will use some sort of “custom-built hardware” with a “closed loop” system that would allow his staff to communicate efficiently without having to rely on potentially unreliable Wi-Fi (it sounds suspiciously like a walkie-talkie). Cruz’s team, on the other hand, plans to build an iPhone app that works offline and contains strategic data about each delegate and whether they might be swayed. Kasich has yet to divulge a strategy. Ideally, each candidate’s team will need a tool that can (1) effectively record and deliver data and messages without relying on what will likely be an overwhelmed Wi-Fi network, and (2) possibly identify or track delegates on the floor.
Though some “House of Cards” buffs might think a campaign tracks delegates via a big whiteboard in a hotel room, state-specific rules make record keeping much more complicated. Depending on whether you’re a delegate from Iowa or a delegate from Hawaii, you may be bound to vote for a given candidate for one or more rounds of voting. Any data-based tracking app would need to account for this web of restrictions and send push alerts when a delegate is free to change his vote, so the managers know the best time to court him.
When it comes to battling the congested cellular network that candidates are sure to encounter during the convention, one of the most reliable options for teams to communicate may be a mesh network app like FireChat. These wireless networks can function entirely without Internet, as long as a minimum number of people in a concentrated location use them. FireChat uses Bluetooth and peer-to-peer Wi-Fi connections to link up nearby phones that also have the app installed. If enough people have the app, they form a distributed network and can pass messages along in one large public stream.
According to Christophe Daligault, a marketing officer at FireChat, tools like these have become popular during political events when Wi-Fi networks are overwhelmed — or when authorities shut down Internet services in order to control information. The app first took off during the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong in August 2014, when half a million people used it during the span of a week. Since then, it’s been used during elections in the Congo and Venezuela, and for less formal instances on cruise ships or at Burning Man. Daligault said his team briefly met with then-Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul last year to discuss his campaign’s possible use of the app.
FireChat currently works as a type of location-based Twitter feed, where everyone in one particular location can see the messages that people are typing into the app. But within the next month, it will allow users to create their own private networks so they can invite only their acquaintances.
“The beauty of it is, it goes wherever you go,” Daligault told Yahoo News. “It’s your own social network that doesn’t need a network.”
Depending on the guidelines that the Republican National Convention rules committee sets before the event, candidates may also attempt to use tracking techniques that have traditionally been used at trade shows. Organizers can track attendees by placing radio frequency identification (RFID) chips inside their badges, each of which contains information about an individual. According to Brian Ludwig, a senior vice president of sales at the event technology company Cvent, it’s common practice to code certain categories into each attendee’s chip, such as his state or industry. This same technology could be incredibly helpful to tipping off candidates’ teams about where delegates are traveling on the convention floor.
“I want to know who’s going in on the trade show floor, how long they’re standing in front of certain booths, and the interested parties,” he told Yahoo News. “You could have someone scanning folks at the door. But that’s obtrusive, and you have to have staff. Putting mats down or RFID panels on doorways can allow less obvious tracking of folks.”
If convention organizers are unwilling to offer that kind of information to campaign staff, another option could be to use something called beacon technology. Here’s how it works: Candidates could ask delegates to download and activate an app made specifically for the convention. Strategically placed small trackers — $20 contraptions shaped like hockey pucks — at key locations in the arena would register a delegate’s presence, as long as his or her Bluetooth is on, and automatically send a push notification to that delegate’s phone.
“At the end of the day, when someone goes to that convention their inbox is a mess,” Ludwig said. “They’re going to have 500 emails by the time they leave after a couple days. Literally the best conduit to someone’s eyeballs is not by sending them an email or text, but sending them a push notification that pops no matter what, even if the app is closed down.”
According to Ludwig, Cvent is in talks with the RNC to provide preregistration, online check-in, badges, and a mobile app for an event made up of about 1,300 “major VIP donor types” at the convention. Whether [Sleezebag], Cruz, or Kasich will eventually adopt any of the company’s techniques, however, is yet to be seen.
Sanders at Vatican says rich-poor gap worse than 100 years agohttps://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-heads-vatican-says-trip-not-political-105810353.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-heads-vatican-says-trip-not-political-105810353.html)
Yahoo News
By Philip Pullella April 15, 2016
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, addressing a Vatican conference on social justice on Friday, decried the “immoral” gap between the world’s rich and poor that he said was worse than a century ago.
The Democratic hopeful from Vermont has campaigned on a vow to rein in corporate power and level the economic playing field for working and lower-income Americans who he says have been left behind, a message echoing that of Pope Francis.
The trip is inconveniently timed for 74-year-old senator, coming four days before a Democratic party primary in New York. A loss there would blunt his momentum after winning seven of the last eight state contests and give front-runner Hillary Clinton a boost in her drive to the party’s presidential nomination.
Sanders said in his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Social Science that the Roman Catholic Church’s first encyclical on social justice, written in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, lamented the enormous gap between the rich and the poor.
“That situation is worse today. In the year 2016, the top 1 percent of the people on this planet own more wealth than the bottom 99 percent,” the self-described democratic socialist said.
“At a time when so few have so much, and so many have so little, we must reject the foundations of this contemporary economy as immoral and unsustainable,” he said.
Sanders, the Brooklyn-born son of Polish Jewish immigrants, has said the trip was not a pitch for the Catholic vote but a testament to his admiration for Pope Francis, whom he is not expected to see during his flying visit.
He will be back on the campaign trail on Sunday.
CHANTS OF “BERNIE, BERNIE” AT VATICAN GATE After reading the speech in the academy building inside the Vatican grounds, Sanders walked outside one of the city-state’s gates to talk to reporters and was greeted by chants of “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie” from a vocal group of local supporters.
Pope Francis sent a message to the academy, saying he had wanted to meet the conference participants in the evening, but could not because he is leaving Rome early on Saturday to visit refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos.
Saying he was “proud and excited to be here”, Sanders praised the pope’s visionary views about creating “a moral economy, an economy that works for all people and not just for the people on top”.
Reflecting the themes of his campaign, he said he and the pope both agreed that “we’ve got to ingrain moral principles into our economy and there is no area where that is clearer than the area of climate change. The greed of the fossil fuel industry is literally destroying our planet”.
Pope Francis wrote a major encyclical, or papal treatise, last year on the need to respect the environment.
In other parts of his speech, Sanders decried “reckless financial deregulation,” including rules on political party financing, that he said had “established a system in which billionaires can buy elections” in exchange for laws that would make them only richer.
“Rather than an economy aimed at the common good, we have been left with an economy operated for the top one percent, who get richer and richer as the working class, the young and the poor fall further and further behind,” he said.
Sanders will spend less than 24 hours in Rome before returning to the campaign trail before the New York primary on Tuesday.
(Additional reporting by Crispian Balmer in Rome and John Whitesides in Washington; Editing by Tom Heneghan)
Trumphobia: The American traveler’s guide to dealing with embarrassing questionshttps://www.yahoo.com/news/trumphobia-the-american-traveler-s-1407538586271798.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumphobia-the-american-traveler-s-1407538586271798.html)
Yahoo News
Jerry Adler Writer April 15, 2016
(http://cdn.onegreenplanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10//2015/03/pig.png)
(Substitute photo)
The woman, a retired schoolteacher from San Diego, was sitting with a friend in an almost empty restaurant in Civitavecchia, a seaside town not far from Rome. She had recently left a Mediterranean cruise, a ship full of Australians and Europeans, and was happy to discover that the only other couple in the dining room that evening was American.
“At least,” she said, “I don’t have to defend Donald [Sleezebag] to you.”
You’re looking forward to your trip to Europe this summer. Thanks to an improving American economy, foreign travel by Americans is projected to increase almost 6 percent in 2016, in the face of fears about overbooked flights, terrorist attacks and exotic viruses. But those are familiar worries. The new and worrisome risk with traveling abroad in 2016 is being asked about Donald [Sleezebag]. His suspicion of foreigners is matched by their fascination with him. Whatever your own feelings about him, you will likely find yourself on the defensive.
At least since Charles Dickens visited the U.S. in 1842, Europeans have been amused, baffled and even frightened by American politics — a realm, Dickens wrote, of “despicable trickery at elections, under-handed tamperings with public officers, cowardly attacks upon opponents” and other deplorable behaviors that fill an entire chapter of “American Notes.” It’s a shame the author lived in a different century than Donald [Sleezebag], who was recently called “a great Dickensian character” by no less a literary and political critic than Sylvester Stallone. Dickens could have paid off all his debts by filling the insatiable European demand for Trumpiana.
“On the whole, the [Sleezebag] phenomenon is getting equal attention in the U.K. as in the U.S., if not more,” says Matthew Reading-Smith, 29, a native of Michigan who has been living and working in London for five years and was back home last over Thanksgiving. “Wherever I am, whenever someone notices my American accent, they ask me about Donald. I’m being asked to justify the country I come from.” [Sleezebag], he says, “strikes fear into the liberal values of Europe” and threatens, in the minds of Europeans, the special trans-Atlantic relationship that has been a cornerstone of the international order for decades.
“Even Republicans,” says Cathal Gilbert, 35, an Irish citizen who works in international human rights in London. “And I do know a few who work in human rights, even they are appalled. They bury their faces in the salad bowl if I dare bring him up.” To understand the [Sleezebag] phenomenon, Gilbert says, he went on YouTube for a few hours to watch his speeches. “When you listen to him, he makes a certain amount of sense to the audience he’s talking to. It’s not cogent, but it’s compelling.”
“For a long time, I had it easy,” says Tor Hodenfield, a 28-year-old Brooklyn native who has lived in Africa and in Switzerland and is now a graduate student at University College London. “I was an American, I was representing Barack Obama, everything was cool. Since [Sleezebag] came on the scene, all that’s changed.” In fact, Obama himself has this problem, telling reporters last week, “I am getting questions constantly from foreign leaders about some of the wackier suggestions that are being made” by [Sleezebag], and also his rival Sen. Ted Cruz, whom Obama described as “just as Draconian when it comes to immigration.” (Hillary Clinton said last month that she has been asked by the leaders of other countries whether they can endorse her to stop [Sleezebag]. She hasn’t identified the countries.)
There are no easy answers here. You might have to change tables once or twice during your cruise, or affect a British or Australian accent (best not to try this around Brits or Australians, obviously), or simply throw up your hands, as the San Diego woman did, and say, “Don’t look at me; I don’t get it either.” But as a public service, Yahoo News has a few suggestions for how to deflect questions — earnest, puzzled, well-intentioned or hostile — from citizens of other countries where candidates don’t seek office by boasting about their sexual endowments.
“So’s your old man.” This won’t actually win any arguments, but it can at least change the subject, and there’s some satisfaction in pointing out that [Sleezebag]’s eccentricities are not without precedent in Europe. Silvio Berlusconi, the billionaire media mogul who was off-and-on prime minister of Italy between 1994 and 2011, was also given to extravagant displays of bad taste and sexual braggadocio. England wrote the book on this kind of ruler, admittedly in the 16th century, with King Henry VIII — if you think [Sleezebag] is hard on women, at least he hasn’t beheaded any of his wives. More seriously, the last few years have seen an upsurge in support for various nativist, nationalist, anti-immigrant parties in Western Europe, notably Marine Le Pen’s National Front, in France, and the United Kingdom Independence Party, which is pushing for Britain to leave the European Union, attracting “the same kind of Anglo-Saxon ethnic pride” that [Sleezebag] is tapping into, says Reading-Smith.
“Ever hear of Bernie Sanders?” Hodenfield likes to use this when he’s cornered on the subject of [Sleezebag], invoking the democratic socialist senator whose platform of universal health care and free college should win accolades from Western Europeans. The problem is, most of them have not heard of Sanders, whereas [Sleezebag] is an all-pervasive presence in most European media. “My landlady’s Polish housekeeper barely speaks English,” Hodenfield says. “I doubt she knows who Hillary Clinton is — but she knows all about [Sleezebag].”
“It’s all a put-up job.” Reading-Smith says he has tried to plant the idea that the [Sleezebag] candidacy is actually a stealth operation to elect a Democrat by sabotaging the Republican Party with an unelectable candidate. Early on, a few Republicans said the same thing, semiseriously. Reading-Smith means it as a joke, of course. But no one is laughing now.
Sanders aide says the Clintons are showing their frustrationhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-aide-says-the-clintons-are-showing-their-051235395.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-aide-says-the-clintons-are-showing-their-051235395.html)
Yahoo News
Hunter Walker National Correspondent April 15, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/hetFyMF8_IeHHTkhODB0oQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/2247428ed86016c7fc5cf7a1a2a7af75)
Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Sen. Bernie Sanders, at campaign headquarters in Burlington, Vt. (Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)
Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid in the Democratic primary, believes the Vermont senator’s opponent and her husband are on edge.
Speaking to Yahoo News after the Democratic presidential debate in Brooklyn, N.Y., Weaver said he believes there has been a certain “edginess” in the Clinton campaign in the last few weeks, given that Sanders has won eight of the last nine primary contests.
“I think that their campaign never believed that they would be in the position they’re in right now, having to contest New York. I mean, they clearly thought that they would have everything wrapped up by now. They clearly said it: ‘We’re going to have it wrapped up by February, we’re going to have it wrapped up by March,’” Weaver said. “And it’s not wrapped up, and I think they’re very, very frustrated about it.”
Weaver said this tension was evident in a confrontation Hillary Clinton had with a woman who questioned her at an event late last month and and a testy exchange her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had with Black Lives Matter activists on April 7.
“It was reflected in the secretary’s outburst at the young woman on the rope line. I think it was reflected in President Clinton’s outburst to Black Lives Matter activists. … There’s like an edginess to their campaign that’s sort of going all through it. And I think it’s a function of the fact that they are in a place they wish they weren’t,” Weaver said.
Despite Sanders’ recent winning streak, Clinton’s victories earlier in the primary process have given her a pledged delegate lead so large that Sanders would need to win all the remaining contests by a wide margin to be able to beat her. The RealClearPolitics poll average shows Clinton has a 13.8 point lead in the New York primary, which will be held on April 19.
Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, told Yahoo News he is comfortable about her position.
“In terms of the race to get the nomination, it’s less a question of how much does Hillary win by, than how much should Sanders be winning by, if he has any hope of catching up to her in the nomination fight,” Mook said. “The fact is, you know, he would need to win New York by 20 or more points to even be in a position to try to capture the nomination. … If he loses, that path is really diminished quite a bit.”
Top T rump aide lobbied for Pakistani spy fronthttps://www.yahoo.com/news/top-T rump-aide-lobbied-for-1409744144007222.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-T rump-aide-lobbied-for-1409744144007222.html)
Yahoo News
Michael Isikoff Chief Investigative Correspondent April 18, 2016
For more than five years, Donald T rump’s new top campaign aide, Paul Manafort, lobbied for a Washington-based group that Justice Department prosecutors have charged operated as a front for Pakistan’s intelligence service, according to court and lobbying records reviewed by Yahoo News.
Manafort’s work in the 1990s as a registered lobbyist for the Kashmiri American Council was only one part of a wide-ranging portfolio that, over several decades, included a gallery of controversial foreign clients ranging from Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Zaire’s brutal dictator Mobutu Sese Seko to an Angolan rebel leader accused by human rights groups of torture. His role as an adviser to Ukraine’s then prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, prompted concerns within the Bush White House that he was undermining U.S. foreign policy. It was considered so politically toxic in 2008 that presidential candidate John McCain nixed plans for Manafort to manage the Republican National Convention — a move that caused a rupture between Manafort and his then business partner, Rick Davis, who at the time was McCain’s campaign manager.
Manafort’s work for the Kashmiri group has so far not gotten any media attention.
But it could fuel more questions about his years of lobbying for questionable foreign interests before Manafort, 67, assumed his new position as chief delegate counter and strategist for a presidential candidate who repeatedly decries the influence of Washington lobbyists and denounces the manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign governments.
Court records show that Manafort’s Kashmiri lobbying contract came on the FBI’s radar screen during a lengthy counterterrorism investigation that culminated in 2011 with the arrest of the Kashmiri council’s director, Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, on charges that he ran the group on behalf of Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, as part of a scheme to secretly influence U.S. policy toward the disputed territory of Kashmir.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/QnNZRg0x.VXtRt8jMMYqOg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MjAwMDtoPTEzMzU7aWw9cGxhbmU-/http://40.media.tumblr.com/b7b051fb6bd9946a18a2bfe1c3d38a4f/tumblr_inline_o5tu6zxrx51tdgnv1_1280.jpg)
Paul Manafort, convention manager for the T rump campaign, on “Meet the Press,” April 10. (Photo: William B. Plowman/NBC/NBC NewsWire via Getty Images)
The Kashmiri American Council was a “scam” that amounted to a “false flag operation that Mr. Fai was operating on behalf of the ISI,” Gordon D. Kromberg, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, said in March 2012 at Fai’s sentencing hearing in federal court. While posing as a U.S.-based nonprofit funded by American donors sympathetic to the plight of Kashmiris, it was actually bankrolled by the ISI in order to deflect public attention “away from the involvement of Pakistan in sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere,” Kromberg said. Fai, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax fraud charges, was then sentenced to two years in federal prison.
Lobbying records filed with the secretary of the Senate show that Manafort’s lobbying firm, Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, was paid $700,000 by the Kashmiri American Council between 1990 and 1995. This was among more than $4 million that federal prosecutors alleged came from the ISI; Fai collected the money over 20 years from “straw” American donors who were being reimbursed from secret accounts in Pakistan. (The funds were in some cases delivered to Fai in brown paper bags stuffed with cash — and then the donors reimbursed with wire transfers from ISI operatives, according to an FBI affidavit.)
Manafort, who handled the Kashmiri account for his firm, was never charged in the case, and Kromberg told Yahoo News that what knowledge, if any, he had of the secret source of money from his client was not part of the Justice Department’s investigation. (While registering with Congress as a domestic lobbyist for the Kashmiri American Council, Manafort never registered with the U.S. Justice Department as a foreign agent of Pakistan, as he would have been required to do if he was aware of the ISI funding of his client.)
But a former senior Pakistani official, who asked not to be identified, told Yahoo News that there was never any doubt on Pakistan’s part that Manafort knew of his government’s role in backing the Kashmiri council. The former official said that during a trip from Islamabad in 1994 he met with Manafort and Fai in Manafort’s office in Alexandria, Va., “to review strategy and plans” for the council. Manafort, at the meeting, presented plans to influence members of Congress to back Pakistan’s case for a plebiscite for Kashmir (the largest portion of which has been part of India since 1947), he said. (Internal budget documents later obtained by the FBI show plans by the council to spend $80,000 to $100,000 a year on campaign contributions to members of Congress.) “There is no way Manafort didn’t know that Pakistan was involved with” the council, the former official said, although he added: “Some things are not explicitly stated.”
Neither Manafort nor the T rump campaign responded to requests for comment for this story. (“I’m not working for any client right now other than working for Mr. T rump,” Manafort recently said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” when asked by moderator Chuck Todd about his past “controversial” clients.)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/SMLiL0EhUKcEL_09wfzMNQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTYyNjtoPTE1NzQ7aWw9cGxhbmU-/http://36.media.tumblr.com/0ba41f8fd89bb3a5ef3b64e8cb053bb5/tumblr_inline_o5tu1hYZDM1tdgnv1_1280.jpg)
Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, executive director of the Kashmiri American Council, in 2007. (Photo: Roshan Mughal/AP)
But Manafort’s former partner Charlie Black, now an adviser to rival Republican presidential candidate John Kasich, said that as far as the firm was concerned, the Kashmiri council was a domestic, not a foreign, client. “Nobody was more surprised than me that the guy was taking the money from Pakistan,” Black said in a telephone interview. “We didn’t know anything about it.”
But there was no doubt on the part of the Indian government about where the money was coming from. Its officials repeatedly alleged that the Kashmiri council was a front group for Pakistan during the period that Manafort’s firm was lobbying for it. The issue blew up in September 1993 after Manafort and one of his lobbying associates, Riva Levinson, traveled to Kashmir and, according to Indian officials, posed as CNN reporters in an effort to gather video footage of interviews with Kashmiri officials.
“The whole thing was obviously a blatant operation of producing television software with a deliberate and particularly anti-Indian slant by lobbyists hired by Pakistan for this very purpose,” Shiv Shankar, then the Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in a letter to CNN in Atlanta at the time. (Levinson did not respond to a request for comment from Yahoo News. At the time she denied the Indian allegations, telling a UPI reporter, “We never misrepresented ourselves as journalists.”)
Exactly what Manafort did for the Kashmiri council is unclear from the sketchy lobbying reports his firm filed with the secretary of the Senate. Those reports show his firm first registered as lobbyists for the group in October 1990, the same year the group was founded by Fai. The reports list little beyond the purpose of the lobbying: to seek support for a House resolution by then-Rep. Dan Burton to sponsor a “peaceful resolution” of the Kashmir dispute. They also show payments to the firm of $140,000 a year. (During this time, Black, Manafort had a long list of other domestic clients that included the NRA, the Tobacco Institute and the T rump Organization, which paid the firm $70,000 a year to lobby Congress on casino gambling, aviation and tax issues, according to the lobbying records.)
“We went to the Hill for them to raise the profile of the [Kashmiri] cause,” said Black about the firm’s work for Fai’s council. “But nobody in Bush 41 [the administration of George H.W. Bush] or the Clinton administration wanted to touch it. We never got any real attention for it.”
The FBI came across evidence that ISI was actually not pleased with Manafort’s work. The bureau’s investigation began in 2005 with a tip from a confidential informant (who was seeking a reduced prison term) that Fai and an associate in Pakistan, Zaheer Ahmad, were agents of the ISI. As part of the probe, agents obtained secret national security warrants to wiretap Fai’s communications; they also searched his home and offices. Among the evidence they seized: a December 1995 letter from Fai’s main ISI handler, identified as a Pakistani Army brigadier general named Javeed Aziz Khan, who went by the name of “Abdullah,” that criticized Fai for renewing a contract with a public relations firm, according to the FBI affidavit from a counterterrorism agent, Sarah Webb Linden, that was filed to support Fai’s detention in July 2011.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/7PTWdhedAiq7myROdbPH5A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQwO2g9MzYxO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/3ef20b7110fc49cd3c80a571e6fa0c03/tumblr_inline_o5snb9lLhH1tdgnv1_540.jpg)
Lobbyist Charlie Black (Photo: Tom Williams/Roll Call/Getty Images)
Eight months later, at Fai’s sentencing hearing, prosecutor Kromberg for the first time identified the public relations firm as Black, Manafort, according to court records. He then detailed a dispute between Fai and his ISI handler over the Black, Manafort contract. Fai wrote back to Khan the next day insisting that the ISI official had in fact approved the renewal of the contract and noted that to “make it appear” that the council was a Kashmiri organization “financed by Americans,” there was a preexisting agreement that nobody from the Pakistani Embassy would ever contact Black, Manafort, said Kromberg. But Fai was overruled, according to Kromberg’s account. The ISI handler wrote back to Fai stating that that “‘we’ — a reference to the ISI — were unsatisfied with the performance of Black, Manafort & Stone, and advised Fai to terminate the contract immediately,” according to a transcript of Kromberg’s statement to the court.
Meanwhile, the FBI pursued even more alarming allegations relating to Ahmad, Fai’s Pakistan-based associate. According to a ProPublica account, the bureau questioned witnesses about a trip that Ahmad had allegedly made to Afghanistan with a Pakistani nuclear scientist, Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood; the scientist was suspecting of having met with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in August 2001 to discuss the terror leaders’ interest in acquiring nuclear weapons.
Manafort, for his part, appears to have expanded his business connections in Pakistan. In 2013 he acknowledged to French investigators that, in 1994, he had received $86,000 from two arms dealers involved in the sale of French attack submarines to Pakistan’s navy. The payments were part of an arrangement to compensate Manafort for political advice and polling he provided to French presidential candidate Édouard Balladur — one part of a wide-ranging French investigation into alleged kickbacks from arms sales dubbed by the French press “the Karachi affair.”
One puzzling question about the Kashmir case is why, six years after the investigation began, the FBI decided to arrest Fai in 2011. One explanation, a source familiar with the case said, is that it came during a period of mounting tensions between the United States and Pakistan, much of it due to concerns among U.S. national security officials about the “double game” being played by the ISI. In May of that year, President Obama ordered the U.S. raid that killed bin Laden without informing the Pakistani military, in part because of fears that elements of the ISI (an arm of the military) might have been protecting the al-Qaida leader. Just weeks later, federal prosecutors in Chicago presented damning testimony in federal court that an ISI handler had directed one of the confessed conspirators in the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai — which killed 164 people, including six Americans — that was perpetrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani-based group with links to al-Qaida committed to “liberating” Muslims from Indian rule in Kashmir.
Then, on July 18, after Fai returned from a trip to the United Kingdom, the FBI confronted him for the third time about whether he had any connections to the ISI — and he denied it. Fai was arrested, and he and Ahmad (who remained in Pakistan and died later that year) were charged in federal court with being unregistered foreign agents of Pakistan.
Bernie Sanders blasts critics who call his ideas unrealistic: ‘Nothing is radical’https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-yada-yada-nothing-is-radical-160605124.html?nhp=1 (https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-yada-yada-nothing-is-radical-160605124.html?nhp=1)
Yahoo News
Dylan Stableford Senior editor April 18, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/9A1026loNZha4LLl4rL4nA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/d1b1ca64c487b60dcbef9403a18ac81d)
Bernie Sanders addresses supporters at a massive rally on Sunday in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. (Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Fresh from a whirlwind weekend in which he met the pope and drew his largest-ever crowd at a rally in Brooklyn, Bernie Sanders hit back against a theme that’s become central to Hillary Clinton’s campaign: He has some great ideas, but when it comes to getting them done, his plans are — as Larry David put it on “Saturday Night Live” — nothing more than “yada, yada, yada.”
On CNN’s “New Day” Monday, one day before New York’s primary, Sanders pointed out that he called for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour from $7.50 more than five years ago.
“Most people thought that was a crazy idea,” the Vermont senator said. “Well, guess what. California, New York, Oregon have done it. Why? Because people stood up and fought.”
Sanders said the same about same-sex marriage.
“Ten years ago, would you have believed that gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states? Probably not,“ he said. “When people stand up and say, ‘We’ve got to end bigotry in America — people have a right to love whomever,’ change takes place.”
At a block party in Washington Heights Sunday, Clinton pushed her pragmatic message.
“It’s easy to diagnose the problem,” the Democratic frontrunner said. “You’ve got to be able to solve the problem.”
The Vermont senator, though, dismissed her criticism, saying his “radical ideas” are anything but.
“I believe everything we’re talking about,” Sanders said. “Nothing is radical. These ideas have existed in other countries. They’ve existed in the United States.”
His comments come on the eve of the Democratic primary in New York, where polls show Clinton with a comfortable, double-digit lead over Sanders in her adopted home state.
The Brooklyn-born Sanders urged an estimated 28,000 at his rally in Prospect Park Sunday to help him overcome her edge.
“When I was a kid growing up in Flatbush, our parents would take us to Prospect Park,” he said. “But I was never here speaking to 20,000 people. This is a campaign that’s on the move. This is a campaign that one year ago was considered a fringe candidacy — 70 points behind Secretary Clinton. Well they don’t consider us fringe anymore.”
“This is a movement of people who are prepared to think big, not small,” Sanders added. “People who want to elect not just the new president, but to transform America.”
A party primary ‘is not a public decision,’ rules expert sayshttps://www.yahoo.com/news/party-primaries-are-not-public-decisions-rules-154558765.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/party-primaries-are-not-public-decisions-rules-154558765.html)
Yahoo News
Jon Ward Senior Political Correspondent April 18, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/9bImbxeW6El2WOGFEn4EdA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/eca7b2e471031b34ed4f314865a209ae)
Members of the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee, from left, Donna Brazile, Elaine Kamarck and Alice Germond vote on what to do with Florida delegates during their meeting in Washington in 2008. (Photo: LM Otero/AP)
Elaine Kamarck got her start in Democratic politics in the 1970s, at a time when political parties had just recently begun to open up the presidential nominating process. The modern primary system did not really even exist until that decade, after a set of party reforms following the 1968 election took control of the nominating process out of the hands of party insiders and allowed voters a greater say.
The current controversy over the Republican Party’s nominating process, driven by Donald T rump’s complaints that the system is “rigged” and “corrupt” — and his call for a “bold infusion of popular will” — ignores the fact that the rules have been generally the same for more than four decades. Kamarck, who started as an aide to President Jimmy Carter and became a top White House official during the Clinton administration in the ’90s, wrote a book called Primary Politics (2009), which explains the history of how the modern nominating process for Republicans and Democrats came to be.
She talked to Yahoo News about the current debate over the GOP system. The transcript of the conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
Yahoo News: A lot of people are wondering about these rules for how delegates are selected. They’ve never really mattered since the primary season was opened up in 1972. Why is that?
Elaine Kamarck: They’ve mattered three times. They mattered for the Democrats in 1972. They mattered for the Republicans in 1976. And they mattered for the Democrats in 1980.
But for most people under 30, that’s ancient history.
True. Most people are accustomed to thinking that — if they think about those delegates at all — they think those are people brought to the convention to cheer on the nominee and wear stupid hats.
So why does it matter now?
The only reason it matters is because the voters haven’t given a clear-cut victory to someone. What we are accustomed to is: Someone wins early, they keep on winning, the other candidates drop out, and by the time you get to July, there isn’t a contest anymore. Whenever the voters don’t make a clear decision, the decision making falls to the delegates and you have essentially the system that existed prior to 1972, where party insiders get to make the decision. There’s nothing new about this. It’s just that in the modern situation, we’re not used to it.
It happened all the time pre-1972.
The first nominating convention was in 1832. Until 1968, Americans nominated their presidents in almost exactly the same way. It was party leaders, elected as delegates in their states, going to the convention. For all that time, almost no one ran in primaries. There were very few. In fact, running in a primary was considered a weakness, not a mark of strength. In ’72, because of … reform efforts on the Democratic side, more states held primaries, [and] those primaries suddenly were binding — or attempted to be — on the delegates.
What do you think of T rump’s complaint that the system is corrupt and unfair?
T rump’s out of his f***ing mind. Every single presidential candidate except for him knows what this system is. It’s not corrupt. It’s the system by which the parties pick their nominee. Parties are protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of assembly. No American is forced to participate.
Parties are institutions. They have an interest in preserving their brand. Coca-Cola doesn’t let Pepsi participate in their brand. Republicans don’t let Democrats participate in their brand. This is a party decision, and parties make these decisions based on their institutional health. Meaning, if you put someone at the top of the ticket that is so unpopular that you lose the House of Representatives, you’re not doing the right thing for your party.
The voters have been included to keep parties from getting really out of touch. In 1968, Democrats did not understand the depths of the antiwar sentiment in their party and cut [Vietnam War opponents] out of their convention. This time, the Republican Party didn’t understand the anger of voters for T rump. But the bottom line is, this is not a public decision — it’s a party decision.
Do you want that on the record, that T rump is out of his f***ing mind?
Yes. He’s out of his f***ing mind. He’s an a******. No other candidate has ever run for president so unprepared.
Do you think his arguments will influence the way we choose nominees?
The systems will only change if the parties themselves decide to change them. My guess is the system will move in the other direction from where T rump wants it to, with parties taking greater control of the nominations to keep them from being captured by people who sully the brand.
T rump is essentially arguing for direct democracy.
Exactly. He is arguing [for] direct democracy. The Congress has considered a national primary many times. Political parties, however, will never be for it. The current system is very open through the primaries and caucuses and to letting new people participate. At the same time, it has an insider piece to it. That’s why the system has persisted for 40-some years.
The general election is a different story because it’s a constitutionally sanctioned thing. The parties are a different thing. Parties have the right to say this person is not a Democrat or a Republican. They are voluntary associations of citizens. They are semipublic organizations. No democracy has ever managed to function without parties. They are crucial for organizing the electorate and helping people govern.
Why were the Founding Fathers concerned about parties?
The founders were concerned about the mischief of factions. They created this system of elaborate checks and balances to stop anybody from gaining too much power. What the founders created is something that T rump doesn’t like, where it is very hard for one faction to foist its will on others. The Founding Fathers tried to avoid factional disputes, and they did not succeed, because by 1800, the Jefferson versus Adams race was one of the meanest, nastiest party fights in history.
No other democracy in the world nominates its candidates in primaries. All the parliamentary democracies have party conferences and they have lists. You can’t just go run for Parliament in Devonshire [in the United Kingdom]. You have to be placed on a list by the central party committee.
That was a lot to digest.The founders established an electoral college to prevent the president from becoming a instrument in the tyranny of the majority inside the country.
No surprise, but I like the one about the history of presidential candidate selection, and strangely enough, I approved of the ***** words.
Watched the Kasich and Cruz town halls hosted by Sean Hannity tonight, forgot the original air times.
He annoys me with his populist appeals on his show and as a host. Not because he's populist, but because he's uninformed, and he's misleading people....well, he is a FOX staffer. "Why can't/shouldn't the guy with the most votes get the nomination?"
Why does he talk about "the rule of law" all of the time, and then think that the rules of the party don't matter?
Anyway, Cruz's take on it was that the selection process wasn't rocket science, and that anybody seriously seeking the highest office should, take the time to familiarize themselves with it.
Kasich explained that the delegates make the presidential candidate selection, and they aren't uninformed. They might reasonably decide to go with the candidate who would be a sure thing against Hillary in a general election, and secure the Supreme Court nominees, rather than risk the entire ticket - Congress, governors and state legislators, on a controversial candidate.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders battle for momentum in New York’s Democratic primaryhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-battle-for-143153053.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-battle-for-143153053.html)
Yahoo News
Hunter Walker National Correspondent April 19, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/zJGykE3rbHmzFujpzIUQIQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/15deb318c41341125c7847fc0c384e90)
Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Mary Altaffer/AP, Seth Wenig/AP
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Bill Clinton starkly laid out the stakes for New York’s Democratic presidential primary at an event in the Long Island suburb of Elmont earlier this month.
“Look. This election in so many ways psychologically is coming down to New York,” he said.
Indeed, while Hillary Clinton has racked up enough delegates in earlier primaries to put her on a path to victory, the race in New York remains crucial to her campaign. The delegate-rich state provides the possibility of a decisive win, but also the potential for humiliation if born-and-bred New York City rival Bernie Sanders keeps the margin close in Clinton’s adopted home.
Polls heading into the Empire State’s election on Tuesday show Clinton poised for another victory, but with Sen. Sanders having won eight of the last nine contests, his campaign has been on a hot streak. Sanders’ team argues that this momentum will help him overtake Clinton in the delegate count as the candidates hopscotch the country, leading other delegates to switch sides come convention time.
In an email sent to supporters last Wednesday, Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, laid out the importance of the New York primary.
“Did you see that last week, Bernie’s campaign manager said they will ‘100 percent, absolutely’ push for a contested convention in July — even if Hillary holds on to her big lead in the popular vote? There’s only one way to stop that from happening: build an insurmountable delegate lead. To do that, we need a strong result in New York one week from today,” Mook wrote.
It’s easy to see why New York is a prize for the Democratic hopefuls. With 291 delegates on the line, it is second only to California in terms of impact on the race. However, for Clinton, the state has added importance because she represented it in the U.S. Senate from 2001 until 2009 and has made it her home since she left the White House. Losing her adopted home state to Sanders, who despite his Brooklyn roots has been largely absent from New York for decades, would be an especially embarrassing defeat.
The RealClearPolitics average of New York primary polls shows Clinton with an 11.7-point lead over Sanders. However, the polls have tightened substantially. Just last month, Clinton had an advantage of more than 30 points in New York.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/e1GP32TR9JM01gkK.DZaMg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/4d5abb9b8a767033059ca81aa54679f0)
The Clintons sign in at their voting place in Chappaqua, N.Y., Tuesday, April 19, 2016. (Photo: Richard Drew/AP)
A Clinton campaign official who requested anonymity told Yahoo News on Monday that the campaign always expected that the primary in New York would be competitive.
The official also noted that the current state of the race means Sanders will have to win more than 56 percent of the delegates in New York, and every other state on the calendar, to overtake Clinton. Because of this, Sanders would need to do more than just outperform the polls to come out ahead: He needs to beat Clinton by several points to make a difference.
Both Clinton and Sanders have strengths in the state. As he has elsewhere, Sanders has drawn massive crowds and generated substantial enthusiasm among younger voters. Along with the youth vote, Sanders’ team is hoping to win among working-class voters. Robert Becker, Sanders’ deputy national field director, told Yahoo News that the campaign’s decision to have its first major New York City event in the hardscrabble South Bronx neighborhood on March 31 was a deliberate signal about whom Sanders hopes to make part of his base.
“We started out … in the South Bronx. That should have been a signal of where we’re going to make a play, the sort of lower end on the wage scale, make poverty an issue here, obviously, working class, the youth,” Becker said when asked where Sanders expected to draw support.
Sanders faces strong obstacles as he tries to win with that coalition. Clinton has repeatedly outperformed him with black voters, and recent polls indicate he is not on track to buck this trend in New York.
Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who is backing Clinton, identified some of the candidates’ advantages in a conversation with Yahoo News at a campaign event in Harlem earlier this month.
“I think it’s very much of a home state for her,” Brewer said of Clinton. “She was beloved in New York. Sen. Sanders hasn’t been in Brooklyn for a long time. So I think Hillary will win big. That said, in addition to being the borough president, I also teach at Hunter College and … a lot of my students, they like Bernie.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/6DHnK7YjIcbtfeqaroOaMw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/384011e59f47ad31c6cb7ae7ea4041b5)
Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally in Prospect Park, in Brooklyn, N.Y., where he was born. (Photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)
A Quinnipiac University poll released on April 12 found that while Sanders has a 19-point lead among voters ages 18 to 44, he was trailing badly with African-American voters. Quinnipiac showed Clinton with a huge 37-point advantage among New York’s black voters, and the university’s pollsters largely attributed her overall lead to the African-American electorate.
“Black voters matter for Secretary Hillary Clinton in the New York Democratic primary,” Quinnipiac University Poll Assistant Director Maurice Carroll said in a statement announcing the results.
The rules in New York also favor Clinton. Sanders has, thus far, fared better in states with open primaries where independents are allowed to vote in the Democratic race. However, New York election law allows only registered Democrats to participate in the primary. Voters who wanted to join the party had to do so by last October, and new voters who wanted to register as Democrats needed to do so by March 25. Because of these rules, Sanders needs to win among people who were already members of the Democratic Party and were registered before he kicked off his campaign in the state.
In the spin room after the Democratic debate last Thursday, Sanders’ senior adviser Tad Devine acknowledged that the closed nature of New York’s primary is not ideal for his candidate. Devine also pointed out that Sanders’ strength with voters who are not party stalwarts may also be part of why he outperforms Clinton in some hypothetical general election polls. Those results are a major part of the Sanders campaign case that delegates should switch sides and back the Vermont senator.
“It is an obstacle. I mean, listen, we do better when independents can vote. … It’s just a much better system, and Bernie does much better with independents,” Devine said.
Clinton also has the backing of the vast majority of New York’s elected Democratic establishment. The state’s entire congressional delegation has endorsed her, along with Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. At Sanders’ South Bronx rally, Assemblyman Luis Sepúlveda suggested he faced pressure to back Clinton.
“Several months ago, I was told, ‘You must endorse a particular candidate,” Sepúlveda recounted. “And I said, ‘Hold on, what’s the rush to judgment? Why don’t we find out about all the candidates? Let’s review the record.”
And many of the Democratic politicians backing Clinton have strong voter turnout organizations of their own, including Brewer, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. Speaking with Yahoo News in the spin room after the debate, Jeffries said the organization in his Brooklyn district was working the streets for Clinton.
“We’re going to work as hard as we can over the next few days to turn the vote out,” Jeffries said.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/pZJoyD2vez9dux83RWqUBg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/5dce9c67d8864d9a87f00e3d347695a4)
Clinton campaigning at Junior’s restaurant in Brooklyn with Council Member Laurie Cumbo and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Saturday, April 9, 2016. (Photo: Seth Wenig/AP)
With Sanders’ momentum and the polls tightening, Clinton will need to capitalize on all of her strengths in the state. While she has begun building what some on her campaign have termed an “insurmountable” delegate lead, a narrow single-digit victory in her adopted home, with an army of allies by her side, will hardly dull Sanders’ momentum or stop his campaign from arguing that delegates should jump Clinton’s ship. In the spin room, Devine argued that Sanders doesn’t necessarily need a victory in New York to remain viable.
“Listen, I’m not going to say we’re going to win every contest between now and the middle of June. We’re going to win most of them. We’re going to win, by far, most of the delegates. We can make up the pledged delegate differential,” Devine said. “I believe when the voting’s over, he’ll be ahead in pledged delegates, he’ll be way ahead in the general election matchups, and I think the Democratic Party is going to … realize that Bernie Sanders, by far, is the strongest candidate for our party.”
Majority of Americans can't fathom supporting T rump or Clinton (or Cruz)https://www.yahoo.com/news/T rump-clinton-cruz-majority-wont-support-143030280.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/T rump-clinton-cruz-majority-wont-support-143030280.html)
Yahoo News
Dylan Stableford Senior editor April 19, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/QqVDAFWcP63P0jBRGFUz7A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/67f3eb8efa5b9e8b577411361a4f82d6)
Donald T rump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. (Photos: John Minchillo/AP; Dennis Van Tine/STAR MAX/IPx/AP; Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)
They may be the frontrunners, but a majority of Americans can’t see themselves supporting either Donald T rump or Hillary Clinton. Nor, for that matter, could they fathom supporting Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
According to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll, 68 percent of registered voters say they couldn’t see themselves supporting T rump, while 58 percent say the same about Clinton. Sixty-one percent of voters surveyed said they couldn’t see themselves backing Cruz.
Bernie Sanders and John Kasich fared slightly better, with a minority of voters saying they couldn’t see themselves supporting either the Vermont senator (48 percent) or the Ohio governor (47 percent).
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/fW6419KawgbLwhBY3ODJGw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjAwO2g9MzAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/0e6afb2ca6f33f12196d9e0b7c1eac66)
What’s more, 65 percent of all voters hold a negative view of T rump — making him “the most unpopular major presidential candidate in the history” of the NBC/WSJ poll. A majority of voters (56 percent) have an unfavorable view of Clinton — a figure that has risen five points in the last month — while 49 percent view Cruz the same way.
In terms of favorability, Sanders and Kasich scored net-positive favorability ratings, the NBC/WSJ poll found. Sanders is also the only candidate who more voters could see themselves supporting than could not.
“To top it off,” NBC senior political editor Mark Murray noted, “just 19 percent of all respondents give Clinton high marks for being honest and trustworthy, while only 12 percent give T rump high scores for having the right temperament.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/XlwADXP_P6ScZvBhf31FtQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjAwO2g9MzAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/554997776cbcdfe1bc613ee766687fb0)
Nonetheless, a majority of likely voters in both parties say they’d be satisfied with them as their nominees.
Among Democrats, 73 percent say they’d be either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with Clinton as the nominee, while 63 percent of Republicans said the same about T rump.
Still, more GOP voters say they’d be satisfied with Cruz (66 percent) than with T rump.
New York Rep. Peter King is not one of them.
“I hate Ted Cruz,” King said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday. “I think I’ll take cyanide if he got the nomination.”
The founders did LOTS of dumb things for dumb reasons - though I get that about the tyranny of the majority being a thing.
New Yorkers Cower As Clinton Victory Speech Reverberates Across Entire Statehttp://www.theonion.com/article/new-yorkers-cower-clinton-victory-speech-reverbera-52784 (http://www.theonion.com/article/new-yorkers-cower-clinton-victory-speech-reverbera-52784)
The Onion April 20, 2016
(http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5326/2/16x9/800.jpg)
ALBANY, NY—Covering their ears as the thunderous sound violently shook buildings and shattered glass windows, New York residents reportedly cowered in shock and fear Tuesday night as Hillary Clinton’s primary election victory speech reverberated across the entire state. “Thank you all so much—today, you proved once again there’s no place like home,” said the Democratic presidential candidate, as her deafening address, which seemed to come from all sides at once, boomed across the landscape, setting off car alarms and forcing drivers to pull over to the side of the road in all 62 New York counties. “The race for the nomination is in the home stretch, and victory is in sight. You have carried us every step of the way with passion and determination. I am grateful to every one of you.” At press time, sources in the upcoming primary states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania reported witnessing ripples in their water glasses as the opening line of Clinton’s stump speech swelled in the distance.
For Rusty:QuoteNew Yorkers Cower As Clinton Victory Speech Reverberates Across Entire Statehttp://www.theonion.com/article/new-yorkers-cower-clinton-victory-speech-reverbera-52784 (http://www.theonion.com/article/new-yorkers-cower-clinton-victory-speech-reverbera-52784)
The Onion April 20, 2016
(http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5326/2/16x9/800.jpg)
ALBANY, NY—Covering their ears as the thunderous sound violently shook buildings and shattered glass windows, New York residents reportedly cowered in shock and fear Tuesday night as Hillary Clinton’s primary election victory speech reverberated across the entire state. “Thank you all so much—today, you proved once again there’s no place like home,” said the Democratic presidential candidate, as her deafening address, which seemed to come from all sides at once, boomed across the landscape, setting off car alarms and forcing drivers to pull over to the side of the road in all 62 New York counties. “The race for the nomination is in the home stretch, and victory is in sight. You have carried us every step of the way with passion and determination. I am grateful to every one of you.” At press time, sources in the upcoming primary states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania reported witnessing ripples in their water glasses as the opening line of Clinton’s stump speech swelled in the distance.
since he's going to find a reason to quit... Why bother?
Bernie Sanders: ‘We intend to take the fight all the way to California’ — but not necessarily the convention(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qcCfarlqEs#)
Yahoo News
Dylan Stableford Senior editor April 24, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/U65eWPmoDpe2DFHjkK485Q--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://36.media.tumblr.com/c5d36a2127b5c4f9d0fd45fd13012322/tumblr_inline_o65f3605Uc1tdoo3z_1280.jpg)
Bernie Sanders speaks at a rally in Providence, R.I., on Sunday. (Photo: Steven Senne/AP)
Following Bernie Sanders’ loss to Hillary Clinton in the New York primary last week, his campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, vowed that the Vermont senator would take his fight to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia in July.
But on Sunday, Sanders would only look as far ahead as California’s Democratic primary on June 7.
“We intend to take the fight all the way to California,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” “so people throughout this country have a right to determine who they want as president and what kind of agenda they want for the Democratic Party.”
Sanders repeated the phrase when asked if he would support Clinton as the Democratic nominee in the fall, just as she supported Barack Obama in 2008.
“We’re not giving this thing up,” the self-described democratic socialist said. “We’re going all the way to California. But if she is the nominee, I would hope that she puts together the strongest progressive agenda that says, ‘Yes, we’re going to stand with the working families in this country. We are prepared to take on the fossil fuel industry and the drug companies Wall Street and the billionaire class.’ And if she has a candidate for vice president who is prepared to carry that mantle, prepared to engage in that fight, I think that would be a very good thing for her campaign.”
On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Sanders focused on the present.
“We are in this race. We are not writing our obituary. We’re in this race to California,” he said, before letting a tense change slip. “And we’re proud of the campaign we ran.”
On CBS’ “Face The Nation,” Sanders said it wouldn’t be fair to the Golden State to drop out before it got to vote.
“You can’t say to largest state in this country, ‘California, you can’t determine who the nominee will be or what the agenda will be,’” he said.
On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sanders pointed to its 475 delegates as his “narrow path” to winning the Democratic nomination.
“I’m not going to tell you that it’s easy,” Sanders said. “What polls seem to be showing is that many of the states yet to come — including California, our largest state — we have a real shot to win. And I think, also, there are a lot of delegates out there who are looking at the general matchup, and what they’re seeing in polls is that Bernie Sanders is running a lot stronger against Donald T rump than is Hillary Clinton, because we can appeal to a lot of independents and people, not just the Democrats.”
“So, I think we do have a path to victory,” Sanders continued. “I think we have come a very, very long way in the last year, and we’re going to fight for every last vote until the California and the D.C. primary.”
The Washington, D.C., primary is scheduled for June 14.
In an interview with Yahoo News last week, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook predicted she’ll have the magic number of delegates needed to secure the nomination by that date.
“I’m not concerned with the primary going until the end,” he said. “I think Hillary, by the end of the primary, by the time the states on June 7 and June 14 vote, it’ll be clear who the nominee is gonna be.”
I never dared to dream he would go away on his own.It strikes me to point out that Cruz is part of an organized movement - the Hog-Calling Contest at least would have to develop successors. The tea party literally has a million of them already.
It's more like I have a persistent vision of a fascist America, with intermittent hope that Cruz can stop him...and then I realize it's merely the difference between a populist fascist and a theocratic fascist, and it makes me seriously consider the Oligarchy alternative.
Which leads to the entrenchment question- If we choose one of the above, which form of government are we least likely to get stuck with? Defying and rejecting both the Clintons and Bushes would have been a turning point away from Oligarchy, but if we don't, we're boiler plating the bureaucracy old boy network. Sure, there's bound to be blowback to whoever ascends the thrown, but all of the Obama hate didn't stop his re-election.
All the next president has to do is choose a war. Then, they can seize more power and stifle dissent.
This fork in the road is the devil's own trident.
I'm seeing headlines that Cruz announced Carly Fiorina as his running mate. What? -you needed a woman they'd say was only picked for being a woman against Mrs. Clinton? Did Sarah Palin chicken out or ask for too much money? Was Michelle Bachman off her med this week and shot at the operatives who approached her to ask? Did Elizabeth Dole drop dead and not tell anyone?
There are Republican women running around who are not lightweights with so many insurmountable negatives, Senator...
I'm just seeing the "Lucifer in the flesh" headlines.You know, I had seen that headline, but I had to see it again to get the reference. Like a lot of Democrats, I'm rather fond of Boner now that he's gone.
Think I'd prefer Lucifer.
Boehner calls Cruz 'Lucifer in the flesh'http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/john-boehner-ted-cruz-lucifer-stanford/index.html?sr=fbCNN042816john-boehner-ted-cruz-lucifer-stanford0259PMVODtopLink&linkId=23952079 (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/john-boehner-ted-cruz-lucifer-stanford/index.html?sr=fbCNN042816john-boehner-ted-cruz-lucifer-stanford0259PMVODtopLink&linkId=23952079)
CNN
By Tom LoBianco and Deirdre Walsh, Updated 8:00 AM ET, Fri April 29, 2016
Story highlights
Boehner said he was "texting buddies" with Donald T rump
He is also friends with former House colleague and fellow Ohioan John Kasich
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150925094720-04-boehner-0925-exlarge-169.jpg)
Washington (CNN) — Former House Speaker John Boehner called Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh," in a withering interview at Stanford University published Thursday.
In it, he repeated many of the same attacks he used last month while calling on his successor, Paul Ryan, to seek the Republican nomination.
"Lucifer in the flesh," Boehner told Stanford's David Kennedy, a history professor emeritus, according to the Stanford Daily. "I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life."
Boehner also said he was "texting buddies" with GOP presidential front-runner Donald T rump and friends with former House colleague and fellow Ohioan, John Kasich.
The account in the student newspaper is accurate, a source close to Boehner confirmed Thursday.
Cruz tweeted a response Thursday morning: "Tell me again who will stand up to Washington? T rump, who's Boehner's "texting and golfing buddy," or Carly & me?"Quote(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/723930604077649921/8HI8hmJb_bigger.jpg) Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
Tell me again who will stand up to Washington? T rump, who's Boehner's "texting and golfing buddy," or Carly & me?
Retweets 1,895 Likes 2,143 7:23 AM - 28 Apr 2016
He later told reporters Boehner "allowed his inner T rump to come out."
"The interesting thing is I've never worked with John Boehner, I don't know the man," Cruz said. "Indeed, during the government shut down, I reached out to John Boehner, to work with him to get something meaningful done. He said, 'I have no interest in talking to you.' "
Boehner and Cruz clashed over the government shutdown and Obamacare fights from the time Cruz took his Senate seat in 2013 to when Boehner stepped down last fall.
Cruz continued: "When John Boehner calls me Lucifer, he is directing it at you. What Boehner is angry at is me standing with the American people."
Cruz has been arguing for months now that he is the candidate best positioned to unify the Republican Party ahead of the November battle. But his support among his many Senate and House colleagues has been tepid at best -- with a handful of senators only recently endorsing him.
Boehner's relationship with Cruz pre-dates their time in Congress together. Cruz was hired as part of Boehner's legal team, after he sued a Democratic congressman, Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state, for breaking wiretapping laws back in 1998.
The Ohio congressman was caught on a telephone phone call talking to then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich about ethics allegations against the speaker, and McDermott released the tape to the press. After years of litigation of arguing the release of the call by McDermott was unlawful, Boehner prevailed in the case.
Boehner also compared Cruz to the devil last month in a talk before financial industry lobbyists and executives in Florida. In the same March speech he urged Ryan to seek the nomination.
"If we don't have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, I'm for none of the above," Boehner said at the Futures Industry Association conference. "They all had a chance to win. None of them won. So I'm for none of the above. I'm for Paul Ryan to be our nominee."
Ryan has adamantly ruled out accepting the Republican nomination. He also said Thursday he has "a much better relationship with Sen. Cruz" than Boehner.
"Look, my job is to help unify our party. It's to take all pieces of the conservative movement in the Republican Party and help stitch them together, especially after a primary," Ryan said at a news conference. "I have a very good relationship with both of these men and I'm going to keep it that way."
I guess we are.
---
Echo chamber or not, I think between my background in mass communications and yours as a local campaign worker, and all we agree and disagree on, combine to make us a fairly insightful political thinker, like two lobes of a brain that's got a wide POV and is smart at it.
---
Don't have Man-Kzin III yet, maybe it'll arrive Monday.Well, it's not canon, so don't let it hold you up - however it is good, despite the second blatant ripoff of a Bogart movie in a row in a Pournelle contribution...
Bernie Sanders begins making case to Hillary Clinton’s superdelegateshttps://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-campaign-launch-anniversary-200031589.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-campaign-launch-anniversary-200031589.html)
Yahoo News
Dylan Stableford Senior editor May 01, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/fLfMUBf_QN41Yg0aerJTdA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://67.media.tumblr.com/5ba809a2ed57f20c9d0401f6e3a5d39f/tumblr_inline_o6il6kYTXj1tdoo3z_1280.jpg)
Bernie Sanders at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Sunday. (Photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)
Bernie Sanders held a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Sunday to mark one year since launching his presidential bid, vowing to take his fight for the Democratic nomination to the superdelegates currently supporting frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
“It’s a tough road to climb,” Sanders told reporters at the National Press Club, but “not an impossible” one.
In a scene reminiscent of the sparsely attended, April 30, 2015, press conference on Capitol Hill where he formally announced his run, the Vermont senator said that those superdelegates supporting the former secretary of state ought to rethink their pledge — particularly in states where he won handily.
“I would ask the superdelegates to respect the wishes of the people of those states,” Sanders said.
Overall, Clinton has the support of 520 superdelegates, while Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist, has “all of 39” — despite winning 17 primaries and caucuses “in every part of the country.”
Sanders pointed out that although he won Washington state’s Democratic caucuses by 46 points (73 percent to 27 percent) and 25 of the state’s 36 pledged delegates, Clinton has the support of 10 of Washington’s Democratic unpledged superdelegates.
“We have zero,” he said. “Obviously, we are taking on the entire Democratic establishment.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/LvDyuLf14A3oAhKBj5SScQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://36.media.tumblr.com/d5f564d4b704f3bc4a62ca8979148f0f/tumblr_inline_o6idkmsW2b1tdoo3z_1280.jpg)
Sanders on Capitol Hill after announcing his run for president, April 30, 2015. (Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
Clinton’s lead over Sanders in pledged delegates is 1,645 to 1,318.
“Let’s be clear,” Sanders said. “It is virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to reach the majority of convention delegates by June 14 — the end of the primary season — with pledged delegates alone. She will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, it will be a contested convention.”
He urged the superdelegates to consider which Democratic candidate would have the best chance of winning in November. And “based on virtually every national and state poll over the last several months,” Sanders said, that would be him.
“I would be the stronger candidate,” he said, noting that it “would be a disaster if Donald T rump or some other rightwing Republican were to become president of the United States.”
Sanders also said superdelegates should consider the youthful enthusiasm he’s injected into the Democratic Party, drawing a total of more than 1.1 million people to his rallies and a record 7.4 million individual campaign contributions — statistics that Sanders says prove his nomination would not only secure the White House but also help Democrats win down-ballot races in the fall.
“The energy and excitement in this campaign is with the work we have done,” Sanders said. “This is an important reality that superdelegates cannot ignore.”
Which is why the Sanders campaign is prepared to take its case — and its message — through the presidential primaries in California and Washington, D.C., in June and to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July.
Sanders began the press conference noting that last year on this date, he trailed Clinton by at least 60 points in national polls. Now, the Vermont senator said, he’s nearly pulled even with Clinton in many of those same polls — even leading her in some.
“When we started, we were considered to be a fringe candidacy,” he said. “That was then, today is today.”
And while Sanders reiterated to reporters that he would do everything in his power to stop T rump from becoming president if he ultimately loses the Democratic nomination, he was in no mood to talk about his campaign’s “legacy.”
“I hope my legacy will be that I was a very good president,” Sanders said.
At that 2015 press conference to announce the launch of his presidential campaign, Sanders was even more bullish.
“We’re in this race to win,” he said.
Mary Matalin: Political Pundit and Republican Strategist Changes Party Registration to Libertarian
Matalin told Bloomberg Politics Thursday she was a Republican in the "Jeffersonian, Madisonian sense," adding, "The Libertarian Party represents those constitutional principles that I agree with."
Mary Matalin, Republican Strategist and Pundit, Changes Political Partieshttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/mary-matalin-republican-strategist-and-pundit-changes-political-parties.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/mary-matalin-republican-strategist-and-pundit-changes-political-parties.html?_r=0)
The New York Times
By CHRISTOPHER MELE MAY 5, 2016
Mary Matalin, a high-profile political pundit and veteran strategist for the Republican Party, changed her party registration to Libertarian from Republican, she said on Thursday.
But in an interview with Bloomberg Politics, which reported on the switch, she emphasized that her decision was not connected to Donald J. T rump’s being the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
She described herself as a voter as a “provisional T rump” and a “never Hillary,” referring to the leading Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Pressed on Thursday about why she switched political parties, Ms. Matalin told Bloomberg Politics that she was a Republican in the “Jeffersonian, Madisonian sense.”
“I’m not a Republican for a party or a person,” she continued. “The Libertarian Party represents those constitutional principles that I agree with.”
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/06/us/06xp-matalin_web1/06xp-matalin_web1-blog427.jpg)
Mary Matalin
Of Mr. T rump, Ms. Matalin said she liked his attitude and what she knew of his economic policies, adding: “I just don’t know enough. I think not only could he win, I think he could win in a landslide if he would stop his high school boy antics with women; otherwise he’s going to force suburban women to Hillary.”
She said conservatives were angry after two successive presidential elections in which they lost and with what appeared to be no response from Washington as the party was “falling apart.”
Ms. Matalin is probably best known for her appearances on television as a staunch defender of Republican policies. For more than a decade, she appeared on CNN with her husband, James Carville, a Democratic strategist.
The husband-and-wife team were two of the network’s best-known contributors. For years they were co-hosts of “Crossfire.” After it was canceled, they were regulars on “The Situation Room” and election night specials. They announced in early 2013 that they were parting ways with CNN.
Ms. Matalin was President George Bush’s campaign director and was assistant to President George W. Bush. She was also assistant and counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney, according to her website.
She worked at the Republican National Committee in 1984 as national voter contact director for the Reagan-Bush campaign and later as chief of staff to the chairman of the committee.
What all exactly did you do as a GOP insider? I can imagine you humbly knocking on doors and harassing people at a legal distance outside polling places, but as smart as you are, I could also imagine you as the top guy for the county or at least reporting directly to him. You're kinda too well-informed, I think, to have done only the knucklehead stuff...
Looking back I wish I would have made the effort to meet the Real George Bush.I will be sad when the real George Bush dies. It's a pity he doesn't get to see TV the week after. Gerald Ford deserved that, too, and so will Dr. Carter. Hell, it would have done the world no harm to have given Nixon the thrill of seeing Bob Dole lose it, which was sweet of him.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/3-reasons-donald-T rump-could-beat-hillary-clinton-and-win-the-presidency/ar-BBsECsz (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/3-reasons-donald-T rump-could-beat-hillary-clinton-and-win-the-presidency/ar-BBsECsz)This actually makes a lot of sense.
I'll paraphrase rather than cut & paste this one-
3 Reasons Donald T rump could beat Hillary Clinton.
Polls favor her, but don't underestimate him.
1) He's able to shrug a lot of stuff off, and he could hardly do worse with minorities than Romney vs. Obama.
2) By track records, T rump is much better at shaping the discourse than Hillary.
3) Clinton will be forced to defend the Status Quo, and T rump is the way to flip off D.C.
post-Journalism era of American PoliticsThat's a rather brilliant turn of phrase, sir, something for which you seem to have a gift.
Ben Carson: Former GOP Candidate Names Potential Vice President Nominees for Donald T rumpNot nearly so moronic a list as one might have feared, with a glaring exception. -And I'd tend to guess only Christie wants the nod, if some of the others might reluctantly accept.
Carson, who is part of T rump's vice presidential search committee, named Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie as potentials for the role to The Washington Post.
Okay so ha ha ha. Very funny, we got punked. You punked the World with this T rump and Hillary circus but now you're scaring us....Do what the dirty, dirty feriner says, people; he's right...
Please finish the joke and come out with the REAL contenders for Pres.
One of my best early efforts, that modification. ;nod
We aren't flooded with Bruce and Tex here, oddly enough, or I probably would have installed it. Lotta furriners, but them's mostly Euros.
-Everybody gets a free smilie install request, BTW, and you ain't used yours, Bruce... I've totally got the file somewhere...
It's called Right-Click Save-As. ;)Yeah; first thing I did to make that one. Are you asking for the Bruce smilie or not?
I was always pretty sure of that. ;goofy;It's called Right-Click Save-As. ;)Yeah; first thing I did to make that one. Are you asking for the Bruce smilie or not?
Robert Kagan: Columnist Pens 'This Is How Fascism Comes to America' Opinion Piece on Donald T rumpThe Post link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html)
"The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald T rump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic," Kagan wrote in the The Washington Post piece.
[fuddle-duddle] I hope he wins. ;lol
T rump 42%
Hillary 39%
Johnson 10%
People hardly know who Johnson is at this stage. That's a descent showing for a third party guy who hasn't secured his nomination as yet.
[fuddle-duddle] I hope he wins. ;lol
And it's a Fox poll as reported by Fox. There's billions of ways to rig a poll and skew the reporting of the results w/o even trying or being deliberately dishonest.
And it's a Fox poll as reported by Fox. There's billions of ways to rig a poll and skew the reporting of the results w/o even trying or being deliberately dishonest.
[fuddle-duddle] I hope he wins. ;lol
What can you tell us of immigration policies down there?
If only I could extract myself and Buster from this dystopian nightmare timeline, I would leave the electorate to what they deserve, not without regret, but without hesitation.
It Can Happen Here.
So is the email stuff going to be enough to push Sanders in?
I laid it on a little too thick, I guess.
Wait, let me get this straight.........
The two main party's put up a list of candidates, which the people voted on and picked as T rump and Hillary (presumed). Now the party's don't like the two candidates the people have picked and are trying their hardest to get someone else in the job which the people don't know about, or don't care about?
I thought Aussie party politics was delusional! This is a whole new level of deluded!
Wait, let me get this straight.........
The two main party's put up a list of candidates, which the people voted on and picked as T rump and Hillary (presumed). Now the party's don't like the two candidates the people have picked and are trying their hardest to get someone else in the job which the people don't know about, or don't care about?
I thought Aussie party politics was delusional! This is a whole new level of deluded!
Since Ronald Reagan’s first victory, sales of rubber Halloween masks caricaturing the Republican and Democratic candidates have predicted the next president
A good sanders would also serve very well as a generic crazy neighbor and such should he fade into obscurity...
...That looks more like Jimmy Carter gone hobo than a zombilary...
...Those clowns would find somebody worse than the Pig, with their track record, which I guess is good news for OJ and/or Charles Manson...
...Those clowns would find somebody worse than the Pig, with their track record, which I guess is good news for OJ and/or Charles Manson...
Okay. This is Unospeak.
It's definitely highly pejorative when I use it, most especially when used in a context of governance. Management should never look like a circus act not adept juggling and/or high-wire acts.
Just have to say this because its bugged me since I started reading this thread. Why is T rump aliased?
I don't think it is wise to alias just him and not Hillary and Sanders. As much of a tosser as the guy is, it looks really bad of the admins here, as if open discussion from the Republican side is not welcome.
Just sayin'.
Some POVs go too far to be tolerated by decent people. Period. You may not give it free publicity in my house, just as you may not troll or express racist opinions.
It wants more than anything for us to say it's name. If everyone hadn't been talking about the trashy publicity-[prostitute] celebrity and had treated it like the joke it is, we wouldn't be in this fix.
[blinks] No.
That was the Horse Race Factor in a post-journalism world.
You sound like an American when you make with the Reagan talk.
More to my point. I'm doubling down on my original statement on the whole scenario. T rump is not going away. You can't go negative on him as that's his ballgame. The only way to beat him is to wear him down on the actual issues (it's the only time ANYONE had success on him in the primaries, btw, as I predicted. But then they forgot) that he is in NO WAY ready to give competent answers to.
HOWEVER, The Dems are ALREADY going negative on him, playing his game. With a (presumptive) candidate that has just as many negatives, no less. They are playing right into his hand, and it's a losing prospect.
Today's gleanings-
*... stuff...
Finally!
Real Clear Politics is tracking Johnson in the polls with an 8.5% average. Double that, and he's in the debates.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-5949.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-5949.html)
As for the latest poll, it was taken in Utah-
T rump 29%
Clinton 26%
Johnson 16% ( presumably he's better known here, close to New Mexico )
Other 29% ( presumably mostly Romney holdouts )
Even so, 16% is a respectable for Johnson when he has to compete against "Other".
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/07/gary-johnson-polls-16-in-utah (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/07/gary-johnson-polls-16-in-utah)
A series of "There IS a third option" type TV ads might not be misplaced.I don't know if God Almighty Himself could get Johnson elected, but enough of those commercials you describe -in a way, nothing but a pic of him with his name on it and that slogan, 5 second spots, would be best- alone would guarantee 15-20 % in the general and a foot in the door for the Libertarians in the future...
Today's gleanings-
*... stuff...
Had to LOL, a lot of what I said over at WPC in response to one of the regulars over there matches up with what you were saying, although I left a lot of the detail out as I was doing a specific response to someone. Just a lot of my own thoughts in there is all.
BTW, I doubt she will ever be indited for being a traitor (Libya & emails, et all), nor will her foundation ever really be audited, as it is basically their pocket book, and they have too many friends (or at least people who don't want the skellies dug out of their own closets).
Nice sig.
:(
He says he believes most Americans are Libertarians, and don't know it. In broad terms, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
His campaign keeping it simple and short is KEY...
Someone closed my politics thread at WPC without even a note as to why....
Someone closed my politics thread at WPC without even a note as to why....
He did, he did.
Now it's time to fight like ten wolverines for the platform and then support Mrs. Clinton 1,000%.
-I don't like it, either.
Funny thing about this-
It's customary after the nomination to have the candidate and his running mate on the bumper stickers - not an option here because of the slogan. Can't have two names and mention a third option...
It looks better in full color, doesn't it? I should probably do it with the swoosh flipped - or better, find me another middle divider thingy...Funny thing about this-
It's customary after the nomination to have the candidate and his running mate on the bumper stickers - not an option here because of the slogan. Can't have two names and mention a third option...
Good point. I love the star-spangled background.
Candidates using the Orlando tragedy to further their political agendas-
Obama
Stein
Drumpf
Candidates deliberately refraining from politicizing the Orlando tragedy and strictly expressing compassion for the victims and their loved ones-
Clinton
Johnson
Sanders
I'm disappointed in Stein.
I'm surprised and impressed by Hillary.
Candidates using the Orlando tragedy to further their political agendas-
Obama
Stein
Drumpf
Candidates deliberately refraining from politicizing the Orlando tragedy and strictly expressing compassion for the victims and their loved ones-
Clinton
Johnson
Sanders
I'm disappointed in Stein.
I'm surprised and impressed by Hillary.
Well there's horrific gun violence in America literally every single day, so if we're only allowed to talk about gun control when there isn't a tragedy, our options are somewhat limited...
And what is Mr. Bakrama running for?
* The FBI has leaked that Hillary was approving drone strikes on her unsecured system.
-I s'pose she might get consulted on spook activity sometimes, them being so intertwined with the State Department, IF it was a spook operation. One can imagine certain political hits getting kicked around outside the actual chain of command...* The FBI has leaked that Hillary was approving drone strikes on her unsecured system.
I didn't think Secretary of State had that authority in the chain of command?
-I s'pose she might get consulted on spook activity sometimes, them being so intertwined with the State Department, IF it was a spook operation. One can imagine certain political hits getting kicked around outside the actual chain of command...* The FBI has leaked that Hillary was approving drone strikes on her unsecured system.
I didn't think Secretary of State had that authority in the chain of command?
* The FBI has leaked that Hillary was approving drone strikes on her unsecured system.
I didn't think Secretary of State had that authority in the chain of command?
* Mitt Romney has had more good things to say about Bill Weld, and is moving closer to saying he'll vote for Johnson. I think that would give him a good shot at winning a Mountain time zone state, seeing as how they are Mormon heavy and know religious prejudice when they hear it from The Leader.
As for the gun issue, the party is emphatic. They are adamant Bill of Rights people, more than any party I've ever seen. Bill Weld barely got approved because although a hunter, he once supported an assault rifle ban. They insisted on 2nd Amendment pledges. If they broke faith 2 weeks after securing the nomination, I could easily see state parties failing to assist in ballot access... " Oh darn. Did we get your name wrong? File late? Forget to get it notarized? The whole thing musta slipped my mind when you forgot you were a Libertarian."
There's no reason you need more than a single shot gun/rifle.
There's no reason you need more than a single shot gun/rifle.
The .303 is a little difficult to get ammo for here, but I understand it's like the British equivalent of a 30.06, if a little smaller. (not of consequence to hunting anything in NA or Australia)
What were you hunting out of curiousity.
Anyhow, I disagree.
A 700-900 lb elk at 300+ yards is not an easy one-shot, and not uncommon situation in the Rockies.
Also, I've seen a LOT of bad shooters hunting, and am of the opinion it's better to KILL than to let a wounded animal escape due to bad first shot. I don't see a need for a Semi-auto by any stretch, but don't see a problem with bolt actions. (For the record, my 1903 springfield only ever took one shot at a living thing.)
Why hunt roos? I gather they're considered giant rats and not anything you'd eat...
My brother and I used to hunt rabbits and roos (kangaroos). We used to also use the 303 to put down cows (single shot, back of the ear). Sure it won't bring down a large animal, but is very popular here for medium size animal hunting. It became very popular in British countries as it was a fast bolt-action rifle with good accuracy over medium distance.
The 303 is a branch of the Lee-Enfield. Over here the cartridge, short-cartridge and auto models are illegal. However with the proper license you can purchase a bolt-action single or clip (5 round).
* T rump can't win is part of today's articles. They cite how 55% are in the Never T rump category, and 70% disapprove of him. Remember how T rump used to cite the polls to prove how popular and right he was? He doesn't. The latest poll was taken after the shootings, and people approve of how Hillary and Obama responded rather than T rump. So his fearmongering didn't work. Today he was giving depositions. Celebrity chefs Geoffry Zacharian and Jose Andres were supposed to open restaurants in his new DC hotel, but they refused when he started disparaging Mexicans. T rump sued, they counter-sued, hence today's dispositions.
There was always a nagging thing in my head that wondered if that attack might not have been staged. (yes, I'm THAT paranoid) My original thinking was that it would help T rump, but he played it so horribly (and yet predictably), perhaps it's the opposite. Is there any reasonable chance he could be replaced on the ticket barring him bowing out?
Setting up a private server to store email and classified documents while secretary of state. The server itself is proof of criminal activity - and a disregard for rules and regulations more suited to an absolute monarch than a presidential candidate.
Her constant dismissal of the matter, and the FBI investigations snail pace, is just prolonging the agony. (The 'Anne Coulter' version is that her buddy Obama is delaying the investigation to see if she wins the election, than she can bury it, and if she doesn't win his hands never got dirty and the investigations prints its 500-600 page report in due course.) It would be far better for all involved to just publish even a prelim report to clear the air (unless she is guilty).
So far the State Department has publicly released more than 30,000 of Clinton’s own emails. Of these 22 were classified by the State Department as “top secret,” 65 as “secret” and 2,028 as “confidential.”
And remember how the world ended up learning about her server: through the investigation on her conduct in Benghazi.
Mike Pompeo: House Benghazi Committee Member Criticizes Hillary Clinton's Leadership During 2012 Attackhttps://www.facebook.com/topic/Mike-Pompeo/109196455804077?source=whfrt&position=3&trqid=6301335718592390374 (https://www.facebook.com/topic/Mike-Pompeo/109196455804077?source=whfrt&position=3&trqid=6301335718592390374)
Rep. Pompeo, R-Kansas, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Tuesday released an addendum to the committee's Benghazi report, saying Clinton "failed to lead" as secretary of state.
Unconventional #27: How realistic is Sanders’ convention wish list? Plus: the rules nerd behind the new push to ‘free the delegates’ in Cleveland (and more!)https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-27-realistic-sanders-convention-000000028.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-27-realistic-sanders-convention-000000028.html)
Yahoo
Andrew Romano West Coast Correspondent June 22, 2016
Unconventional is Yahoo News’ complete guide to what could be the craziest presidential conventions in decades. Here’s what you need to know today.
1. Bernie’s wish list: which of his demands will be met at the convention — and which won’t
Little-known fact: Bernie Sanders is still (technically) running for president.
It’s true. Even though you no longer see him railing against billionaires on TV, and even though he delivered what sounded a lot like a concession speech two days after losing the June 7 make-or-break California primary by nearly 13 percentage points, the senator from Vermont still hasn’t officially dropped out of the Democratic primary contest.
He isn’t attacking Hillary Clinton anymore. He isn’t fantasizing about flipping superdelegates. He’s abandoned all pretense of nabbing the nomination in Philadelphia.
And yet Sanders is still charging U.S. taxpayers more than $38,000 a day to continue his campaign.
Why? Because Bernie has a wish list.
In a series of statements over the past few weeks, Sanders has made it abundantly clear what he wants from Clinton and the Democratic establishment before he will concede, endorse, and “unite the party.”
With 33 days to go until Philly, Unconventional decided to rank each item on Sanders’ wish list — from most realistic to least — based on the current political climate and the progress (or lack of progress) by him and his team so far.
We’ll regularly revisit these rankings as the convention approaches.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/IO62.ZFChw2uvQNoe10n6g--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MjA0ODtoPTEzNjU-/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/ddb6af7677bbd3f348e5927d9b04538a)
Replace DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
In Sanders’ words: “We need a person at the leadership of the DNC who is vigorously supporting and out working to bring people into the political process. Yeah, I know, political parties need money. But it is more important that we have energy, that we have young people, that we have working-class people who are going to participate in the political process and fight for their kids and for their parents.”
Odds: Sanders may already be well on his way to getting his wish. Last Thursday, the Clinton campaign effectively took control of the DNC, sidelining Wasserman Schultz and installing Brandon Davis, national political director for the Service Employees International Union, to oversee the party’s day-to-day operations in her stead.
There is nothing unusual about this. The same thing happened in 2008 when Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination and quickly replaced then-DNC Chair Howard Dean with his trusted aide Paul Tewes.
Assuming Clinton wins in November, the question is what happens after Election Day, when Davis’ stint is scheduled to end. Will Clinton announce a new DNC chair in a bid for unity, perhaps at the convention? Or will she hope the intraparty opposition dies down and offer Wasserman Schultz — long seen as a Hillary loyalist, especially among disgruntled Sanders supporters — the opportunity to keep her job?
We’re guessing that Debbie will go — perhaps sooner rather than later. In May, CNN reported that “three Democrats with ties to the party’s power centers — President Barack Obama, Clinton and Sanders — made clear that few are rooting for Wasserman Schultz’s survival at the DNC.”
“If this is the one thing that provides unity, they would take that trade,” said one senior Democratic strategist who had spoken to the White House. “Nobody is rushing to keep her.”
Or as another Democratic adviser close to Clinton said of Wasserman Schultz, “There is an exhaustion that comes with dealing with her.”
Reduce the role of superdelegates
In Sanders’ words: “We also need obviously to get rid of superdelegates. The idea that we had 400 superdelegates pledged to a candidate some eight months or more before the first ballot was cast is, to my mind, absurd. And we need to also make sure that superdelegates do not live in a world of their own but reflect the views of the people of their own state.”
Odds: Improving. No matter what Sanders says, the Democratic Party is unlikely to “get rid” of superdelegates altogether. Achieving that goal would require the superdelegates to vote themselves out of existence, and that’s not something they’re interested in doing.
Superdelegates are, for the most part, sitting governors, senators, and House members. They want to attend the convention and participate in the debates over the rules, the platform, and other issues. They want to have a say in the direction of their party. And they don’t want to have to run against their own constituents, which is the only way they could become regular old pledged delegates.
(This was precisely the rationale cited earlier this week by the Congressional Black Caucus in a letter to both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns explaining why they “recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention.”)
Signs are emerging, however, than many superdelegates might be willing to reduce or even relinquish their biggest superpower — namely, the power to overturn a primary result they find distasteful. Over the last week, Politico interviewed 20 of Sanders’ Senate colleagues and found that “more than half … support at least lowering the number of superdelegates, and all but two said the party should take up the matter at next month’s convention in Philadelphia, despite the potential for a high-profile intraparty feud at a critical moment in the campaign.”
Even Clinton’s prospective running mates are open to reform.
“I’m a superdelegate, and I don’t believe in superdelegates,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
“Having party leaders participate is fine, but I think having some connection to the outcome of your state’s process is smart,” said Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.
“I’m fine with whatever they negotiate,” added Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown. “I just don’t care about superdelegates. I don’t care about the whole thing.”
Given that both California and Nebraska Democrats voted against the existing superdelegate system at their state conventions this weekend, it’s looking increasingly likely that some sort of reform may emerge from Philadelphia. Perhaps it will be a reduction in number. Or perhaps it will be a new rule that binds the superdelegates to “reflect the views of the people of their own state,” as Sanders himself has demanded. We shall see.
Make the Democratic Party platform more liberal
In Sanders’ words: “We need, at the Democratic National Convention, to approve a progressive platform: the most progressive platform ever passed by the Democratic Party; a platform which makes it crystal clear that the Democratic Party is, in fact, on the side of working people.”
Odds: The 2016 Democratic platform may end up being more liberal than its 2012 or 2008 predecessors. But that’s because the party in general — and Clinton specifically — has already shifted to the left over the course of the campaign, in large part because of Sanders. Any progressive changes to the existing platform will probably be ones that Clinton has already signaled her comfort with — an emphasis on fair trade rather than free trade, opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and an increase in the national minimum wage — rather than last-minute concessions extracted by Sanders in exchange for his endorsement.
Sanders simply doesn’t have much leverage left. He does, however, have a little. Last month, Sanders was awarded more seats on the Platform Drafting Committee than any runner-up in Democratic history; several of his appointees — philosophy professor Cornel West; Arab American Institute president James Zogby; Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison — are notably less pro-Israel than the current party platform, or Clinton for that matter. If Sanders & Co. were to threaten an ugly floor flight over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — and at the initial platform hearings, West and Zogby have already clashed with Clinton supporters over terms like “occupation” — it’s possible that Team Clinton might try to convince them to back down by ceding ground elsewhere.
This would be a risky move on Sanders’ part; Clinton has already rejected many of his demands, including free public-college tuition and single-payer health care, and much of the rest of the party would not look kindly on a floor fight. But who knows how far the senator is willing to go to satisfy his supporters — and to secure his progressive legacy?
Reform the Democratic voting process
In Sanders’ words: “We need real electoral reform within the Democratic Party. And that means — among many, many other things — open primaries. The idea that in the State of New York, the great State of New York, 3 million people could not participate in helping to select who the Democratic or Republican candidate for president would be because they had registered as an independent not as a Democrat or a Republican is incomprehensible.”
Odds: Not going to happen. Most Democratic Party regulars — aka delegates — want to strengthen the Democratic Party. They want to attract converts. But while allowing non-Democrats to vote in a Democratic primary might get voters invested in the candidate they support, it won’t get them invested in the party. It doesn’t help the party identify regular voters; it doesn’t build loyalty to the ticket.
Right now, some states have open primaries; others are closed. It’s up to each state party — the organization paying for the primary, incidentally — to decide which system it prefers. It’s almost impossible to imagine these delegations voting in Philadelphia to abandon their autonomy in favor of a 50-state open-primary requirement.
As for Sanders’ other major electoral reform proposal — same-day voter registration — most Democrats support it. In fact, Clinton has gone one step further and said that all Americans should be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18 (unless they opt out). But state governments set voter registration laws — not the Democratic Party. Sanders is barking up the wrong tree here.
FiveThirtyEight: Site's Nate Silver Predicts Hillary Clinton Will Win General Election Over Donald [Sleezebag]https://www.facebook.com/topic/FiveThirtyEight/102185646489640?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6301704763476003493 (https://www.facebook.com/topic/FiveThirtyEight/102185646489640?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6301704763476003493)
The editor-in-chief of the statistical analysis website said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Wednesday that Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning compared to 20 percent for [Sleezebag].
Rusty, who's Marc Allan Feldman?
It's okay - but you know I think they ought to go short - Weld is taller and a lot better-looking, which is sort of a problem when he's the underside of the ticket. They also can't say third option with him there.
Note that the mark in the middle of their bumper sticker symbol is flattened out, but is a swoosh, of sorts. Be sure to point out in the right places how much more paying someone gets you.
I think it was positive, it was about they are awesome, not much about the others are suck, and they made their case that they're qualified, sane, and not extremist when they're not taking away school lunches from children. It isn't the commercial I would have made, but little wrong with it that separating the two and cutting down Weld's part -screw 'im; he's just the running mate, not equal partner, not best bud- wouldn't fix.
You could cut a number of 10-15 second spots out of that, especially if photos of Johnson managing to look noble and leadery exist. to superimpose over American freedom imagery.
Swear filter.
‘We’re going to the convention’: Bernie Sanders continues fundraising as campaign fadeshttps://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-campaign-still-fundraising-ahead-000000923.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-campaign-still-fundraising-ahead-000000923.html)
Yahoo
Caitlin Dickson Breaking News Reporter July 01, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/a5Cafspv_kVyfA3SNB5m0A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzQ0O2g9NTE3O2lsPXBsYW5l/https://67.media.tumblr.com/d5b4ef84f9aedb881109d100306303c3/tumblr_inline_o9n4tf2VZg1tnzyj5_540.jpg)
Bernie Sanders delivers his “Where We Go From Here” speech on June 24 in Albany, N.Y. (Photo: Mike Groll/AP)
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is still raising funds from supporters despite the fact that presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton essentially locked up the nomination weeks ago.
Sanders’ campaign fired off multiple fundraising requests to supporters on Thursday, ahead of the Federal Election Committee’s final fundraising deadline. “We’re going to the convention,” one email declared, referring to the Democratic National Convention later this month.
“When our delegates gather in Philadelphia, they’ll have the chance to put the Democratic Party on the record about stopping votes against the TPP, fighting for a $15 federal minimum wage, opposing fracking, and so many more progressive priorities,” Sanders’ campaign manager wrote to supporters on Thursday night
“Our campaign has earned the right to send almost 1,900 delegates to vote on these important issues, but many of them are working folks and the costs of attending the convention are too high,” read another email. “So I want to help them get there, because this campaign isn’t about Bernie Sanders, it’s about all of us.”
Sanders mounted a stronger-than-expected campaign in the Democratic primary. The last contest was on June 12, and a week before that contest, Clinton obtained the necessary delegates to become the nominee.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/cRu50ZVPy0.DXfe.0Lj9gQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzQ0O2g9MzM2O2lsPXBsYW5l/https://65.media.tumblr.com/d012f3470ed886f68004a1d6748b1c8c/tumblr_inline_o9n4tflmcw1tnzyj5_540.png.cf.jpg)
Screenshot via BernieSanders.com
Sanders, who has steadfastly refused to concede the race, has started signaling that he’s moving toward endorsing Clinton. Last week, Sanders said “yes” when asked if he will end up voting for her.
“I’m going to do everything I can to defeat Donald [Sleezebag],” he said.
Still, Sanders seems determined to hang onto his candidacy for as long as possible. While he told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Thursday evening that — contrary to what [Sleezebag] has been saying — “I do not hate Secretary Clinton,” Sanders also pushed back against comments made earlier in the day by Vice President Joe Biden, who told NPR he’s confident “Bernie’s going to endorse her.”
“Right now, my hope is that we can reach an agreement on some very important issues and I can go forward to the millions of people who supported me and say, ‘Look, this is the progress that you’ve made. This is where we’re going to go as a country,‘” Sanders said. “So, I hope it happens. As of this moment, we’re not there quite yet.”
“We are not going to vote for the demon named Hillary because they are threatening us with the devil named T rump. We will vote for a saint no matter what, and if that saint is not Bernie Sanders, then we will vote for the saint named Jill Stein,” said Bill Taylor, a Philadelphia activist who is helping to plan four days of demonstrations in support of Mr. Sanders at the Democratic convention this month.As I keep saying -
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jill-stein-the-green-partys-presumptive-presidential-nominee-makes-inroads-1467413879 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/jill-stein-the-green-partys-presumptive-presidential-nominee-makes-inroads-1467413879)
half the people harbor such an irrational hatred they'd consider a dangerous circus clown or staying home rather than admit she's barely even evil on a lesser-of-two-evils choiceThis is not a slam on the target of said irrational hatred, and it IS a slam.
Today I woke up pondering that Drumpf might not be at all racist, and is simply a manipulative race baiter.
That doesn't make me feel any better.
“We are not going to vote for the demon named Hillary because they are threatening us with the devil named [Sleezebag]. We will vote for a saint no matter what, and if that saint is not Bernie Sanders, then we will vote for the saint named Jill Stein,” said Bill Taylor, a Philadelphia activist who is helping to plan four days of demonstrations in support of Mr. Sanders at the Democratic convention this month.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jill-stein-the-green-partys-presumptive-presidential-nominee-makes-inroads-1467413879 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/jill-stein-the-green-partys-presumptive-presidential-nominee-makes-inroads-1467413879)
Okay. New Ad. Reminds me of the one he was using to try to secure the nomination. What do you think?
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjrIoTZzDxA#)
However, I'm willing to believe they were either not classified at the time or improperly marked as unclassified at the time just based on my experience. I consider this dismissively, myself. I very highly doubt anything will come of it, aside from maybe someone getting in trouble for improper marking.
The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said that the emails contained information that was classified at the time they were sent but were not marked classified, and that the information should never have been sent on an unclassified system.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
those emails were classified because they contained what is called “foreign government information” — a vast category of information, gathered through conversations and meetings with foreign counterparts that are the fundamentals of diplomacy, but which had to be protected when the emails were released.
“Department officials of necessity routinely receive such information through unclassified channels,” said the letter, dated May 2 and written by the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, Julia Frifield.
“For example, diplomats engage in meetings with counterparts in open settings, have phone calls with foreign contacts over unsecure lines, and email with and about foreign counterparts via unclassified systems.”
The letter went on to say that using “foreign government information” in unclassified emails “does not amount to mishandling the information.”
I assume that's margin of error stuff and nobody inclined to vote for her cares.
I don't trust that poll - something about those numbers smells wrong.
The Australian Electoral Commission have released a statement admitting that they have been forced to start the count again, after getting distracted by an interesting looking bird.
A spokesperson for the AEC told The Backburner that, despite getting very clearly close to finalising the vote count on Sunday evening, they briefly lost track of what they were doing when a bird flew into the room and completely forgot where they were up to.
“Although none of us are to blame for the presence of the bird, we will be the first to admit that keeping a strictly mental tally of the ten million odd votes and their respective preferences was a bit foolish and maybe emblematic of some hubris on our part.
“In future we will try and ensure a more bird-proof system is implemented than our current system of counting them by hand and then telling Dave what number we’re up to - it turns out the risk of Dave seeing a bird he did not anticipate and losing that number completely is too high to risk an entire federal election on it.”
The AEC anticipates that the recount should be done by the end of this week, depending on how reliable Dave continues to be at remembering the vote count.
“We’ve closed all the windows in the office so there’s no chance that bird will get in this time, which we believe should eliminate some of the risks, although Dave just got broken up with yesterday so his mind isn’t exactly on the job.
“We’re working to ensure that the final count is delivered as soon as possible, it is the solemn duty of the AEC to deliver the results within the very short time frame that the Australian public will remain interested in this.”
Some voters have expressed impatience at the lack of a result and vowed to remain interested in the election for at least another two days:
“It’s absolutely crucial that we know who will be deciding the outcome of the next 3 years of Australian politics, there is nothing more important and I will keep an incredibly keen eye on this until I inevitably get bored of it in a day or so.”
Pentecostal - he's a lovely fellow who would no doubt be horrified that you think that and really believe you're wrong. I dunno about climate change, but he's certainly very into denial...
-To his credit, he does not, in fact, think much of the Pig. But he was telling me about some evil election fraud shenanigans Labor allegedly pulled - true for all I know, but if he was a yank and a few names were changed, it would set off all sorts of right-wing fantasy bullcrap alarms.
Kids; you can tell 'em anything until you can't tell them anything for about ten years until life teaches them...
Oh, I believed you to begin with - but I tend to doubt he's racist himself, just foolishly supporting racists and you couldn't tell him that. Church people vote hate politics all the time because they're suckers in a sucker culture that's been gulled by hateful politicians, not in my experience, because they're more hateful, au contraire. -Though they certainly have their little bigotries, some of which are actually part of their religion, many they only think are...Pentecostal - he's a lovely fellow who would no doubt be horrified that you think that and really believe you're wrong. I dunno about climate change, but he's certainly very into denial...
-To his credit, he does not, in fact, think much of the Pig. But he was telling me about some evil election fraud shenanigans Labor allegedly pulled - true for all I know, but if he was a yank and a few names were changed, it would set off all sorts of right-wing fantasy bullcrap alarms.
Kids; you can tell 'em anything until you can't tell them anything for about ten years until life teaches them...
It's not just me that thinks that about the ALA.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/australian-liberty-alliance-says-members-vilified/7242778 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/australian-liberty-alliance-says-members-vilified/7242778)
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-liberty-alliance-the-antiislam-donald-trumpstyle-party-claims-major-growth-20160406-go08lq.html (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-liberty-alliance-the-antiislam-donald-trumpstyle-party-claims-major-growth-20160406-go08lq.html)
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/angry-anderson-joins-antiislam-party-to-chase-a-senate-seat-at-the-federal-election/news-story/cf23fd04d6e709c99d5feaeacb818f11 (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/angry-anderson-joins-antiislam-party-to-chase-a-senate-seat-at-the-federal-election/news-story/cf23fd04d6e709c99d5feaeacb818f11)
The three main news outlets (one left, one centre and one right).
The ALA was launched by Geert Wilders last year. Says it all.
EDIT:
About the Labor fraud thing he spoke of.......
Okay, they did some really dodgy campaigning. They claimed that the Coalition was going to privatise Medicare (our universal healthcare system). Yes, that is not strictly true. A budgetary committee did recommend last year to privatise certain parts of Medicare, such as the administration side to provide savings and efficiency. But never has the entire privatisation of Medicare been on the cards.
Labor did play an entire scare campaign on that. But the Coalition did not come out strongly opposed to smash the scare campaign down. So their fault too. In the end, Coalition has a history of saying one thing and doing the opposite on the huge items. So it's pretty easy to draw a similarity between previous things and Medicare.
On that last - I wonder what they had to offer him to get that, if true.
for a long time, My Ex and I were the only two Libertarians in the city of Winter Park.
If there is a SuperPAC that is supporting Johnson they need to pay for polls that include him in the question. When you need that 15% poll figure to get into the debates, you first need to be able to possibly get that figure firstwise...
But if Johnson stays in the race and throws a wrench in the pig's campaign, obviously that's some great news to hear on this fine Friday.
I don't know if you guys fully see it, but what is at stake in this election is partly the future of the entire Western block, and in the darkest scenario, Eastern European countries can say goodbye to the NATO protection and roll back to the Kremlin's shadow. The pig already said he's gonna be BFF with his Russian porcine counterpart. Which is why I was asking about the full extent of POTUS' impact on your foreign policy.
Of course, you'd be screwed as well, too. But it definitely won't stop at the water this time.
You respect the Post, huh? -I would have sorta expected you to find it too liberal...
I don't see a downside to gaining a better understanding of this person we're about to get stuck with for at least one hitch...
I take it the Democrat had his back well?
Too bad there's not more of that kind of thing anymore...
I smell a rat.
I do think Hillary took a hit from the FBI director.
::)
It's a fake scandal, Dale. Fake. Made up out of trivia. They're so busy making mountains out of molehills when it come to the scumbag Clintons that nobody listens when the Clintons are actually guilty of something important.
See also everything Uno -who knows a little something about gubmint security professionally- already had to say on the subject. In this thread. Recently. All your nonsense has already been covered. It's made up out of clerks and gubmint types suck at computers and your laws were there at the time.
AND WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE STOP MAKING ME DEFEND THAT WOMAN?
So are you saying she didn't break the law?
So are you saying she didn't break the law?
The laws were different (guidelines) that said that she shouldn't use a private server, not that she couldn't. It is the loose way the rules were written at the time she did it that said she didn't break the law.
If she were to do it today, it would be against the law.
[Sleezebag] maintained during an interview on Thursday evening that he has not made a "final, final decision," although sources with knowledge of the pick told NBC News Pence would be [Sleezebag]'s ultimate choice. He also indicated that he will announce tomorrow when the rescheduled VP announcement will be held.
The Toilet Paper team?
Obama? pfft. That's not all she lifted.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KtzdP7mR-4#)
Now I can't wait to see the second act of the comedy.
I do have to admit to liking T rump as a candidate, though. We need more comic relief in these things, and he's the closest thing we could get to Colbert (in character) running.
Now I must Bruce this thread in revenge...
In what context was he speaking?
As eye-rollingly pathetic and amateur as it is for Melania (or her speechwriter) to have plagiarized Michelle, Republicans ain't gonna care. "Oh, Melania stole some lines? Well Obama stole our country/jobs/the presidency!"
What vortex did the Hillary disappear into over the last few weeks? Why do we have to hear the political blather from the air head politicians and media? Why do some people explicitly support corruption? ???
The T rump NATO comments are disturbing...
Love to see someone actually address that, but the RNC joke is too big a news hog.
We were talking tonight about G.W Bush saying he is sad thinking he will be the last of the Republican Presidents.He should definitely be sad, but this is not why. ;no
As eye-rollingly pathetic and amateur as it is for Melania (or her speechwriter) to have plagiarized Michelle, Republicans ain't gonna care. "Oh, Melania stole some lines? Well Obama stole our country/jobs/the presidency!"
A different take of the plagerized speech thing...
Starting with A tale of two cities and then slamming into Dr. Seuss... Some William Wallace...
F...ing Funny as H3ll...
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh1wctQNKRM #)
That's almost 100% new to me before the last paragraph.
Anything to talk about from serving on the school board?
In what context was he speaking?
The ballot choice between T rump and Hillary in a floor interview after his speech. I may have prefaced my remark with an exclamation about organic fertilizer of bovine origin. That is so rare an occurrence on my part, that I can't recall in what year it last happened.
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p100x100/10423695_829753723746300_4381716151352311034_n.png?oh=8948d4b45f6fa1fb606c5ee9e16f09b5&oe=582AFDE4) Bernie Sanders (https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/?fref=nf)
12 hrs ·
..
I understand that many people here in this convention hall and around the country are disappointed about the final results of the nominating process. I think it’s fair to say that no one is more disappointed than I am. But to all of our supporters – here and around the country – I hope you take enormous pride in the historical accomplishments we have achieved.
We only go around once, we may as well make history as we go around.
‘Fear Not—She Means You No Harm,’ Says Elizabeth Warren, Revealing Docile Hillary Clinton To Crowd
The Onion
NEWS IN BRIEF
July 25, 2016
Vol 52 Issue 29
Politics · Politicians · Hillary Clinton · Election 2016
(http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5387/8/16x9/700.jpg)
PHILADELPHIA—Sending terrified gasps through the audience as she pulled back a thick velvet curtain onstage to reveal the formidable politician, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren assured the thousands of progressive onlookers at the Democratic National Convention Monday night that the docile Hillary Clinton standing before them meant them no harm. “Ladies and gentlemen, there is no need to fear this candidate, for despite her menacing reputation, she will not attack you or your progressive movement,” said Warren, who then wowed those in attendance by signaling for the compliant Clinton to repeat a series of talking points about regulating financial institutions in an effort to prove that the presumptive Democratic nominee could easily be trained and was not roused into a horrible frenzy by the presence of radical reforms. “Despite the tales you may have heard, she is nothing but a tame, pragmatic Democrat. The terror she stirs inside you belies her true gentle nature. I assure you she is no threat to the policies you hold most dear.” At press time, Clinton had broken free from her iron restraints, ripped off both of Warren’s arms, and tossed the senator’s body into the crowd.
I happen to have asked my wimminz half an hour ago if anyone in the room could name a single indiscretion on the part of Mrs. Obama, ever. Goose egg, and I've actually been known to criticize Mother Teresa before.
I say this aware that youse righties won't have to exert yourselves real hard to think of something that you deem counts -there have been one or two statements the right tried a little to make something of, though I do not recall what she said- but I'm confident it's pretty trivial and won't be disappointed if no one tries, really. I was told she was magnificent last night, to zero surprise on my part.
Here are Gary's latest comments about Bernie...and Hillary ( he usually doesn't speak much about her ). I'll just quote the lead, not the whole opinion piece. As Gary often explains, he's in 73% agreement with Bernie on Isidewith.com
https://medium.com/@GovGaryJohnson/bernie-bit-the-cronies-and-they-bit-back-bf38335e08e3#.ff5xclj6l
Gov. Gary Johnson
Two-term Governor of New Mexico and 2016 Libertarian candidate for President
8 hrs ago·3 min read
Bernie Bit the Cronies, and They Bit Back
Senator Bernie Sanders went after cronyism…and the cronies struck back. We all suspected it, but thanks to a Wikileaks data dump, now we KNOW it.
From a built-in cushion of immovable, unelected “Super Delegates” to debates scheduled when no one was watching to the now clearly-documented collusion between the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, the system was rigged to squash any rebellion against the Democratic Establishment.
Bernie is a disrupter. The system doesn’t like disrupters…because disruption threatens the fruits of cronyism. He couldn’t be bought. He couldn’t even be rented. He offered a voice for the Millennials who are an inconvenience for the special interests who have, for too long, controlled Washington DC. He became a symbol for the rejection of business-as-usual.
Who's Marvin Bush?
Maybe that one will actually bite him on the butt proper...
Logan Act: Democrats Accuse Donald [Sleezebag] of Violating Anti-Collusion Law With Russia Email Commentshttps://www.facebook.com/topic/Logan-Act/111302372254219?source=wpfrt&position=1&trqid=6312462574252575329 (https://www.facebook.com/topic/Logan-Act/111302372254219?source=wpfrt&position=1&trqid=6312462574252575329)
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Claire McCaskill D-Mo., said [Sleezebag] may have broken the law by telling Russia it should find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails.
I see some democrats are saying Logan Act today - I hope they don't overplay that hand, as they may well be right, but obviously politically-motivated legal actions are extremely poor form. I may not deplore it aimed at the Clintons and then applaud it for being aimed at the clearly-guilty worst person in the world...QuoteLogan Act: Democrats Accuse Donald T rump of Violating Anti-Collusion Law With Russia Email Commentshttps://www.facebook.com/topic/Logan-Act/111302372254219?source=wpfrt&position=1&trqid=6312462574252575329 (https://www.facebook.com/topic/Logan-Act/111302372254219?source=wpfrt&position=1&trqid=6312462574252575329)
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Claire McCaskill D-Mo., said T rump may have broken the law by telling Russia it should find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails.
I've seen absolutely ASTONISHLY little online today to indicate that the convention last night even happened. I don't know what to make of that - I haven't had to go looking for news related to the previous night at either convention before.
-It does mean they didn't screw up.
I'm calling -only moderate confidence- that between going last for a change and just putting a better show -not the same as a good show; it was frequently terribly boring, but they didn't screw up, not least with the getting counterchanting going at key points when the bernieheads acted out, and I'm seeing nothing trending on Facebook about any stunts from them when Mrs. Clinton spoke, and impressive that that was headed off- there's going to be a meaningful bump from this. -Anything can happen by November, but those in the Clinton campaign who coordinated various levels of running the details of the convention show pulled off a masterpiece. Make sure to hold onto the key parties in that for the communications office in the White House.
... journalistic integrity.
National SDS Calls for Students to Dump T rump
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X64JWNK392E/VuoOI9q7OtI/AAAAAAAAA7c/6Bbt5jpu3zI5l2dPXrhJ2ooT3Sk7CCNCA/s1600/12834709_221917534827320_1302211048_n.jpg)
For the past several months, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) chapters across the country have led protests against Republican presidential candidate Donald T rump. Anyone who has been following T rump's campaign has seen examples of the war mongering and racist policies he supports. Deporting over 11 million undocumented immigrants, building a wall on the US-Mexico border, banning Muslims, and carpet bombing Syria are just a few examples of what T rump is trying to accomplish. SDS is anti-war, anti-racist, and supports legalization and tuition equity for all undocumented immigrants. It would be against everything SDS stands for as a progressive student activist organization, to not challenge T rump’s agenda or encourage people to stand up and fight back!
Donald T rump's right wing populism has become a rallying point for anti-immigrant, Islamophobic and white supremacist violence. Donald T rump’s refusal to condemn the KKK as a white nationalist organization, which was formed to attack the democratic rights won by African Americans through struggle, being an example of this. T rump’s campaign also has the support of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder and former leader of France's far-right National Front party, which campaigns mostly on anti-immigration policies. Overall, Donald T rump’s proposed state policies are against the interests of workers, people of color, women, and LGBTQIA+ people, while also supporting Wall Street’s wars abroad from Latin America to the Middle East.
In response to T rump’s statements and calls for attacks on oppressed people, SDS has mobilized campuses and communities to express their disdain for T rump and his aspirations. SDS chapters in Tampa, Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, Houston, Texas, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and West Chester, Pennsylvania, have organized several events in the form of “Dump T rump” protests, rallies, and piñata bashes, which have garnered the support of hundreds and thousands of people. SDS’ affiliates, such as the Progressive Student Union in Arlington, Texas, have also organized against Donald T rump and his bigotry. SDS in Chicago, Illinois, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, have co-hosted events with the aim of opposing T rump; SDS even took a role in organizing the Dump T rump protest in Chicago last week, which saw over 5,000 people demanding an end to systemic oppression and T rump’s support of it. This event caused T rump to cancel his Chicago campaign appearance, and subsequently flee the city.
SDS is nonpartisan, but we believe people have a right to protest T rump’s hate speech, especially as progressive students committed to actively struggling for social change across campuses. Every #DumpTrump protest from Tampa to Chicago has shown that what Donald T rump fears most is the power of the people, not other politicians. Students and all people have the power to unite against right-wing racists supported by or part of the powerful 1% like T rump. Such actions as Tallahassee SDS uniting hundreds of students against the KKK on campus, which historically received support from the U.S. government including the FBI and police departments, illustrate this fact. SDS is committed to leading campaigns that struggle against University Administrations, who are the 1% on campus that profit from systemic oppression, and who allow T rump’s hate on campus grounds!
National Students for a Democratic Society on the Democratic National Convention
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SkBVANwU3KQ/V5ZAdS_tXHI/AAAAAAAAB7E/e8dmSfXc5holR6tPL75Hjj9I2zrNszf-gCLcB/s1600/13064582_581507858674162_2887655498676603330_o.jpg)
With the Democratic National Convention approaching, it has now been confirmed that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party nominee in the 2016 Presidential election. While SDS’s focus is primarily on building organizational power within our communities and carrying out direct action, this result is not irrelevant to us. Multiple chapters from SDS will be marching on the DNC along with many other organizations to protest the racist, warmongering platform of the Democratic Party.
Despite her rhetoric, Hillary Clinton ultimately represents the interests of the Wall Street billionaires and the rest of the 1%. As the perfect ‘status quo’ candidate, Clinton carries out a neoliberal agenda, having a history of racist, warmongering, anti-immigrant, and anti-worker pursuits and policies. Domestically, Clinton is notorious for “superpredator” bills contributing to mass incarceration, mass deportations, austerity, spending cuts, and the continued support of big business. Abroad, Clinton promotes war over peace, and has been involved in NATOled wars against Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as well as coups in Honduras and Ukraine. Hillary Clinton’s record and platform, on par with the policies of both major parties, contribute to the continued attack on all workers and oppressed people.
Clinton secured her nomination by outperforming Bernie Sanders, a candidate who is less of a ‘major player’ in the Democratic Party, but who was able to find a base of support in the youth. The Bernie Sanders campaign, despite his widespread popularity, demonstrates the need to continue as independent organizers. Ultimately, Bernie Sanders could not win the nomination because the interests which control the Democratic Party supported the Clinton campaign. As an organization that supports education rights, economic freedom, social justice, and many other causes that were important to the Sanders campaign, we invite those who wish to continue the struggle to join in political organizing to build people’s power.
While SDS has put out the call to “Dump T rump”, we are not letting the Democratic Party slide either. The neoliberal agenda pursued by the Democrats and Republicans alike is responsible for the economic crises, police brutality, mass deportations, and mass incarceration that have allowed for the rise of a racist, sexist, anti-immigrant demagogue like Donald T rump. While the Donald T rump campaign is a more openly and acutely racist, anti-immigrant, fear mongering platform, ultimately the interests of the people are not represented by either party. In fact many of the fears about a potential T rump presidency are already being actively carried out by the current Obama administration, including the deportation of more than 2.5 million immigrants, drone strikes in 7 different countries, anti-worker austerity measures, and mass incarceration.
Ultimately, the only way to victory is through building people’s power. This is why National SDS is calling upon progressive students and youth everywhere to carry the momentum from the “Dump T rump” rallies forward into the marches on the Democratic National Convention. To those who are disillusioned, do not let the fight end with the Sanders campaign. Join us at the DNC, and then bring that fight back to your communities and schools, and build organizations of people’s power. Our only path to victory is through working together and building a mass movement independent of the establishment.
A lot of women seem to like to get sexier for Halloween, and I think Hillary is on the frumpier side of Halloween costumes.
Do it. I dare ya!
Richard L. Hanna: Congressman, R-NY, Is 1st Republican Congressman to Back Hillary Clintonhttps://www.facebook.com/topic/Richard-L-Hanna/540215452800285?source=whfrt&position=3&trqid=6314327612422247290 (https://www.facebook.com/topic/Richard-L-Hanna/540215452800285?source=whfrt&position=3&trqid=6314327612422247290)
"While I disagree with her on many issues, I will vote for Mrs. Clinton," Hanna said in an op-ed for Syracuse.com, adding that GOP candidate Donald [Sleezebag] is "deeply flawed in endless ways."
The article author or the congressman?
Yeah to the article; look at how Sarah Palin did well in the VP debate w/ low expectations going in and managing not to humiliate herself - if you're stuck with low expectations, you can definitely get a lot more mileage than you really deserve by just not screwing up...
Absolutely to both.
-Also Hanna - and you have to admit that took guts.
Crying baby?
Here's the latest ad, "One day, our best America yet" down to one minute. I know, you're going to say "it's still too long".No, the length must be okay, 'cause he kept my unbored attention all the way through and made good points. The problem is --- he just doesn't seem presidential and I don't even know what that is...
But this is the most positive thing I've seen since Rubio tried to invoke Regan's "Morning in America"
https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/videos/10153254030284364/ (https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/videos/10153254030284364/)
* Libertarian reporter John Stassel was asked why Johnson isn't really getting traction, and he came down on Libertarian solutions don't soundbite so well.
What does the whole action mean in the real world, Billy Jean? The whole event means the GOP could fall apart and the libertarians could rise in a temporary blaze of glory.
Dan Rather: Journalist Addresses Donald T rump's Comments on '2nd Amendment People,' Hillary Clintonhttps://www.facebook.com/topic/Dan-Rather/105628452803615?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6317177653805257105 (https://www.facebook.com/topic/Dan-Rather/105628452803615?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6317177653805257105)
"This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival," Rather wrote in a Facebook post Tuesday.
QuoteDan Rather: Journalist Addresses Donald T rump's Comments on '2nd Amendment People,' Hillary Clintonhttps://www.facebook.com/topic/Dan-Rather/105628452803615?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6317177653805257105 (https://www.facebook.com/topic/Dan-Rather/105628452803615?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6317177653805257105)
"This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival," Rather wrote in a Facebook post Tuesday.
You should REALLY back up to March -or whenever it was I posted the link in this thread- and read the Vanity Fair article. The reporter's a bit in the bag for her, but that's why she trusted him to give the access to meet the real her out in the hall and compare it to the aggressive woman in the roomful of tall men... The reporter likes the woman in the hall. I suspect it says everything about who she really is and why she comes off so badly in public...
BREAKING: Another Republican Will Enter the 2016 Presidential Race… CONFIRMED!Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-another-republican-will-enter-2016-presidential-race-confirmed/#ixzz4GyVS4GCS (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-another-republican-will-enter-2016-presidential-race-confirmed/#ixzz4GyVS4GCS)
The Pilitical Insider
Kosar Featured Contributor
(http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/11.jpg)
Evan McMullin, a Republican and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) veteran who is the chief policy director for the U.S. House Republican conference, will run for president!
McMullin is expected to announce an independent bid, and is being promoted by Veteran Republican strategist Rick Wilson along with major Republican donors, according to sources.
Just like T rump, McMullin is a graduate of The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
QuoteJoe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman from Florida and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” was first to report the pending announcement.[/size]
Scarborough said the independent presidential candidate would aim to get on 20 to 30 state ballots, adding that he personally thinks the campaign “has more to do with stopping Donald T rump than actually electing a president.”
“Certainly they still believe they can go past the 270 [electoral votes] threshold so this person will be able to be in debates,” Scarborough said.
McMullin served in the national clandestine service at the CIA for 11 years, ending in 2010, where he managed clandestine operations related to counterterrorism and other issues, according to his LinkedIn profile.
He then went to work at Goldman Sachs in San Francisco, before working for two years as a senior advisor at the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a little under two years as chief policy director at the House Republican Conference.[…]
Republicans hoped earlier this year that an independent presidential candidate would launch a campaign as an alternative to T rump, who has fallen behind Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in polls recently. David French, an Iraq War veteran and writer at the conservative National Review, was floated as a potential candidate before he ruled out a bid in early June.
T rump has continued to catch flak during his campaign, most recently for feuding with the parents of a slain American Muslim soldier and initially declining to back Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in their primaries.
I read he's a member of the LDS and running is a way of keeping Utah from going T rump.
I read he's a member of the LDS and running is a way of keeping Utah from going T rump.
Don't know that will make much of a difference, honestly. I mean, officially, yeah, the state is 60% LDS, but realistically those numbers are inflated by inactive members. If they could get Romney to support Johnson officially instead of lollygagging about, you'd probably see a 3 way split for the state. Adding another body to that, you're just going to split up the anti-T rump vote more.
Whoever wins Utah is going to have well under 50% of the vote. Mark my words.
Gleanings-
* From the Libertarian Republic in May- "In addition to all that information he’s hiding, Gary Johnson believes that Donald T rump hasn’t released his tax returns because they would show he’s effectively paying a 0% tax rate. With the majority of T rump’s net worth and income tied up in real estate he’s eligible for thousands of deductions. Given that the man has admitted to trying to pay the lowest rate possible, it’s conceivable that he’s actually paying nothing in income taxes. This revelation would be an enormous scandal that might even turn off some of T rump’s own supporters. After all, his populist message is built on making the billionaires pay more in taxes – just like Bernie Sanders’ own shtick."
My wife says that is entirely possible.
Gleanings-
* From the Libertarian Republic in May- "In addition to all that information he’s hiding, Gary Johnson believes that Donald T rump hasn’t released his tax returns because they would show he’s effectively paying a 0% tax rate. With the majority of T rump’s net worth and income tied up in real estate he’s eligible for thousands of deductions. Given that the man has admitted to trying to pay the lowest rate possible, it’s conceivable that he’s actually paying nothing in income taxes. This revelation would be an enormous scandal that might even turn off some of T rump’s own supporters. After all, his populist message is built on making the billionaires pay more in taxes – just like Bernie Sanders’ own shtick."
My wife says that is entirely possible.
I don't see why that would be a problem.
"OF COURSE I'm Paying zero, that's why we need someone who KNOWS the loopholes to FIX them!"
Good point. I suppose that excuse will suffice for the followers, but I haven't read or heard anything in his tax proposals that would address the deduction and loophole issue.
* The House is preparing an unbiased, credible, bi-bartisan, completely non-political and fair perjury case against Hillary, with regard to her testimony before them.FIFY
* The House is preparing an unbiased, credible, bi-bartisan, completely non-political and fair perjury case against Hillary, with regard to her testimony before them.FIFY
Good luck with the cooking.
Just imagine if the media spent this much time investigating the poverty and joblessness in our inner cities.
Just think about how much different things would be if the media in this country sent their cameras to our border, or to our closing factories, or to our failing schools.
(NOTE: Today is my birthday, so I choose to be self-indulgent and only read what I feel like, rather than seek diversity of political opinion and coverage. Speaking of diversity...)
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/19/T rump-loving-indian-teenager-kicked-out (http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/19/T rump-loving-indian-teenager-kicked-out)
I'd cut and paste, but it's not working.
(NOTE: Today is my birthday, so I choose to be self-indulgent and only read what I feel like, rather than seek diversity of political opinion and coverage. Speaking of diversity...)
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/19/T rump-loving-indian-teenager-kicked-out (http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/19/T rump-loving-indian-teenager-kicked-out)
I'd cut and paste, but it's not working.
So, is FOX News fauning all over T rump?
Now, is the RNC the ones whom are getting T rump his new campaign (and later White House top staff) staff or is he?? My thoughts is that it is the RNC trying to keep him afloat...
I don't think I have seen anyone (here) supporting the Greens, so...
I don't think I have seen anyone (here) supporting the Greens, so...
No. But it is an international forum, and I'm trying to be respectful.
Well, frankly, the Greens are lefty extremists by my standards, and I wish they would go away. I don't want their party established and if they were entirely out of the picture Johnson might be at the critical 15% by now. However, on Isidewith Jill is a distant second for me, probably because she's not the authoritarian warmongering crony capitalist drug warrior that ClinTrump is.
So sometimes I think she deserves to be heard, and I always take issue when somebody's being mis-represented in the press. It's hard enough to get your positions out there so that the voters can make informed choices as it is.
I am very saddened that this site had anything to do with spreading such knowledge...
Watched, nothing struck me as new.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxEJd7U13zA#)
Perhaps T rump got a dose of reality. A longer article with lots of graphics.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/26/heres-why-T rump-flip-flopped-on-deportation-plan.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/26/heres-why-T rump-flip-flopped-on-deportation-plan.html)
"In the end, the plan may have simply proved too costly — both politically and economically.
By one estimate the direct price tag for removing some 11 million undocumented workers could top $600 billion. And the economic impact of a such a sudden contraction in the U.S. labor force would lop $1.6 trillion from the nation's economy. That's roughly the gross domestic product of Texas."
I am very saddened that this site had anything to do with spreading such knowledge...
Well, like you said, differing opinions can be educational. I Google backtracked some stuff which I thought was cut and pasted and found a group of podcasters that seemed to be source of the ideas based upon various code words. Then it all made sense. Pro-T rump because he is anti-political correctness. Political correctness means you get criticized for speaking your mind as a ( person such as described by Elok ).
*****
I'm sharing this because it shows the Gary we would see in the debates.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUBTbcou8Gc#)
Watched, nothing struck me as new.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxEJd7U13zA#)
Thanks for posting it for me.
I know you had seen a lot of that via other sources, but others here whom lurk might not have...
You are not alone. John Stossel is a horrid little ignoramus/loudmouth.I am very saddened that this site had anything to do with spreading such knowledge...
Well, like you said, differing opinions can be educational. I Google backtracked some stuff which I thought was cut and pasted and found a group of podcasters that seemed to be source of the ideas based upon various code words. Then it all made sense. Pro-T rump because he is anti-political correctness. Political correctness means you get criticized for speaking your mind as a ( person such as described by Elok ).
*****
I'm sharing this because it shows the Gary we would see in the debates.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUBTbcou8Gc#)
That talking head Chaff's my shorts...
What is the ‘alt-right’? A beginner’s guide
Yahoo
Caitlin Dickson Breaking News Reporter August 25, 2016
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/g2sBQVL62jfKxy8EW59gvQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzQ0O2g9NDk2/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/90c0015300800787860b222db324bd7c)
From left, Andrew Anglin, The Daily Stormer; Richard Spencer, The Alternative Right; Jared Taylor, American Renaissance; Matthew Heimbach; David Duke; Milo Yiannopoulos and Steve Bannon. (Yahoo News photo illustration; photos: AP, Facebook, Getty Images, Reuters)
A political movement most Americans have never heard of is suddenly in the spotlight, thanks to Donald T rump — who has hired one of its leading spokesmen to run his campaign — and Hillary Clinton, whose speech planned for Thursday afternoon is expected to denounce it.
It’s the “alt-right,” a loose aggregation of bloggers, radio hosts, think tanks and activists that emerged from the “white nationalist” movement of the 1980s and 1990s. It occupies positions on the far right of American politics, but it is not primarily about the issues that motivate mainstream conservatives, such as taxes or government spending. Instead, it postulates that the culture of white America is under attack, and sees itself as its defender.
T rump has for much of his campaign flirted with “alt-right” themes, mostly through retweets, some of which he later disavowed. When former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke — a major figure in the “alt-right” world — urged his supporters to back T rump, the candidate maintained, implausibly, he didn’t know anything about Duke before grudgingly disavowing the support.
But with the hiring of Breitbart Media chairman Steve Bannon as CEO of his campaign, T rump has embraced someone at the heart of the movement, who boasted of turning Breitbart.com into “the platform of the alt-right.” Duke himself celebrated the hiring with the boast: “We’ve taken over the Republican Party,” although presumably the party’s mainstream leadership would disagree.
There are, of course, many strains of thinking under the “alt-right” umbrella. Some factions are preoccupied with a return to “traditional values,” while others espouse a philosophy called “Human Biodiversity”: the belief that there are significant biological differences between people of different races, which justifies treating them differently. (The other name for this is “scientific racism.”) Anti-Semitism is common, in various forms, ranging from Holocaust denial to full-bore denunciations of Jews as agents of the collapse of white Christian society. Bannon, personally, has not been accused of anti-Semitism, however.
The common thread, however, that connects members of these different factions is a shared desire to protect Western civilization from what many refer to as “white genocide.” This manifests in opposition to things like immigration and multiculturalism, as well as a steadfast aversion to political correctness and to establishment politics of all kinds, including Republican.
The term “alt-right” was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, who runs the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank. Spencer founded the influential Alternative Right blog in 2010 to define the movement’s core principles.
The term represented a “shallow rebranding” of white nationalism, according to Heidi Beirich, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups. “They don’t want to be identified as white nationalists anymore,” she said. “People associate that with white supremacy, which is what it is, so instead they changed it to ‘alt-right.’”
And with that, Beirich said, the movement quickly made its way from the fringe “into right-wing politics.”
“They’re self-mainstreaming,” she said. “But it should be called out for what it is, which is just pure racism.”
Spencer’s own reasons for supporting T rump seem to directly reflect the alt-right’s central “white genocide” fears.
Asked by a reporter at the Republican National Convention about the possibility that some of T rump’s policy proposals, such as banning Muslims from entering the country or abolishing birthright citizenship, might be unconstitutional, Spencer replied, “Who cares? The whole point is that we’ve got to survive.”
“Whether something is constitutionally legal I could give a s*** to be honest. Survival is more important than law,” he continued, adding, “power is what matters.”
Other key “alt-right” figures include Andrew Anglin, who endorsed T rump for president on his neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer almost immediately after T rump announced his candidacy last June, and Jared Taylor, a prominent white nationalist leader who has long promoted eugenics and racial segregation through his American Renaissance magazine and now Amren.com.
Back in January, Taylor lent his voice to thousands of pro-T rump robocalls in Iowa sponsored by the white nationalist American Freedom Party in which he told voters, “We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture.”
Yet, ahead of Clinton’s speech on Thursday, Taylor dismissed “the attempt to link Donald T rump to the alt-right [as] a standard lefty campaign technique.”
“Find someone with certain views who supports your opponent and then suggest your opponent shares those views,” Taylor told Yahoo News. “It is illogical and unfair to act as if Mr. T rump is responsible for the opinions of all of his supporters.”
There’s also Matthew Heimbach, who’s been widely regarded as the future of white nationalism since his senior year at Towson University in 2013, when he gained national attention (including from this reporter) for establishing the school’s first white student union. This April, the 25-year-old was caught on video shoving and shouting racial epithets at an African-American protester during a T rump rally in Louisville, Ky.
And James Edwards, host of The Political Cesspool radio program, which, according to the statement of principles on the show’s website, “stands for the Dispossessed Majority” and promotes “a philosophy that is pro-White.”
Edwards caused a firestorm for the T rump campaign back in March when he promoted a 20-minute interview with Donald T rump Jr., which the candidate’s son insisted he would “never have done” had he been aware of Edwards’ white nationalist views.
Yet by July, Edwards had managed to get an all-access media credential for the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where he interviewed several GOP members of Congress and a T rump campaign official. According to the progressive, nonprofit media watchdog Media Matters for America, “Edwards pointed to his attendance at the convention as evidence that he and his radio program are going ‘mainstream.’”
For almost a year, “alt-right” provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos has been at the helm of Breitbart News’ tech section. An outspoken adversary of all things politically correct, Yiannopoulos has used the Internet as a platform to take on everything from feminism to gay rights — despite being a homosexual himself. In January, he created the Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant, a scholarship fund “exclusively available to white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic minority classmates.” And last month, he was permanently banned from Twitter after he launched a racist harassment campaign against African-American actress Leslie Jones.
Apart from Bannon, none of these figures has any role in the T rump campaign, which has harnessed some of their energy and themes without specifically embracing them. And they do the same.
“They don’t necessarily think T rump is one of them, but he creates a space for them,” said Pete Montgomery, a senior fellow at People for the American Way and author of the blog Right Wing Watch. He notes that Duke, Spencer, Anglin and others who have endorsed T rump have qualified their support by saying they don’t agree with everything he says.
“I do not believe he would solve all or even most of the problems we are facing, but he is absolutely the only candidate who is even talking about anything at all that matters,” wrote Anglin shortly after T rump launched his campaign. “T rump is willing to say what most Americans think: it’s time to deport these people. He is also willing to call them out as criminal rapists, murderers and drug dealers.”
]https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-beginners-guide-000000002.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-beginners-guide-000000002.html[/size)[/url]
As I had said.... FlakeCons....
You know, with the two major candidates already being 'read in' to some classified things, I wonder if Johnson is included in that, too...
Come to think of it, T rump's flip flop might be due to the very harsh reality that he is getting from the taste of classified info that he is learning now...
I love how he can target his foot, even after putting it into armor plating...
You know, in some respects, he is worse than the Coyote when it comes to those cliffs....
* Johnson is coming to my city for a rally Thursday, I just volunteered to help, so maybe I'll have something to share later.
She actually asked former Republican Sec States to endorse her??? Did the Dem versions do as much???
She actually asked former Republican Sec States to endorse her??? Did the Dem versions do as much???
There have been a lot of national security people endorsing her... but as for former Secretaries of State ... as best I can tell, only Madeleine Albright, 64th US Secretary of State (1997–2001) has endorsed her, and presumably herself.QuoteKerry has praised her as the first major party woman candidate, but praise is sort of a Secretary of State's stock in trade. He praised her for being a woman, and Kerry as a former Democratic presidential candidate and Hillary's successor at State you think he would be in a position to say a lot more about her if he were so inclined. Many former Secretaries have praised her at one time.
Of course she did, being her hubby's SoS...
Which brings up a whole new area of questions, Whom are the three going to want for Staff and Cabinet positions, if elected? Chief of Staff is usually (but not always) the Campaign Manager. but whom are they looking at getting to take over Defense, State and Treasury, as those are the big three... Well, might as well include Homeland, too...
FOX and CNN were carrying a T rump speech today while I was running errands. He was championing "Religious Liberty" to a very receptive audience. Now when Ted Cruz uses the term, it seems to be a "dog whistle" for Christian Supremacy and America as a Christian Nation, rather than a "all creeds are equal under the law" approach. When Libertarians ask Gary Johnson about "Religious Liberty" it's about being able to discriminate against all heathens & heretics in their places of business.
I don't know what T rump is implying, or if he is simply saying it to play to the audience without caring what it means o them, but I think it's a hard position to square with T rump's convention stance of speaking up for "LGBTQ people"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/minnesota-democrats-no-T rump-ballot-227954 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/minnesota-democrats-no-T rump-ballot-227954)
Minnesota Democrats move to kick T rump off ballot
By Daniel Strauss
09/09/16 12:33 PM EDT
Minnesota Democrats are taking steps to kick Donald T rump off the state's ballot, arguing that the Minnesota Republican Party improperly put T rump's name on there.
Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chairman Ken Martin filed a legal petition with the state Supreme Court looking to remove T rump from the ballot.
"The Minnesota GOP did not elect to elect alternate presidential electors at the state convention earlier this year. After being notified that they had failed to provide the names of alternative electors by the Secretary of State’s office, Republicans decided to appoint alternate electors in a closed-door meeting rather than electing them. This is violation of state law,"
Minnesota DFL's statement reads.
The move follows a minor kerfuffle in August when T rump and running mate Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's name were initially absent from the state ballot. The Minnesota Republican Party scrambled to provide the state secretary of state's office the necessary paperwork, and it seemed the situation was resolved when T rump's name was officially listed online.
However, Michael Brodkorb, a former deputy Minnesota Republican Party chairman, pointed out on Twitter that the Minnesota GOP's rules don't allow for such a fix, as the DFL's suit also argues.
"Last night #MNGOP 'appointed' alternate electors to fix problem - BUT this isn't allowed in #MNGOP constitution - so we have a mess," Brodkorb tweeted.
*************************************
Rhode Island has approved the paperwork! Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The Libertarians could be on more state ballots than the Republicans for the first time in history.
Also, they would have more legitimacy to be in the debates than the Republicans...
FOX and CNN were carrying a T rump speech today while I was running errands. He was championing "Religious Liberty" to a very receptive audience. Now when Ted Cruz uses the term, it seems to be a "dog whistle" for Christian Supremacy and America as a Christian Nation, rather than a "all creeds are equal under the law" approach. When Libertarians ask Gary Johnson about "Religious Liberty" it's about being able to discriminate against all heathens & heretics in their places of business.
I don't know what T rump is implying, or if he is simply saying it to play to the audience without caring what it means o them, but I think it's a hard position to square with T rump's convention stance of speaking up for "LGBTQ people"
Part of this post was quoting (or atleast paraphrased) T rump's speech, right?
NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton’s campaign is coming under fire for failing to disclose that she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday, and for saying she simply got “overheated” at the 9/11 memorial service in New York, when video showed her knees buckling as aides helped her into a waiting van.
It wasn’t until shortly after 11:00 a.m. ET Sunday that the campaign put out a terse statement saying that Clinton had “departed to go to her daughter's apartment, and is feeling much better.” There was no explicit acknowledgment that Clinton had left the ceremony earlier than planned, nor any mention of what looked to be a fainting spell.
Clinton herself sought to project that all was well, stepping outside of her Chelsea’s apartment some 45 minutes later. "I'm feeling great, it's a beautiful day in New York," she said, taking a moment to greet a small girl before piling back into the van to head home to Westchester County.
Not until 5:15 p.m. did the campaign revealed that she had in fact been diagnosed with pneumonia and put on antibiotics a day earlier, after what her doctor called a “follow-up evaluation of her prolonged cough.”
Lisa Bardack, Clinton’s physician, said that she had indeed become “overheated and dehydrated” on Sunday morning, but made no mention of her apparent collapse. “I have just examined her and she is now re-hydrated and recovering nicely,” Bardack said. Sunday’s examination, an aide said, took place at Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, New York.
At 10:16 p.m., the campaign said that "Clinton will not be traveling to California tomorrow or Tuesday." Clinton was scheduled to raise cash in both Los Angeles and San Francisco, and her campaign had previewed that she would also deliver a speech on the economy Tuesday. Clinton's Wednesday trip to Las Vegas is, for now, still on her schedule.
Around midnight, however, fundraisers who were planning to attend Clinton's San Francisco event on Monday received an email saying the event is still on, but that Clinton would now appear via teleconference.
Frustration with the Clinton campaign’s handling of the incident boiled over among political journalists on Twitter.
Jonathan Martin, national correspondent for the New York Times, tweeted, “Hillary camp now reveals that her doctor diagnosed her pneumonia on Friday & put her on antibiotics. Only disclosed after this am's episode.”
“I don't understand why Clinton aides weren't telling reporters at 10:30am: ‘pneumonia,’” CNN media reporter Brian Stelter wrote.
“Of course they should have disclosed this. This isn't a cold,” added Chuck Todd, the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
The campaign ignored requests for explanation, but its allies defended its actions online.
“#Hillary's health is fine. The hysteria in the media and the attacks about it from #T rump supporters are not,” Democratic PR consultant Hilary Rosen tweeted before Clinton’s pneumonia was disclosed.
“Is there really a tradition of candidates publicly disclosing illnesses like colds, flu's etc?” tweeted former White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer. “Every candidate I have ever worked for has gotten sick on the trail and worked through it because you can't take days off in a close race.”
“{S}o which illnesses that are treated with antibiotics do you have to disclose? All?” former White House chief speechwriter Jon Favreau asked.
“From a medical point of view this is not a big deal, She needs to cancel some events or do them by Skype for a week,” observed former Vermont governor Howard Dean, a trained doctor.
“I think I coughed up a lung somewhere between Pennsylvania and Kentucky,” recalled former Clinton ‘08 staffer Mo Elleithee, who also lauded her stamina. “She kept a campaign schedule with pneumonia. When I have a normal cold, I curl up in the fetal position & want to stay in bed for a week.”
Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm tweeted: "To press lamenting @HillaryClinton's health/transparency: 'powering through' illness is what women do: Stoically, every. single. day."
Clinton’s campaign schedule has been vigorous: On Friday alone, she headlined two fundraising events, met with a group of national security heavy-hitters, held a news conference, and granted an interview to CNN.
But the former secretary of state, who at 68 would be the second-oldest president in U.S. history should she win in November, has disclosed fewer details about her health than past presidential nominees -- though she has divulged more information than her opponent, 70-year-old Donald T rump, who has released only a cryptic, one-page letter that his doctor has said was written in just five minutes.
David Scheiner, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois Medical School who was Obama's personal physician for 22 years, argued in a recent Washington Post op-ed that neither Clinton nor T rump had disclosed enough information given their advanced ages.
"Having been in practice for 50 years serving a predominantly geriatric patient population, and now a septuagenarian myself, I can attest that the American people need much more medical information from these candidates," he wrote. "The medical reports from Clinton’s and T rump’s personal physicians do not suffice."
And neither candidate has agreed to a protective pool, an intensive form of media coverage that allows the press to monitor the candidate’s whereabouts at all times -- as the White House press corps does for the president.
“I'm surprised it's mid-September, just a little more than 8 weeks before Election Day, and neither candidate has a protective pool,” Obama’s first White House secretary, Robert Gibbs, tweeted Sunday. “Protective pool isn't always easy for either candidate or press but there comes a point for each nominee when it must be part of daily life.”
On my 5th state since leaving the one I live in. I am frankly amazed at the lack of presidential yard signs and bumper stickers. I've seen a couple of T rump yard signs and a couple of Bernie bumper stickers. Way different than when I made this trip 4 years ago.
That kind of tells me that people aren't enthused for their candidate.
I almost wonder if this is some sort experiment to see how much bullspit the public will put up with. Some oligarchs making a $1 bet, a la Trading Places, to see if we'll vote third party if we have two really bad candidates.
I want to find a Johnson sign. Been too lazy to look though.
Nothing about the real George Bush saying he was voting for Mrs. Clinton?
I want to find a Johnson sign. Been too lazy to look though.
* Historical analysis predicts a Clinton loss- "LICHTMAN: "The Keys to the White House" is a historically based prediction system. I derived the system by looking at every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980, and have since used the system to correctly predict the outcomes of all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012.
The keys are 13 true/false questions, where an answer of "true" always favors the reelection of the party holding the White House, in this case the Democrats. And the keys are phrased to reflect the basic theory that elections are primarily judgments on the performance of the party holding the White House. And if six or more of the 13 keys are false — that is, they go against the party in power — they lose. If fewer than six are false, the party in power gets four more years."
If I were to believe the chatter around the office, T rump won the debate by a landslide.
Any chance Johnson can make the next debate? (I might actually watch then)
Make sure it meets the recommended specs for Civ6...
I could only stomach about 15-20 min last night before I got sick of it and went to bedLucky for you. I had to watch the entire debate for a speech and debate course. I have to observe the non-verbal and verbal cues of the candidates, analyze the
I could only stomach about 15-20 min last night before I got sick of it and went to bedLucky for you. I had to watch the entire debate for a speech and debate course. I have to observe the non-verbal and verbal cues of the candidates, analyze thenonexistent arguments of the candidates, and present a logical argument for which of the two candidates I believe gave a better presentation. I have to write a 5 page essay on the topic. Where does the vomiting emotional icon exist on the forum?
;popcornSemi-Colon popcorn...
Yep. It's the CFC one, but I made some improvements. The semicolon codes are that much easier/faster to type because you don't have to [shift].
Just saw that on the news.Get him onto the debate stage and yeah, it will
Will this be enough? Can Johnson get a push now?
A Statement from Gov. John Kasich
John Kasich·Saturday, October 8, 2016
.
"Nothing that has happened in the last 48 hours is surprising to me or many others. Many people were angry and questioned why I would not endorse Donald T rump or attend the Republican Convention. I’ve long had concerns with Donald T rump that go beyond his temperament. We have substantive policy differences on conservative issues like trade, our relationship with Russia, and the importance of balancing the federal budget. I’ve held out hope that he would change on those disqualifying policy positions, but he has not. I’ve also encouraged him to change his behavior for the better and offer a positive, inclusive vision for our country, but he has not. It's clear that he hasn't changed and has no interest in doing so. As a result, Donald T rump is a man I cannot and should not support. The actions of the last day are disgusting, but that’s not why I reached this decision, it has been an accumulation of his words and actions that many have been warning about. I will not vote for a nominee who has behaved in a manner that reflects so poorly on our country. Our country deserves better."
Great because we are good is an awful catch phrase. Whoever put that in the prep is an idiot.
Eh. I'm done.
Some of these Clump searches make me want to wash my hands. Here's an editorial by Johnson in the New Hampshire Union Leader - http://www.unionleader.com/columns/gary-johnson-as-T rump-collapses-we-offer-republicans-a-better-choice--20161010 (http://www.unionleader.com/columns/gary-johnson-as-T rump-collapses-we-offer-republicans-a-better-choice--20161010)
Another View -- Gary Johnson: As T rump collapses, we offer Republicans a better choice
By GARY JOHNSON
THE ART OF POLITICS is about finding common ground with as many voters as possible without abandoning core principles of governing. It is not about sticking with candidates who are utterly flawed, just because they represent your political party.
My core principles are about limiting spending by government, defending the civil liberties in the Constitution and preserving the right of all people to live their lives as they choose.
As the former Republican governor of the predominantly-Democrat New Mexico, I have a proven record of fiscal conservatism and social tolerance.
Together with my running mate Bill Weld, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, we present a powerful alternative to an extreme and fearful partisanship gripping America in this presidential campaign.
When Donald T rump holds a press conference an hour and a half before the debate begins with the intent of deflecting attention from his own misogyny by trying to convince us the Clintons are worse, we probably knew everything we needed to know about this debate, and more important, this campaign.
Character and trust are everything. It shouldn’t matter whether a microphone is turned on or not. Mr. T rump’s comments about women — which we have all now heard — aren’t any more appropriate in a locker room than on national TV.
We have fallen through the looking glass. Thanks to two candidates who are each running on a platform of not being the other, we are in historically uninspiring territory.
Thanks to some great questions from the audience, however, there were a few brief discussions of issues. I even heard some things from each of them with which I agreed.
But the bigger question hanging over the entire debate is whether either of these candidates can be believed.
Without any confidence that a President will have the integrity, character and principles to actually put the nation first, nothing else matters.
Americans deserve better. Women deserve better. And Republicans, and Democrats, deserve better. They deserve candidates who are not embarrassments.
They need, and they have, another choice in Bill Weld and myself. We are on the ballot in all 50 states. We have records of success in the states we served. We are not asking voters to hold their noses or take leaps of faith. And we feel no need to have differing public and private positions.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was responsible for promoting counter-productive policies in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria.
In contrast, I maintain that our foreign policy and military actions must support clear U.S. interests. That seems obvious, but during the past 15 years, that has not been the case.
Our interests are our lives, our property and our freedom. They are not necessarily a desire to shape the world in our own image or to pick winners and losers in civil wars on the other side of the globe.
Our nation needs the confidence that its commander-in-chief will act predictably and responsibly to defend America, and not to aggress elsewhere in our name.
Moreover, Ms. Clinton is an advocate for government and the state, and not for the people. In speeches to New York banks, she declared the importance of having a public position and a private position on controversial issues.
That’s not being honest and straightforward with the American people.
Many Americans simply cannot bring themselves to support either of these candidates. As a former Republican, I continue to be shocked that party members allowed themselves to nominate Mr. T rump as their standard-bearer.
With the flood of Republicans withdrawing their endorsements of Mr. T rump, and House Speaker Paul Ryan refusing now to defend him, his campaign seems to be at its end. With T rump on the ticket, the Republican Party is entering a death spiral spawned by its embrace of nativism and xenophobia.
Even putting aside Mr. T rump’s outrageous policy positions on building a wall, on deporting 11 million immigrants, on imposing 35 percent tariffs, or in pledging to torture family members of terrorists, can we really know what he actually believes?
We speak often of reaching across party lines if elected to get things done for America. Today, we would like to reach across party lines to invite our Republican friends to join our campaign. There is a presidential ticket with two candidates who served honorably and effectively as Republican governors, and we are it.
.Gary Johnson is the former two-term governor of New Mexico and the Libertarian Party nominee for President.
He's right...but Gary Johnson seems to be an embarrasment in his own way as well. If only the libertarians had picked a different candidate for this year...
Johnson is being vilified locally based off something about wanting rights for vaping.
I don't know that TEH CHURCH has ever made an official statement, but general Mormon sentiment (at least in Utah) is Vaping = Smoking, and is thus of satan.
I was phrasing it in my head, yesterday: "He's really running for 'Make Libertarian a real party'. That ideological approach to governance has merit, and it's worth doing."
You know, I don't expect Gary to win. I'm a pessimist at heart. But I do believe that third parties force issues and change the country.
But there are times when I am moved to tears when I believe it's actually possible that I won't be subject to the most hated professional politician in America, or the most egotistical demagogue in America.
Some early voting results-
They are calling this the best speech of the entire campaign. Michelle Obama denounces the behavior of a certain masher who she refuses to name.
There's video as well as a transcript. I'm not cutting and pasting, because I think she is an excellent speaker, and I suggest you listen.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497846667/transcript-michelle-obamas-speech-on-donald-trumps-alleged-treatment-of-women (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497846667/transcript-michelle-obamas-speech-on-donald-trumps-alleged-treatment-of-women)
(http://media.npr.org/chrome/news/npr-home.png) (http://www.npr.org/) Search (http://media.npr.org/chrome/news/npr-home.png) (http://www.npr.org/) Politics (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/) TRANSCRIPT: Michelle Obama's Speech On Donald [Sleezebag]'s Alleged Treatment Of Women
October 13, 20164:27 PM ET C-SPAN via YouTube My goodness! You guys are fired up!
Well, let me just say hello everyone. I am so thrilled to be here with you all today in New Hampshire. This is like home to me, and this day — thank you for a beautiful fall day. You just ordered this day up for me, didn't you? It's great to be here.
-comments-have-shaken-me-to-my-core](http:// Comments Have 'Shaken Me To My Core']http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/10/13/ap_16287630106455_sq-7e0a9820a76f5dc65f3a7e8067eb3270c44aa692-s500-c85.jpg) (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497817419/michelle-obama-[Sleezebag) Politics (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/) -comments-have-shaken-me-to-my-core] WATCH: Michelle Obama Says [Sleezebag] Comments Have 'Shaken Me To My Core' (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497817419/michelle-obama-[Sleezebag) Let me start by thanking your fabulous governor, your next U.S. senator, Maggie Hassan. I want to thank her for that lovely introduction. I also want to recognize your Congresswoman Annie McKlane Kuster, who's a dear, dear friend. Your soon-to-be congresswoman once again, Carol Shea Porter — all of whom have been just terrific friends to us. And your Executive Council and candidate for governor, Colin Van Ostern.
And, of course, thanks to all of you for taking the time to be here today.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!
Thanks so much. That's very sweet of you. I love you guys too. I can't believe it's just a few weeks before Election Day, as we come together to support the next President and Vice President of the United States, Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine! And New Hampshire is going to be important, as always.
So I'm going to get a little serious here, because I think we can all agree that this has been a rough week in an already rough election. This week has been particularly interesting for me personally because it has been a week of profound contrast.
-calls-assault-allegations-pure-fiction-pledges-evidence-to-dispute](http:// Calls Assault Allegations 'Pure Fiction,' Pledges Evidence To Dispute]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/10/13/gettyimages-614356874_sq-b401c21c40c8ad1a232791a0c80f52de62a4bf70-s500-c85.jpg) (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497826933/[Sleezebag) Politics (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/) -calls-assault-allegations-pure-fiction-pledges-evidence-to-dispute] [Sleezebag] Calls Assault Allegations 'Pure Fiction,' Pledges Evidence To Dispute (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497826933/[Sleezebag) See, on Tuesday, at the White House, we celebrated the International Day of the Girl and Let Girls Learn, and it was a wonderful celebration. It was the last event that I'm going to be doing as First Lady for Let Girls Learn. And I had the pleasure of spending hours talking to some of the most amazing young women you will ever meet, young girls here in the U.S. and all around the world. And we talked about their hopes and their dreams. We talked about their aspirations. See, because many of these girls have faced unthinkable obstacles just to attend school, jeopardizing their personal safety, their freedom, risking the rejection of their families and communities.
(http:// Of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct. Here's The Full List]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/10/13/gettyimages-611010964_sq-a8488f7709670f22bf4e277e9e26a9deaa782a07-s500-c85.jpg) (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct) Politics (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/) A List Of The Accusations About [Sleezebag]'s Alleged Inappropriate Sexual Conduct (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct) So I thought it would be important to remind these young women how valuable and precious they are. I wanted them to understand that the measure of any society is how it treats its women and girls. And I told them that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and I told them that they should disregard anyone who demeans or devalues them, and that they should make their voices heard in the world. And I walked away feeling so inspired, just like I'm inspired by all the young people here — and I was so uplifted by these girls. That was Tuesday.
And now, here I am, out on the campaign trail in an election where we have consistently been hearing hurtful, hateful language about women — language that has been painful for so many of us, not just as women, but as parents trying to protect our children and raise them to be caring, respectful adults, and as citizens who think that our nation's leaders should meet basic standards of human decency.
The fact is that in this election, we have a candidate for President of the United States who, over the course of his lifetime and the course of this campaign, has said things about women that are so shocking, so demeaning that I simply will not repeat anything here today. And last week, we saw this candidate actually bragging about sexually assaulting women. And I can't believe that I'm saying that a candidate for President of the United States has bragged about sexually assaulting women.
And I have to tell you that I can't stop thinking about this. It has shaken me to my core in a way that I couldn't have predicted. So while I'd love nothing more than to pretend like this isn't happening, and to come out here and do my normal campaign speech, it would be dishonest and disingenuous to me to just move on to the next thing like this was all just a bad dream.
This is not something that we can ignore. It's not something we can just sweep under the rug as just another disturbing footnote in a sad election season. Because this was not just a "lewd conversation." This wasn't just locker-room banter. This was a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior, and actually bragging about kissing and groping women, using language so obscene that many of us were worried about our children hearing it when we turn on the TV.
And to make matters worse, it now seems very clear that this isn't an isolated incident. It's one of countless examples of how he has treated women his whole life. And I have to tell you that I listen to all of this and I feel it so personally, and I'm sure that many of you do too, particularly the women. The shameful comments about our bodies. The disrespect of our ambitions and intellect. The belief that you can do anything you want to a woman.
It is cruel. It's frightening. And the truth is, it hurts. It hurts. It's like that sick, sinking feeling you get when you're walking down the street minding your own business and some guy yells out vulgar words about your body. Or when you see that guy at work that stands just a little too close, stares a little too long, and makes you feel uncomfortable in your own skin.
(http://]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/10/11/gettyimages-613837780_sq-c19855742126418b1bca8a4b00a6a4543e706913-s500-c85.jpg) (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/11/497487314/clinton-uses-intense-presidential-debate-to-try-to-win-over-young-voters) Politics (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/) 'We Are Better Than That': Clinton Sees An Opening In Voters Turned Off By [Sleezebag] (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/11/497487314/clinton-uses-intense-presidential-debate-to-try-to-win-over-young-voters) It's that feeling of terror and violation that too many women have felt when someone has grabbed them, or forced himself on them and they've said no but he didn't listen — something that we know happens on college campuses and countless other places every single day. It reminds us of stories we heard from our mothers and grandmothers about how, back in their day, the boss could say and do whatever he pleased to the women in the office, and even though they worked so hard, jumped over every hurdle to prove themselves, it was never enough.
We thought all of that was ancient history, didn't we? And so many have worked for so many years to end this kind of violence and abuse and disrespect, but here we are in 2016 and we're hearing these exact same things every day on the campaign trail. We are drowning in it. And all of us are doing what women have always done: We're trying to keep our heads above water, just trying to get through it, trying to pretend like this doesn't really bother us maybe because we think that admitting how much it hurts makes us as women look weak.
Maybe we're afraid to be that vulnerable. Maybe we've grown accustomed to swallowing these emotions and staying quiet, because we've seen that people often won't take our word over his. Or maybe we don't want to believe that there are still people out there who think so little of us as women. Too many are treating this as just another day's headline, as if our outrage is overblown or unwarranted, as if this is normal, just politics as usual.
-in-crisis](http:// In Crisis]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/10/09/promo-battleground-20161009-seamus_sq-0b9b6c8e12b5b0d1f4651356222b037b3d12bcad-s500-c85.png) (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497277536/npr-battleground-map-[Sleezebag) Politics (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/) -in-crisis] NPR Battleground Map: [Sleezebag] In Crisis (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497277536/npr-battleground-map-[Sleezebag) But, New Hampshire, be clear: This is not normal. This is not politics as usual. This is disgraceful. It is intolerable. And it doesn't matter what party you belong to — Democrat, Republican, independent — no woman deserves to be treated this way. None of us deserves this kind of abuse.
And I know it's a campaign, but this isn't about politics. It's about basic human decency. It's about right and wrong. And we simply cannot endure this, or expose our children to this any longer — not for another minute, and let alone for four years. Now is the time for all of us to stand up and say enough is enough. This has got to stop right now.
Because consider this: If all of this is painful to us as grown women, what do you think this is doing to our children? What message are our little girls hearing about who they should look like, how they should act? What lessons are they learning about their value as professionals, as human beings, about their dreams and aspirations? And how is this affecting men and boys in this country? Because I can tell you that the men in my life do not talk about women like this. And I know that my family is not unusual. And to dismiss this as everyday locker-room talk is an insult to decent men everywhere.
The men that you and I know don't treat women this way. They are loving fathers who are sickened by the thought of their daughters being exposed to this kind of vicious language about women. They are husbands and brothers and sons who don't tolerate women being treated and demeaned and disrespected. And like us, these men are worried about the impact this election is having on our boys who are looking for role models of what it means to be a man.
In fact, someone recently told me a story about their six-year-old son who one day was watching the news — they were watching the news together. And the little boy, out of the blue, said, "I think Hillary Clinton will be President." And his mom said, "Well, why do you say that?" And this little six-year-old said, "Because the other guy called someone a piggy, and," he said, "you cannot be President if you call someone a piggy."
So even a six-year-old knows better. A six-year-old knows that this is not how adults behave. This is not how decent human beings behave. And this is certainly not how someone who wants to be President of the United States behaves.
Because let's be very clear: Strong men — men who are truly role models — don't need to put down women to make themselves feel powerful. People who are truly strong lift others up. People who are truly powerful bring others together. And that is what we need in our next President. We need someone who is a uniting force in this country. We need someone who will heal the wounds that divide us, someone who truly cares about us and our children, someone with strength and compassion to lead this country forward.
And let me tell you, I'm here today because I believe with all of my heart that Hillary Clinton will be that President.
See, we know that Hillary is the right person for the job because we've seen her character and commitment not just in this campaign, but over the course of her entire life. The fact is that Hillary embodies so many of the values that we try so hard to teach our young people. We tell our young people "Work hard in school, get a good education." We encourage them to use that education to help others — which is exactly what Hillary did with her college and law degrees, advocating for kids with disabilities, fighting for children's health care as First Lady, affordable child care in the Senate.
We teach our kids the value of being a team player, which is what Hillary exemplified when she lost the 2008 election and actually agreed to work for her opponent as our Secretary of State — earning sky-high approval ratings serving her country once again.
We also teach our kids that you don't take shortcuts in life, and you strive for meaningful success in whatever job you do. Well, Hillary has been a lawyer, a law professor, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, a U.S. senator, Secretary of State. And she has been successful in every role, gaining more experience and exposure to the presidency than any candidate in our lifetime — more than Barack, more than Bill. And, yes, she happens to be a woman.
-and-the-testosterone-takeover-of-2016](http:// And The Testosterone Takeover Of 2016]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/09/30/gettyimages-88631771_sq-a650af572e81f4d95c107969d5c3c10afbf92d52-s500-c85.jpg) (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/01/494249104/[Sleezebag) Politics (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/) -and-the-testosterone-takeover-of-2016] [Sleezebag] And The Testosterone Takeover Of 2016 (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/01/494249104/[Sleezebag) (http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/09/22/gettyimages-538543614_sq-0818b65572cd0f9c8335fefeefdbbf13efe1b9c4-s500-c85.jpg) (http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/491999689/a-complete-guide-to-early-and-absentee-voting) Politics (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/) A Complete Guide To Early And Absentee Voting (http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/491999689/a-complete-guide-to-early-and-absentee-voting) And finally, we teach our kids that when you hit challenges in life, you don't give up, you stick with it. Well, during her four years as Secretary of State alone, Hillary has faced her share of challenges. She's traveled to 112 countries, negotiated a ceasefire, a peace agreement, a release of dissidents. She spent 11 hours testifying before a congressional committee. We know that when things get tough, Hillary doesn't complain. She doesn't blame others. She doesn't abandon ship for something easier. No, Hillary Clinton has never quit on anything in her life.
So in Hillary, we have a candidate who has dedicated her life to public service, someone who has waited her turn and helped out while waiting. She is an outstanding mother. She has raised a phenomenal young woman. She is a loving, loyal wife. She's a devoted daughter who cared for her mother until her final days. And if any of us had raised a daughter like Hillary Clinton, we would be so proud. We would be proud.
And regardless of who her opponent might be, no one could be more qualified for this job than Hillary — no one. And in this election, if we turn away from her, if we just stand by and allow her opponent to be elected, then what are we teaching our children about the values they should hold, about the kind of life they should lead? What are we saying?
In our hearts, we all know that if we let Hillary's opponent win this election, then we are sending a clear message to our kids that everything they're seeing and hearing is perfectly okay. We are validating it. We are endorsing it. We're telling our sons that it's okay to humiliate women. We're telling our daughters that this is how they deserve to be treated. We're telling all our kids that bigotry and bullying are perfectly acceptable in the leader of their country. Is that what we want for our children?
And remember, we won't just be setting a bad example for our kids, but for our entire world. Because for so long, America has been a model for countries across the globe, pushing them to educate their girls, insisting that they give more rights to their women. But if we have a President who routinely degrades women, who brags about sexually assaulting women, then how can we maintain our moral authority in the world? How can we continue to be a beacon of freedom and justice and human dignity?
Well, fortunately, New Hampshire, here's the beauty: We have everything we need to stop this madness. You see, while our mothers and grandmothers were often powerless to change their circumstances, today, we as women have all the power we need to determine the outcome of this election.
We have knowledge. We have a voice. We have a vote. And on November the 8th, we as women, we as Americans, we as decent human beings can come together and declare that enough is enough, and we do not tolerate this kind of behavior in this country.
Remember this: In 2012, women's votes were the difference between Barack winning and losing in key swing states, including right here in New Hampshire. So for anyone who might be thinking that your one vote doesn't really matter, or that one person can't really make a difference, consider this: Back in 2012, Barack won New Hampshire by about 40,000 votes, which sounds like a lot. But when you break that number down, the difference between winning and losing this state was only 66 votes per precinct. Just take that in. If 66 people each precinct had gone the other way, Barack would have lost.
So each of you right here today could help swing an entire precinct and win this election for Hillary just by getting yourselves, your families, and your friends and neighbors out to vote. You can do it right here. But you could also help swing an entire precinct for Hillary's opponent with a protest vote or by staying home out of frustration.
Because here's the truth: Either Hillary Clinton or her opponent will be elected president this year. And if you vote for someone other than Hillary, or if you don't vote at all, then you are helping to elect her opponent. And just think about how you will feel if that happens. Imagine waking up on November the 9th and looking into the eyes of your daughter or son, or looking into your own eyes as you stare into the mirror. Imagine how you'll feel if you stayed home, or if you didn't do everything possible to elect Hillary.
We simply cannot let that happen. We cannot allow ourselves to be so disgusted that we just shut off the TV and walk away. And we can't just sit around wringing our hands. Now, we need to recover from our shock and depression and do what women have always done in this country. We need you to roll up your sleeves. We need to get to work. Because remember this: When they go low, we go ...
AUDIENCE: High!
Yes, we do.
And voting ourselves is a great start, but we also have to step up and start organizing. So we need you to make calls and knock on doors and get folks to the polls on Election Day and sign up to volunteer with one of the Hillary campaign folks who are here today just waiting for you to step up.
And, young people and not-so-young people, get on social media. Share your own story of why this election matters, why it should matter for all people of conscience in this country. There is so much at stake in this election.
See, the choice you make Nov. 8 could determine whether we have a President who treats people with respect — or not. A President who will fight for kids, for good schools, for good jobs for our families — or not. A President who thinks that women deserve the right to make our own choices about our bodies and our health — or not. That's just a little bit of what's at stake.
So we cannot afford to be tired or turned off. And we cannot afford to stay home on Election Day. Because on November the 8th, we have the power to show our children that America's greatness comes from recognizing the innate dignity and worth of all our people. On November the 8th, we can show our children that this country is big enough to have a place for us all — men and women, folks of every background and walk of life — and that each of us is a precious part of this great American story, and we are always stronger together.
On Nov. 8, we can show our children that here in America, we reject hatred and fear and in difficult times, we don't discard our highest ideals. No, we rise up to meet them. We rise up to perfect our union. We rise up to defend our blessings of liberty. We rise up to embody the values of equality and opportunity and sacrifice that have always made this country the greatest nation on Earth.
That is who we are. And don't ever let anyone tell you differently. Hope is important. Hope is important for our young people. And we deserve a President who can see those truths in us — a President who can bring us together and bring out the very best in us. Hillary Clinton will be that President.
So for the next 26 days, we need to do everything we can to help her and Tim Kaine win this election. I know I'm going to be doing it. Are you with me? Are you all with me? You ready to roll up your sleeves? Get to work knocking on doors?
All right, let's get to work. Thank you all. God bless.
This transcript was released by the White House Office of the First Lady
Well, I didn't try to cut and pace that one simply because I wanted people to hear the First Lady speak, but I'm glad you posted it.
-----------------------
* I haven't spoken much about Evan McMullen lately. He was competitive in Utah in one poll. I didn't think he's get there. Originally my opposition to him was that it wasn't a serious campaign, as he was only on the ballot in ten states, and has placeholder VPs in some of those, as he didn't have a running mate. So I didn't think he was relevant. Secondly, by the time he was in the race I was preferring Gary Johnson, and it seemed as if he was stealing Johnson's back-up 12th Amendment strategy. Except that as a Mormon and a consultant to the GOP In the House, he had the inside track.
But you know, Just as Tom Paine once convinced me that kings have no hereditary right to people, as that equates the people to cattle, I've reaffirmed my idea this year that the parties have no hereditary right to voters. Not because of sex, creed, color, or location. Not because of who their parents voted for. Votes have to be earned.
Even if the 12 Amendment scenario, or any other idea originated with the Johnson campaign or Libertarian Party, just because he has a campaign headquarters in Utah, it doesn't mean that he's entitled to the idea and state exclusively. Utah has 1 more Electoral College vote than New Mexico, so Johnson would need to pick up at least one other state to win that way. So, no point in blaming McMullen for trying. If it comes to that, I would lobby my Congressman on his behalf, simply because he respects the Constitution more than Clump.
But I do have another reason to oppose the guy, whose credentials are basically- CIA covert operative, Goldman-Sachs guy, and Congressional foreign affairs consultant. He wants boots on the ground to eradicate ISIS, and he wants a special forces operation to remove Assad.
I want an end to meddling in the Mid-East and let people change their own regimes.
--------------------------------------------
I've seen some interviews on Republican women loyal to T rump. It goes something like this - Yes, the allegations are serious. I'm not saying those women are lying. I am saying that in America we believe in innocent until proven guilty. We need to focus on the issues.
I tend to think that 1) Tell T rump to focus on the issues! 2) Speaking of the issues , how is T rump's support of a 35% import tariff different from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act Republicans blame for The Great Depression? 3) T rump is promising jobs for America. If he once promised a contestant on his show a job, but only tried to screw her, isn't that part of his record on job promises and relevant to the campaign.
Early Voting -- It makes you feel super!
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14671159_1787386331541875_3479384810435640965_n.jpg?oh=687e6a902f9506fbbac7cde5be095d45&oe=589E63D9)
We have a top-tier congressional race here, so the Republican incumbent's signs are everywhere, but it's hard to find anything for any of the presidential candidates or anyone else. They exist - there are certainly more Clinton bumper stickers as you approach Washington, D.C. - but even those are rare. At this point, there are easily more yard signs for or against a local tax referendum measure in my county than for all of the presidential candidates combined.
I've noticed that the enthusiasm gap in this election - which already started out generational - has become increasingly generational as things go on. The people volunteering for anything on either side are overwhelmingly in their 50's, 60's, or 70's (mostly baby boomers, some older folk). Even otherwise active people on both sides seem to just be sitting this out. They'll vote (not necessarily for their own party's nominee), but that's it.
I actually agree with the take I saw made in a piece from the Federalist today: contrary to what a lot of people have been trying to sell, this could really be the least important presidential election of our lifetimes. No matter who wins, they will be loathed by the majority of the country, have no mandate aside from "they weren't the other one", likely facing a hostile congress keeping them from doing anything, and probably won't get re-elected in 2020.
Had about 70 kids. Not a single political mask this year - though princess costumes were the in thing, along with Mario....
Had about 70 kids. Not a single political mask this year - though princess costumes were the in thing, along with Mario....
My sample size is significantly larger than yours ;) 1000ish
Every commercial during the Raiders game last night had 2-3 T rump ads here in Utah.
1 Hillary about every other break.
T rump ads are all now outdated due to the clearing of the FBI case (again), but I doubt that matters to anyone. He's saying it louder and more often, people will still believe she's under investigation.
Evan McMullin is polling mid to upper 20s there. What's the anecdotal evidence of his support?
In one sense, I have been less politically active since I voted early. Real Life has been demanding as well.
What I find interesting is that Nate Silver has the race at roughly 65/35 in favor of Clinton, with an average Electoral College victory of 290... BUT in his state by state breakdown, Clinton is basically winning by one state. T rump is winning by less than half a % of popular vote in states such as NC, FL, and NV. SO, should T rump happen to flip a blue state such as CO, or NH, he would win. PA is a stretch in so short a time, and he hasn't prioritized it. Admittedly, Clinton's lead in PA , while consistent, tends to be similar to the margin of error, and the rural conservative voters tend to refuse to answer pollster's questions as being none of their business. So it could be closer than it appears. Likewise, if Gary could grab NM, he could deny them both. It's that close. Nate says he wishes he had a recent poll from NM.
Speaking of my former home state of PA- The Philadelphia transit workers are on strike. That means it takes a lot longer to go to places, and might be hard to get to and from work and vote in the same day. Philadelphia is the Democratic stronghold which keeps the state blue in presidential elections, and purple otherwise. Some of the precincts were 100% Obama. It would be ironic if the striking unionized workers suppressed Democrat vote enough to elect T rump, or save the Senate seat for the Republicans.
McMullin is more likely to take Utah than Gary is New Mexico. ( Presuming PA goes to Hillary), taking Utah would likely deny T rump, Taking New Mexico would likely deny both Hillary and T rump, Of course if both happened, McMullen would be the 3rd candidate in the 12th Amendment scenario, and Gary would be out because Utah has one more Electoral College vote than New Mexico. I would consider McMullin the heavy favorite in The House, because his last job was advisor to the GOP House caucus.
So it should be interesting watching Tuesday night. At the moment I don't dare to hope that neither Clinton nor T rump will be the next president, but I am starting to look forward to all of this ending and either T rump or Clinton going away. However.... Nate puts the chances of at least one recount in a swing state at 9.1%
"It ain't over till it's over."
Prediction time guys...
On a scale of one to ten, how much of a stink and how long will he draw out that stink, do you think that T rump will make of the results?
Prediction time guys...
On a scale of one to ten, how much of a stink and how long will he draw out that stink, do you think that T rump will make of the results?
I have a feeling that his stink will be countered by the FBI debacle timed to hurt Hillary's early vote. Call it a 3. I don't think he will properly concede as such. Probably make allusions into having his people look into it. Demand a recount somewhere. He's already laid the groundwork rhetorically in PA. As for duration, somehow I think that he will maintain that he was robbed the rest of his life, ( or at least so long as he continues to appear on TV ), because he's a WINNER.
Well, here's a nice way to end the campaign phase. This is an ad made from a rally speech by Gary's daughter, Seah. I included it in part, because she's talking about keeping bees. Start about the 1 minute mark.
What's the translation?
Had a MrWIA sighting at Poly yesterday. I PM'ed him to head over to WPC to say hi and maybe join in the upcoming SPDG... let Aro know that he's welcome, too...
Well, here's a nice way to end the campaign phase. This is an ad made from a rally speech by Gary's daughter, Seah. I included it in part, because she's talking about keeping bees. Start about the 1 minute mark.
Wont play...
And just like that, Halloween mask sales become the only reliable predictor.
I can't believe people are protesting...
Reason.com Free Minds & Free Markets - TRENDING TOPICS - HIT & RUN BLOG
Where the Third-Party Candidates Were Strongest. Which states gave Gary Johnson his best results? Jill Stein? Evan McMullin? And who did those candidates help more, [Sleezebag] or Clinton?
Jesse Walker|Nov. 9, 2016 11:55 am
Gary Johnson Yesterday's presidential election produced the strongest showing in 20 years for third-party and independent candidates. Not all the ballots have been tallied yet, so some of the numbers below may be slightly off from the final totals. But at this point all the alternative candidates put together have received more than 5 percent of the popular vote. The leader of the second-tier pack, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, has (at this point in the counting) 4,008,564 votes, or 3.22 percent of the national total. That's much less than he was polling a couple months ago, but it's far better than any other presidential result in the party's 45-year history. It's also better than any other alternative candidate since Ross Perot's campaigns of 1992 and '96.
On the state level, we didn't see some of the more extraordinary possibilities that had been tossed around before Tuesday. (No, Evan McMullin did not carry Utah.) But the second-tier candidates did do stronger in some places than others, giving us a map—several maps—of where our binary party system is doing the poorest job of representing the full spectrum of political opinion. Here's how the third-, fourth-, and fifth-place finishers fared across the country:
Gary Johnson. Not surprisingly, Johnson did best in New Mexico, the state where he was governor from 1995 to 2003: He got 9.4 percent of the vote there (and in some counties hit double digits). He got 5 percent or more in seven other states as well: North Dakota (6.3 percent), traditionally third-party-friendly Alaska (5.9), Oklahoma (5.7), South Dakota (5.6), Montana (5.5), Wyoming (5.3), and Maine (5.1).
He got at least 1 percent of the vote everywhere. His weakest showing was in Mississippi, where just 1.2 percent of the voters backed him. That's still more than double his total there in 2012.
created at mapchart.net
Jill Stein. As I write, Jill Stein of the Green Party has 1,191,269 votes, or about .96 percent of the national total. That's the Greens' best showing since Ralph Nader's campaign in 2000. Stein's highest percentage on the state level came in Hawaii, where she collected 2.9 percent of the ballots. She also managed to top 2 percent in Oregon (2.4 percent), Vermont (2.3), and—more surprisingly—Kansas (2.0). She did not outpoll Johnson in any state.
created at mapchart.net
Evan McMullin. McMullin, a conservative running as an independent, was on the ballot in only 11 states, so it's not surprising that he finished behind Johnson and Stein. (His total currently stands at 441,277 votes nationally, or .36 percent.) But he did very well in one of those states: He was a strong third in his native Utah, collecting 20.9 percent of the vote and finishing second in several counties. He also managed to get 6.9 percent in Idaho, the only other state where he beat Johnson. He didn't get as much as 2 percent anywhere else, though he managed to clear the 1 percent mark in Minnesota (1.8 percent), Virginia (1.6), Arkansas (1.2), Kentucky (1.2), and South Carolina (1.0). It is no coincidence that McMullin did best in the two states with the country's highest Mormon populations.
The only other candidate who managed to get more than 1 percent of the vote in any states was Darrell Castle of the paleoconservative Constitution Party, who is currently pulling 1.1 percent in Alaska and South Dakota and, more surprisingly, has earned 1 percent in Hawaii. In Nevada, where voters have the option of voting for None of the Above, that option pulled 2.6 percent.
Did these candidates tip any states from Clinton to [Sleezebag]? I've already heard some ruminations to that effect from angry Democrats ready to replay their scripts from 2000, but it's a hard case to make. Johnson initially drew both disaffected Democrats and disaffected Republicans, but toward the end of the race the polls suggested that he was pulling much more from the [Sleezebag] camp. (Of course, I don't blame you if you don't feel like trusting any polls right now.) And if these three candidates weren't on any ballots, a significant share of their supporters would have simply stayed home rather than vote for Clinton or [Sleezebag].
Indeed, a lot of people stayed home anyway. Turnout in general was way down this year, and [Sleezebag] is currently on track to finish with a lower raw vote total than either Mitt Romney or John McCain. Let me repeat that, just to drive home how unpopular the major-party candidates were this year: The man who won this election got fewer votes than the men who lost the last two elections. Even though the country's population has grown, and either though they both lost pretty badly.
All that said, there were several states where the alternative candidates collected enough votes to cover the Clinton/[Sleezebag] spread. Six of those were won by [Sleezebag]—and seven were won by Clinton. Here's a rundown:
Arizona: [Sleezebag] beat Clinton by four points; Johnson and Stein between them collected 5 percent. But most of that went to Johnson (3.8 percent), so it's unclear whether [Sleezebag] or Clinton was hurt more by the other options on the ballot.
Colorado: Clinton won by 2.2 percent. Voters also gave 4.9 percent to Johnson, 1.2 percent to Stein, 1 percent to McMullin, and nearly 1 percent more to a collection of third-tier candidates. If Johnson was pulling more Republicans than Dems in Colorado, he may have given this one to Clinton.
Florida: [Sleezebag] eked out a win by just 1.4 percent here. Johnson, Stein, Castle, and Rocky De La Fuente of the Reform Party between them collected 3.2 percent. Enough to cover the spread, but how many of those votes would have otherwise gone to Clinton? Stein got only .7 percent.
Maine: Clinton won this by three percentage points, and Johnson collected 5.1 percent, so there's a chance he tipped the state to the Democrats. (Or part of the state, anyway: [Sleezebag] carried Maine's second congressional district, so he is being awarded one of the state's electoral votes.)
Michigan: [Sleezebag] won this ordinarily blue state by about .3 percent, and Stein got 1.1 percent, so Democrats who feel all Green votes are rightfully theirs are going to be seething at her over this one. Meanwhile, Johnson got 3.6 percent.
Minnesota: Clinton won by 1.4 percent. McMullin got 1.8 percent. How many of those voters would have gone for [Sleezebag] otherwise, and how many would have stayed home? Beats me, but between that and the other minor-candidate results—Johnson got 3.4 percent and Stein got 1.3—this looks like a state where the alternatives may have done more to help Clinton than to hurt her.
Nevada: Clinton won by 2.4 percent; Johnson got 3.3 percent. And Castle picked up half a point too.
New Hampshire: Another narrow Clinton win—just a tenth of a percentage point—and another relatively strong showing for Johnson, who collected 4.1 percent.
New Mexico: Clinton won this handily, by 8.3 percent. But Johnson, remember, got 9.3 percent. Then again, he has a history of picking up Democratic votes in New Mexico—he was reelected easily in his days as governor, despite the predominantly Democratic electorate—so it'd be hard to make the case that he played spoiler.
Pennsylvania: [Sleezebag] won by about 1.1 percent. Stein's .8 percent isn't enough to cover that spread; Johnson's 2.4 percent is, but again we don't know whether he was drawing more from [Sleezebag] or Clinton.
Utah: [Sleezebag] beat Clinton here by about 17 percent. Sounds like a pretty big victory, but it's still less than McMullin's 20.9 percent. In this case you could make the case that the real spoiler was Clinton: If she weren't on the ballot, nearly all of her supporters surely would have preferred McMullin to [Sleezebag], perhaps allowing the independent to deny the Republican six electoral votes.
Virginia: Clinton won by 4.7 percent. Johnson, McMullin, and Stein got 3, 1.6, and .7 percent, respectively. So the third-party candidates covered the spread if you include the Green, but the two candidates who were more likely to pull from [Sleezebag] didn't have quite enough to cover it on their own.
Wisconsin: Here, on the other hand, Stein's 1.1 percent is just enough to bridge the margin 1-percent margin between the winning [Sleezebag] and the losing Clinton. But then what does Johnson's 3.4 percent do to the results—or, for that matter, the nearly half a percentage point that Castle won while running to [Sleezebag]'s right?
Damned if I know. I will say this, though: If the Democrats find themselves searching for scapegoats by parsing the Green and Constitution parties' totals rather than asking how they managed to nominate a candidate so weak that Wisconsin was in play, they really aren't asking the right questions.
Photo Credit: mapchart.net
Indeed, a lot of people stayed home anyway. Turnout in general was way down this year, and [Sleezebag] is currently on track to finish with a lower raw vote total than either Mitt Romney or John McCain. Let me repeat that, just to drive home how unpopular the major-party candidates were this year: The man who won this election got fewer votes than the men who lost the last two elections. Even though the country's population has grown, and either though they both lost pretty badly.
[SNIP]
Damned if I know. I will say this, though: If the Democrats find themselves searching for scapegoats by parsing the Green and Constitution parties' totals rather than asking how they managed to nominate a candidate so weak that Wisconsin was in play, they really aren't asking the right questions.
Photo Credit: mapchart.net
Who do you think is gonna run for president in 2020?
An analysis of Donald T rump’s election win and the prospects for his presidency
NSFW
https://medium.com/@SnoozeInBrief/an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-election-win-and-the-prospects-for-his-presidency-f6a87eef6d70#.ajqt8cplk
Is anybody pondering what new uses the new president might find for the powers of surveillance, detention and assassination freely given to that guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize for Potential?Excuse me - freely given to his (non-entity) predecessor...
Is anybody pondering what new uses the new president might find for the powers of surveillance, detention and assassination freely given to that guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize for Potential?Excuse me - freely given to his (non-entity) predecessor...
Not their fault that Hillary didn't deal with the e-mails head on a year ago.
QuoteNot their fault that Hillary didn't deal with the e-mails head on a year ago.
And how do you suggest she handle that any differently? Seriously.
QuoteNot their fault that Hillary didn't deal with the e-mails head on a year ago.
And how do you suggest she handle that any differently? Seriously.
Simply put, always tell the truth, and anything that will come out eventually should come out immediately. Embrace the Truman motto- "The buck stops here". Confession and forgiveness- it's the Christian way.
Having just criticized her for not learning from her mistakes, I'd be a fool to disregard the lessons from my own , which include
NEVER ARGUE WITH UNO.
You do demonstrate how effectively the republicans controlled the narrative over that whole situation though. Like it or not, public perception is there is something wrong with that email scenario.
We'll see how fast they get on T rump's potential conflicts of interest.
Having just criticized her for not learning from her mistakes, I'd be a fool to disregard the lessons from my own , which include
NEVER ARGUE WITH UNO.
You do demonstrate how effectively the republicans controlled the narrative over that whole situation though. Like it or not, public perception is there is something wrong with that email scenario. And, yes, Comey violated protocol when he publicly announced the new emails being found days before the election. Chaffetz was going to announce it anyway, so it theoretically would have been worse had Comey himself stayed quiet, Republicans would have just said it was evidence of Hillary silencing the FBI.
Republicans purposely kept the email thing going to use in this election. Nicely done.
We'll see how fast they get on T rump's potential conflicts of interest.
The problem, is that there was no other way, due to the timing of this, than to do what was done. Or did he circumvent the process and jump ahead?
The thing is, the deed is done. T rump won even though this was the lowest turnout in history.
[Sleezebag] today sort of withdrew his threats about investigating/prosecuting/jailing Hillary, in the interest of national unity, and has backed away from restoring torture.While the writer may not currently support torture as the first method of control, the prospect of torture does remain a strong motivation for the conformity of the population with the demands of the ruling party.
Texas Elector Art Sisneros to Resign Instead of Voting for Donald [Sleezebag]/ar-AAkRIX1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp]http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-elector-art-sisneros-to-resign-instead-of-voting-for-donald-[Sleezebag]/ar-AAkRIX1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-elector-art-sisneros-to-resign-instead-of-voting-for-donald-[Sleezebag)
U.S. News & World Report
Gabrielle Levy 1 hr ago
(http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAkRqn1.img?h=768&w=1366&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=949&y=251)
© (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images) A Republican elector from Texas says he is resigning his position instead of casting his vote for Donald [Sleezebag].
A Republican elector from Texas says he is resigning his position instead of casting his vote for Donald [Sleezebag], calling the Electoral College "corrupted from its original intent" and saying voting for the president-elect would "bring dishonor to God."
Art Sisneros was considering in August the possibility of becoming a so-called faithless elector, meaning he would refuse to vote for [Sleezebag] if the GOP candidate won the Lone Star State and its 38 electoral votes in November.
In a Saturday blog post on his website, Sisneros said he had decided he was not comfortable defying his pledge to vote for his party's nominee, but neither could he cast his vote for [Sleezebag].
"Since I can't in good conscience vote for Donald [Sleezebag], and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an elector," Sisneros wrote. "This will allow the remaining body of electors to fill my vacancy when they convene on Dec. 19 with someone that can vote for [Sleezebag]."
His decision followed a previous post in which he posed the question of whether it was "acceptable for a Christian to vote for a man like [Sleezebag] for president," and concluded that he could not "in good conscience" do so.
"I do not see how Donald [Sleezebag] is biblically qualified to serve in the office of the presidency," he said in his Saturday post. "Of the hundreds of angry messages that I have received, not one has made a convincing case from Scripture otherwise. If [Sleezebag] is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I cannot and will not vote for Donald [Sleezebag] for president."
In the lengthy post, Sisneros explained his frustration with both progressives' and conservatives' approaches to the Electoral College and the failure to use the body in the way the founders intended, which Sisneros likened to parents acting "in the best interest of their children" even if in some cases their children desire otherwise.
"In most homes, kids do not have the right to eat Skittles for dinner. It is not in their best interest," he wrote.
"The people will get their vote. They will get their Skittles for dinner," he said. "I will sleep well at night knowing I neither gave in to their demands nor caved to my convictions. I will also mourn the loss of our republic."
Meanwhile, a separate movement is openly lobbying for enough electors to refuse to vote for [Sleezebag].
Calling themselves the Hamilton Electors – a nod to Alexander Hamilton’s explanation of the Electoral College’s job as to ensure “the office of the President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications” – the group spurred by Democratic electors hopes to trigger the selection of another candidate through electors either changing their votes or abstaining from voting for [Sleezebag].
Electors are set to meet in their respective states across the country on Dec. 19 to formally cast their votes for president.
Copyright 2016 U.S. News & World Report
I had seen on the news recently that he has gone soft on several of his pre-election stances, and it's not even January... maybe all of the cabinet prospects are telling him to dial it back or not find anyone to fill the jobs...