...................................................................................................................................................................
You — yes, you — ruined U.S. politics: How technology and demographics are tearing us apart as a nation
By Paul Taylor, January 31, 2016
Who and what broke politics?
Even before the first votes are cast in this angry campaign, the finger of blame has already been pointed every which way — at politicians, talk radio, TV shout shows, social media, big money, special interests, gerrymandered districts, Washington gridlock.
All have done their share, but one suspect looms above the field: We the people.
We’re the ones who, in an age of head-snapping racial, social, cultural, economic, religious, generational and technological change, have been sorting ourselves into silos that tether our demographics to our politics.
The result has been an identity-based animus toward the other party not seen before in modern times. These days, Democrats and Republicans no longer stop at disagreeing with each other’s ideas. Increasingly they deny each other’s facts, disapprove of each other’s lifestyles, stay out of each other’s neighborhoods, impugn each other’s motives, doubt each other’s patriotism, can’t stomach each other’s news sources and bring different value systems to such core social institutions as religion, marriage and parenthood.
It’s as if they belong not to rival parties but alien tribes.
And their candidates seem to be running for President of different countries.
That’s because the United States of the early 21st century is in the midst of two concurrent demographic transformations. We’re en route to becoming a majority non-white nation at the same time a record share of us are going gray. Together these overhauls have turned each party’s base into a demographic, ideological and cultural no-go zone for the other side.
One party skews older, whiter, more religious and more conservative, with a base that’s flummoxed by the new racial tapestries, gender norms and family constellations that make up the beating heart of the next America. And the other party skews younger, more non-white, more liberal, more secular, more immigrant friendly, more LGBT friendly, with a base that views America’s new diversity as its most prized asset.
As recently as the 1990s, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats were atypical but influential political architypes whose mere existence meant each national party needed to think of itself as a big tent. Now they’ve gone the way of the typewriter.
Today 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat in their core social, economic and national-security views, while 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican, according to a 2014 Pew Research Center study that also found a doubling in the past two decades in the share of Americans with a highly negative view of the opposing party.
These cleavages spill beyond politics into everyday life. Nearly two-thirds of consistent conservatives and half of consistent liberals say most of their close friends share their political views. Liberals prefer cities while conservatives are partial to small towns and rural areas. In their child-rearing norms, conservatives place more emphasis on religious values and obedience; liberals are more inclined to stress tolerance and empathy. And in their social media habits, each group gravitates to friends and sources that reinforce their world views.
Not all of America is divided into these hostile camps. Paradoxically, identity-based hyper-partisanship is thriving at a time when a majority of Americans tell pollsters they’d like to see Washington rediscover the lost art of political compromise. As ever, most Americans are pragmatists, ready to meet in the middle.
Yet nowadays these Americans are the silent majority. They don’t have the temperament, inclination or vocal cords to attract much attention in a culture in which shrill pundits and 140-character screeds set the tone. And they punch below their weight at the voting booth, especially during primaries.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, January 31, 2016
"The debate without Trump was not only a relief for the candidates, but for the GOP as a whole."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Will Mr. Trump debate again? Who cares? The RNC created this pickle by limiting the number of debates (after the mess in 2012 when everyone went after Gov. Romney). We don't need any more. They are not true debates -- there is no one issue proposed and no substantive discussion of how to deal with the issue. Topics are glossed over in a minute or two and not everyone speaks on every topic. It seems that everyone but the hosts and candidates knows that the debates are entertainment, not news. By pushing candidates on and off the main stage as well, the whole enterprise seems silly. If there are viewers who have watched every debate, they can recite whole sections of a candidate's answer by heart.
* If Trump has any desire to become president he will never come close to a debate with either Bernie or Hillary. They would slice and dice him because they both know how our government works and how to formulate policies and steer them through the system. Both Hillary and Bernie know the constitution and the law. Trump would be lost and be exposed for the ill informed demogogue he is.
* That is exactly right. It is one thing to debate Republicans who do not have the nerve to take Trump on or who have similar positions that they usually use code words to express and quite another to debate an opponent only too happy to draw distinctions.
* Who cares, anyway? The GOP debates (I use the term loosely) are nothing more than a 3 ring circus!
* Please, ladies and gentlemen, this is not a joke. Think about the future of this country and its reputation. If you keep supporting this candidate, think about how this country would be. To be a world leader, we need respect from people too, not just power.
* I think you may be confused about your administrations and even more confused about what DT can do for us. What are his solutions to your perhaps? I haven't heard anything but air. Bring jobs back? Do you realize that his products are made overseas? The only thing I've heard DT talk about is how wonderful he is.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Will Trump ever debate again?
By Jennifer Rubin, January 31, 2016
Donald Trump did not appear at the Fox News debate Thursday. The world did not stop turning. The Republican Party did not collapse. Fox did not lose its shirt. In fact, Fox reported:
For now, he is making clear his beef was with Fox News specifically. “I was treated very unfairly by Fox. . . . They weren’t treated badly. I mean, I was treated very, very badly by Fox. They issued a statement that was an inappropriate statement,” he said in a pre-taped interview for Face the Nation. “Now, what happened is, since then, they’ve been very nice. And they tried very much to get me to do the debate. By that time, the event, my counter-event had taken off.” If he is going to stay away from future debates, he will need a new excuse.
The issue will come up most immediately on Feb. 6, when ABC hosts a debate, the last one before the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 9. Trump, I suspect, will slink back, recognizing that the pattern of Trump-free debates may remind Republicans how much saner, kinder and knowledgeable the party seems without him. Much will depend, I suppose, on the results of Monday’s Iowa caucuses. If he wins going away, he may never return to debate; but if he squeaks by or — oh my! — does not win, the impression will certainly be that leaving the debate in a huff was a mistake. A mistake. A sign of weakness. These are not associations Trump wants.
The bigger issue is whether the media can readjust the power equilibrium without Trump. That would mean treating Trump like anyone else. He would not be allowed to “phone in” interviews but would have to show up in person. He would be pressed on what his “awesome” health-care plan looked like, and be challenged on his ignorance. (Sorry, Russia is not fighting the Islamic State in Syria, Mr. Trump.) He also would be queried about his charitable giving and his donations to the Clinton Foundation. How much has a guy worth supposedly $10 billion given over, say, the last 10 years? Furthermore, news organizations can show some restraint, refusing to act as a substitute for his ad budget and providing more coverage of the other candidates. Their networks won’t shrivel up; Trump will still come back when asked.
The debate without Trump was not only a relief for the candidates, but for the GOP as a whole. If the media can now recapture their spine, and stop suffocating journalistic integrity for the sake of ratings, then we might have a race befitting the presidency.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Will Mr. Trump debate again? Who cares? The RNC created this pickle by limiting the number of debates (after the mess in 2012 when everyone went after Gov. Romney). We don't need any more. They are not true debates -- there is no one issue proposed and no substantive discussion of how to deal with the issue. Topics are glossed over in a minute or two and not everyone speaks on every topic. It seems that everyone but the hosts and candidates knows that the debates are entertainment, not news. By pushing candidates on and off the main stage as well, the whole enterprise seems silly. If there are viewers who have watched every debate, they can recite whole sections of a candidate's answer by heart.
* If Trump has any desire to become president he will never come close to a debate with either Bernie or Hillary. They would slice and dice him because they both know how our government works and how to formulate policies and steer them through the system. Both Hillary and Bernie know the constitution and the law. Trump would be lost and be exposed for the ill informed demogogue he is.
* That is exactly right. It is one thing to debate Republicans who do not have the nerve to take Trump on or who have similar positions that they usually use code words to express and quite another to debate an opponent only too happy to draw distinctions.
* Who cares, anyway? The GOP debates (I use the term loosely) are nothing more than a 3 ring circus!
* Please, ladies and gentlemen, this is not a joke. Think about the future of this country and its reputation. If you keep supporting this candidate, think about how this country would be. To be a world leader, we need respect from people too, not just power.
* I think you may be confused about your administrations and even more confused about what DT can do for us. What are his solutions to your perhaps? I haven't heard anything but air. Bring jobs back? Do you realize that his products are made overseas? The only thing I've heard DT talk about is how wonderful he is.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Will Trump ever debate again?
By Jennifer Rubin, January 31, 2016
Donald Trump did not appear at the Fox News debate Thursday. The world did not stop turning. The Republican Party did not collapse. Fox did not lose its shirt. In fact, Fox reported:
Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate on FOX News Channel scored 12.5 million viewers, making it the second-highest rated telecast in the network’s history.The GOP field and conservative media showed they can get along fine without Trump, but can he get along without them?
The debate topped all television shows — including broadcast programs — on Thursday night in total viewers. It also pulled in 3.5 million viewers in the advertiser-friendly demo of adults aged 25-54, according to Early Nielsen Research.
The debate beat CNN and MSNBC combined in both total viewers and the 25-54 demo. Those networks aired segments of a Donald Trump rally, which was scheduled after the GOP contender withdrew from the Fox News debate.
For now, he is making clear his beef was with Fox News specifically. “I was treated very unfairly by Fox. . . . They weren’t treated badly. I mean, I was treated very, very badly by Fox. They issued a statement that was an inappropriate statement,” he said in a pre-taped interview for Face the Nation. “Now, what happened is, since then, they’ve been very nice. And they tried very much to get me to do the debate. By that time, the event, my counter-event had taken off.” If he is going to stay away from future debates, he will need a new excuse.
The issue will come up most immediately on Feb. 6, when ABC hosts a debate, the last one before the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 9. Trump, I suspect, will slink back, recognizing that the pattern of Trump-free debates may remind Republicans how much saner, kinder and knowledgeable the party seems without him. Much will depend, I suppose, on the results of Monday’s Iowa caucuses. If he wins going away, he may never return to debate; but if he squeaks by or — oh my! — does not win, the impression will certainly be that leaving the debate in a huff was a mistake. A mistake. A sign of weakness. These are not associations Trump wants.
The bigger issue is whether the media can readjust the power equilibrium without Trump. That would mean treating Trump like anyone else. He would not be allowed to “phone in” interviews but would have to show up in person. He would be pressed on what his “awesome” health-care plan looked like, and be challenged on his ignorance. (Sorry, Russia is not fighting the Islamic State in Syria, Mr. Trump.) He also would be queried about his charitable giving and his donations to the Clinton Foundation. How much has a guy worth supposedly $10 billion given over, say, the last 10 years? Furthermore, news organizations can show some restraint, refusing to act as a substitute for his ad budget and providing more coverage of the other candidates. Their networks won’t shrivel up; Trump will still come back when asked.
The debate without Trump was not only a relief for the candidates, but for the GOP as a whole. If the media can now recapture their spine, and stop suffocating journalistic integrity for the sake of ratings, then we might have a race befitting the presidency.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Many Americans are increasingly motivated to vote against candidates rather than for them."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Why can America elect a president it doesn't like? There are a blue America and a red America, when a Democrat is elected president, the red America doesn't like the President, and when a Republican is elected, the blue America has all the blues.
* It's the old story; I don't trust anyone but You and Me, and Brother I'm not so sure about You!
* Every primary should have a spokesperson for the other side. So, if Bernie and Hillary start making tax and spend promises, the spokesperson can remind the audience that it will never happen without a supermajority. And if Cruz and Rubio start claiming that they will restore the 'gutted military' the spokesperson could remind the audience that it will add to the deficit or cause cuts elsewhere that would never pass. Primaries are for promises that can never be kept.
* I... may dislike and disapprove of "the hillary" but "I sincerely LOATH and Fear "the donald"
* It is a given, not a probability, that only a small fraction of Americans will like whichever President we wind up with.
* Trump tells the lies conservatives WISH were true, so they love him. But 60% see through those lies.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why America might elect a president it doesn't like
It is possible, perhaps even probable, that this fall’s election will be contested between two of three most disliked presidential candidates of at least the past quarter century.
And it is possible, perhaps even probable, that this is not a coincidence.
A Gallup survey released Saturday shows that Donald Trump has the highest unfavorability rating (60 percent) of any presidential candidate since the polling firm started tracking the figure in 1992. For her part, Hillary Clinton ranks third (52 percent) with the no-new-taxes-breaking George H.W. Bush of 1992 at No. 2.
In other words, the 2016 presidential election could be decided between two people that the majority of Americans, according to Gallup, don’t like politically.
How is this possible?
Actually, it makes complete sense. In fact, one could argue that such a contest would perfectly befit the current political era.
At a time when partisanship has taken new and more rigid forms, the result has been an America increasingly wary of the other side. Many Americans are increasingly motivated to vote against candidates rather than for them.
Mr. Trump and former Secretary of State Clinton symbolize this shift in different ways, but they speak to the shrinking middle of American politics. As the national parties have less and less in common, their national candidates likewise have less in common, leaving voters with a starker choice that they are just as likely to oppose as embrace.
Indeed, political scientists note that Americans are more neatly “sorted” into the two parties than they have been in recent history. In other words, conservatives support Republicans and liberals support Democrats.
No more “blue dog” Democrats who want to reform welfare. No more Northeast Republicans who want to address climate change.
It means there is a brighter line between the national Democratic and Republican Parties than there has been in decades, because there is less internal pressure to moderate. If, increasingly, everyone in the party is left-of-center (or right-of-center), the party naturally shifts left (or right).
The result is two sharply different visions for America, two sharply different sets of solutions.
Another result is the vanishing swing voter. (See the Monitor’s Cover Story on the subject.) A larger share of American voters might register as independents than as Democrats or Republicans, but they don’t act that way. Those independents who reliably turn out to vote tend to take sides just like the partisans, voting in consistently partisan ways.
“People are more confident in their opinions when they see polarized parties,” Corwin Smidt, a Michigan State University political scientist, told the Monitor. “They think, ‘Well, if the choices are so stark, it’s just not a gray area at all.’ ”
And so they worry about the “other side” winning, according to research by Emory University political scientists Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster. They found that voting behavior is increasingly guided by this “negative partisanship.”
This fall, it seems, American voters might have a lot to vote against.
Trump has become the Republican front-runner precisely because of his lack of broader appeal, argues pollster Frank Luntz in the Financial Times.
“No high-polling presidential candidate in the modern era has so intrepidly drawn the ire of so many within the American electorate,” he writes. “Yet in rendering one voting bloc utterly apoplectic, he has appealed viscerally to another. The balance of middle ground politics is not, shall we say, Mr. Trump’s bailiwick.”
His calls for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and a temporary ban on all noncitizen Muslims entering the country are antithetical to those outside his conservative base, which partly explains their appeal within it.
“He’s simply raising an important issue nobody else has the courage to talk about,” Mr. Luntz adds, paraphrasing the Trump voters’ reasons for supporting the billionaire.
For Clinton, the issue is less ideological than historical. She is facing a perceived lack of trustworthiness that dates back to her husband’s administration – and has been exacerbated by her handling of State Department e-mails.
Yet the same trends that have vaulted Trump to front-runner status are apparent in the Democratic primary process, too.
Bernie Sanders could topple Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire. And he is an avowed socialist talking about a revolution.
“In Sanders’s vision, a massive grassroots uprising will shatter the constricting limits of today’s political debate and thrust forward long-time liberal goals such as single-payer health care and free public-college tuition,” writes Ronald Brownstein in The Atlantic. “For Sanders’s growing army, it’s an exhilarating prospect.”
For Republicans, it is appalling.
To some degree, this is what primaries do: push candidates toward the extremes. But there is a mounting sense that, as the parties move further apart, this year represents something new – or at least more intense.
While the experience might be temporarily cathartic, evidence suggests it might not be ultimately satisfying. As Congress has become more sorted, Americans’ confidence in it has declined. Americans have less confidence in Congress than they do in any other major American institution – and have since 2010 – according to a Gallup survey.
After all, a revolution entails one side “winning” – not likely in a political environment where each side is becoming more entrenched to stop the other.
“On both sides, the energy is with candidates … offering the dream of a clean sweep and a blank sheet on which to rewrite the nation’s priorities,” writes Mr. Brownstein. “Yet because the candidates offering such fundamental change are largely misdiagnosing the reasons for today’s impasse, it’s unlikely they could break it even if they capture the presidency.”
Their misdiagnosis? Brownstein suggests that it’s unlikely one side can ignore the other to rewrite the nation’s priorities.
“Given the nation’s underlying partisan divisions, the only way to advance bigger ideas may be through compromises across party lines that neither side is discussing much yet.”
What this primary campaign has done, perhaps, is highlight the shifting political topography and distance between those party lines.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Why can America elect a president it doesn't like? There are a blue America and a red America, when a Democrat is elected president, the red America doesn't like the President, and when a Republican is elected, the blue America has all the blues.
* It's the old story; I don't trust anyone but You and Me, and Brother I'm not so sure about You!
* Every primary should have a spokesperson for the other side. So, if Bernie and Hillary start making tax and spend promises, the spokesperson can remind the audience that it will never happen without a supermajority. And if Cruz and Rubio start claiming that they will restore the 'gutted military' the spokesperson could remind the audience that it will add to the deficit or cause cuts elsewhere that would never pass. Primaries are for promises that can never be kept.
* I... may dislike and disapprove of "the hillary" but "I sincerely LOATH and Fear "the donald"
* It is a given, not a probability, that only a small fraction of Americans will like whichever President we wind up with.
* Trump tells the lies conservatives WISH were true, so they love him. But 60% see through those lies.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why America might elect a president it doesn't like
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have among the highest unfavorability ratings of recent presidential candidates. Their success shows how US politics is changing.
By Mark Sappenfield, January 31, 2016It is possible, perhaps even probable, that this fall’s election will be contested between two of three most disliked presidential candidates of at least the past quarter century.
And it is possible, perhaps even probable, that this is not a coincidence.
A Gallup survey released Saturday shows that Donald Trump has the highest unfavorability rating (60 percent) of any presidential candidate since the polling firm started tracking the figure in 1992. For her part, Hillary Clinton ranks third (52 percent) with the no-new-taxes-breaking George H.W. Bush of 1992 at No. 2.
In other words, the 2016 presidential election could be decided between two people that the majority of Americans, according to Gallup, don’t like politically.
How is this possible?
Actually, it makes complete sense. In fact, one could argue that such a contest would perfectly befit the current political era.
At a time when partisanship has taken new and more rigid forms, the result has been an America increasingly wary of the other side. Many Americans are increasingly motivated to vote against candidates rather than for them.
Mr. Trump and former Secretary of State Clinton symbolize this shift in different ways, but they speak to the shrinking middle of American politics. As the national parties have less and less in common, their national candidates likewise have less in common, leaving voters with a starker choice that they are just as likely to oppose as embrace.
Indeed, political scientists note that Americans are more neatly “sorted” into the two parties than they have been in recent history. In other words, conservatives support Republicans and liberals support Democrats.
No more “blue dog” Democrats who want to reform welfare. No more Northeast Republicans who want to address climate change.
It means there is a brighter line between the national Democratic and Republican Parties than there has been in decades, because there is less internal pressure to moderate. If, increasingly, everyone in the party is left-of-center (or right-of-center), the party naturally shifts left (or right).
The result is two sharply different visions for America, two sharply different sets of solutions.
Another result is the vanishing swing voter. (See the Monitor’s Cover Story on the subject.) A larger share of American voters might register as independents than as Democrats or Republicans, but they don’t act that way. Those independents who reliably turn out to vote tend to take sides just like the partisans, voting in consistently partisan ways.
“People are more confident in their opinions when they see polarized parties,” Corwin Smidt, a Michigan State University political scientist, told the Monitor. “They think, ‘Well, if the choices are so stark, it’s just not a gray area at all.’ ”
And so they worry about the “other side” winning, according to research by Emory University political scientists Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster. They found that voting behavior is increasingly guided by this “negative partisanship.”
This fall, it seems, American voters might have a lot to vote against.
Trump has become the Republican front-runner precisely because of his lack of broader appeal, argues pollster Frank Luntz in the Financial Times.
“No high-polling presidential candidate in the modern era has so intrepidly drawn the ire of so many within the American electorate,” he writes. “Yet in rendering one voting bloc utterly apoplectic, he has appealed viscerally to another. The balance of middle ground politics is not, shall we say, Mr. Trump’s bailiwick.”
His calls for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and a temporary ban on all noncitizen Muslims entering the country are antithetical to those outside his conservative base, which partly explains their appeal within it.
“He’s simply raising an important issue nobody else has the courage to talk about,” Mr. Luntz adds, paraphrasing the Trump voters’ reasons for supporting the billionaire.
For Clinton, the issue is less ideological than historical. She is facing a perceived lack of trustworthiness that dates back to her husband’s administration – and has been exacerbated by her handling of State Department e-mails.
Yet the same trends that have vaulted Trump to front-runner status are apparent in the Democratic primary process, too.
Bernie Sanders could topple Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire. And he is an avowed socialist talking about a revolution.
“In Sanders’s vision, a massive grassroots uprising will shatter the constricting limits of today’s political debate and thrust forward long-time liberal goals such as single-payer health care and free public-college tuition,” writes Ronald Brownstein in The Atlantic. “For Sanders’s growing army, it’s an exhilarating prospect.”
For Republicans, it is appalling.
To some degree, this is what primaries do: push candidates toward the extremes. But there is a mounting sense that, as the parties move further apart, this year represents something new – or at least more intense.
While the experience might be temporarily cathartic, evidence suggests it might not be ultimately satisfying. As Congress has become more sorted, Americans’ confidence in it has declined. Americans have less confidence in Congress than they do in any other major American institution – and have since 2010 – according to a Gallup survey.
After all, a revolution entails one side “winning” – not likely in a political environment where each side is becoming more entrenched to stop the other.
“On both sides, the energy is with candidates … offering the dream of a clean sweep and a blank sheet on which to rewrite the nation’s priorities,” writes Mr. Brownstein. “Yet because the candidates offering such fundamental change are largely misdiagnosing the reasons for today’s impasse, it’s unlikely they could break it even if they capture the presidency.”
Their misdiagnosis? Brownstein suggests that it’s unlikely one side can ignore the other to rewrite the nation’s priorities.
“Given the nation’s underlying partisan divisions, the only way to advance bigger ideas may be through compromises across party lines that neither side is discussing much yet.”
What this primary campaign has done, perhaps, is highlight the shifting political topography and distance between those party lines.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... as a woman, I would be cutting my own throat to vote for anyone running under the Republican Platform because they don't care as much about my financial well-being as they used to, and they care even less about supporting progress for women."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Both Parties use rhetoric to sway and draw the masses. The thing is that the GOP makes no bones about being only for the wealthy and corporations, they do this daily. The GOP doesn't care about the poor, which never in the history of Man has been completely eliminated. They do not care if the 99%ers do not have affordable health care nor adequate public education for their children.
* I am tired of hearing how Republicans are always going to lower my taxes. For many years now I have lived in a Republican state, a Republican county, and a Republican city. My taxes are sky-rocketing! My properly taxes went up 23% this year. Republicans lie!!!
* Indeed, that is the one ulitimate Republican truism, they lie!
* Repubs may not say they are only for the filty rich but that is what their policies achieve. They can't get elected pandering only to the wealthy so they dress it all up and misdirect on social issues but they still only give a crap about wealthy, white, male Christians, anything good happening for anyone else is an accident.
* You are an american first, a Christian second. If it was the other way around, we'd be living in a theocracy. If people vote for a candidate based on their religion, then they have just wasted their vote. Because what do they think their candidate will do? Get congress to pass a law that respects the establishment of their religion? There is no point in even talking about god..it's meaningless
* Trump has been trying to buy the US gov with his lobbyists for years. If you help give him the Presidency for free, Big Business will finally own the gov. and you can be proud of helping them get our country cheaply.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Where Did the Republican Party Go?
By Michelle Tang, January 31, 2016
I thought that when I grew up I would vote Republican. I had an idea that when I got older, I would have "valuable stuff" to protect from taxation and I would support those people who would let me keep my valuable stuff. I became eligible to vote in the Reagan/Bush years and as my Democratic candidates were steadily defeated, I consoled myself with the thought that one day, I too would vote Republican, worry about my tax rate and yell things like, "Hey kids! Get off my lawn!" while I drank martinis and listened to Sinatra.
Enter 2016. I am almost 50. I finally have some stuff to protect. I like Sinatra and a good martini. And I am much more interested in taxes than I used to be. To be 100 percent transparent, I actually believe that paying taxes is a small enough sacrifice in order to live in a country that is comfortable and healthy for every American. So even though I haven't shifted ideologically as much as I expected I would, this still should be my time to at least THINK about voting Republican. But the reality is that I don't think the Republican Party is committed to my taxes anymore, and worse, they don't seem to be committed to women in general.
There was an article in the Washington Post that suggested the Republican Party in the House and Senate has polarized more quickly and more decisively than the Democratic Party, contributing to a widening gap in the moderate center. Some people theorize that this hole is partly what has given Donald Trump a firm base. I wondered if this shift was driven by an "official" Republican Party platform change, or if it was more organic. So, I grabbed the Republican Platform Statement from 1984 and the Republican Platform Statement from 2012 and fed them each into their own, plain text Word documents to look at word usage as an indicator of a possible shift in focus.
Shift in Talking about Taxes
I started with the concept of "tax" to see if there was the same focus on taxation as I thought there used to be. Wasn't the Republican Party all about smaller Federal Government and less tax? I started by searching the string "tax" in both the 1984 and 2012 Republican Platform documents. I chose that word as it would pick up not only the word "tax," but also the words "taxation" and "taxes" and might deliver a true read of the concept.
At this point, my husband, who is often a voice of reason, noted that there had been (*ahem*) a few changes in our country over the past 30 years and perhaps this wasn't the "apples to apples" comparison I was looking for. So, I made a martini and pulled up the 1984 and 2012 Democratic Platforms. My thought was that if the issue itself was no longer as much of a focus because of a changing environment in the U.S., perhaps the Democratic platforms would show a similar shift.
But there was no shift. The Democratic platform mentioned "tax" 62 times in 1984 and 82 times in 2012, an increase of 32%.
It could be that the change in the number of mentions on taxes between the two Republican Platforms reflects an audience that is no longer interested in concrete discussions about math-based things and are instead more interested in volatile and emotionally-charged discussions about non-math-based things. This article from The Nation states that the Republican Party made a specific decision in 1968 to change their platform in order to attract the Southern White voters. But regardless of the reason, the rough numbers seem to indicate that the Republican Party has less of a focus on taxes today than they did 30 years ago and that while the Democrats still talk about tax less often than the Republicans, it appears they are picking up their mentions. Super bad news for me and my itemized deductions.
Shift in Discussion of Women
As frequently happens when researching stuff, something else jumped out at me in the Platform comparisons. There was a disturbing change on how the Republican Party approached women.
I'm no fan of Ronald Reagan (I was one of the 12 people in 1984 who voted Mondale/Ferraro) but while I was actually reading the 1984 Republican Platform, I realized that, bless their hearts, they made a huge effort to draw in women and advocate for their advancement. Sure, there was a paragraph stating that the Republican Party opposed abortion, but there were also almost 1,400 words in the 1984 Republican Party Platform talking about mostly economic issues for women. This was, after all, the era of yuppie women in a short skirt and a long jacket.
Lately, I don't recall hearing a lot about what specifically the Republican Party wants to do in terms of women, so I decided to apply the same technique to the word "women" in the 1984 and 2012 Platform documents. I took out mentions of the phrases "men and women" and "women and men" to avoid counting mentions of our "men and women in the military" and the like. The upshot is that while Republicans might say that they are all about women, at least in 2012 women didn't get much press except in terms of eliminating abortion.
This represents an 83% decline in even throwing women a bone and mentioning a women's issue of any kind, even if it is a uterine-based issue. Compared to the roughly 1,400 words used in 1984 to talk about programs for women, in 2012, there were just 257 words devoted to women. Just over half of those words pertained to eliminating abortion and the remainder was mainly about women in the military.
Again, the voice of reason in my head (which sounds a lot like my husband) urged that perhaps it was a universal change. There has definitely been progress made in women's roles between 1984 and 2012, and maybe it wasn't a Party-specific change. So I looked at the 1984 and 2012 Democratic Platforms to see if they also showed an overall decline in the use of the word "women". However, the Democratic Platforms showed a 5% increase in mentions of women -- 40 mentions in 1984 and 42 in 2012. In the interest of fairness, let's call it flat. Therefore, a decreasing focus on women's issues between 1984 and 2012 does not seem to be a universal trend.
But perhaps the thing that bothered me the most was the overall tone of the content about women. You can't easily quantify it with graphs, but in 1984, the Republican Party spoke with strong words in regard to women. They said things like "We are creating an environment in which individual talents and creativity can be tapped to the fullest, while assuring that women have equal opportunity, security, and real choices for the promising future."
OK, that sounds like a lot of "blah, blah, blah" rhetoric. But I still prefer it to 2012, where the tone is much more about protection, not enablement. For example, in 2012 the Republican Party Platform states "... we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy." Doesn't this sound like women need some help to meet their challenges because they can't figure it out alone? And doesn't it seem like women are expected to just go with whatever approach the Party decides to adopt? But thank goodness women will not be penalized for unplanned pregnancies, at least in 2012!
All of this analysis will probably help delay the early onset of dementia and it helped clarify my nostalgic confusion about why I can't vote Republican. The conclusion that I walked away with was that as a woman, I would be cutting my own throat to vote for anyone running under the Republican Platform because they don't care as much about my financial well-being as they used to, and they care even less about supporting progress for women. So unless the 2016 Platform (which will probably come out in August or September) has some major changes, I guess I will just have to vote the Democratic ticket, suck up the tax bills and let the kids play on my lawn until someone can send me a more moderate option to endorse.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Both Parties use rhetoric to sway and draw the masses. The thing is that the GOP makes no bones about being only for the wealthy and corporations, they do this daily. The GOP doesn't care about the poor, which never in the history of Man has been completely eliminated. They do not care if the 99%ers do not have affordable health care nor adequate public education for their children.
* I am tired of hearing how Republicans are always going to lower my taxes. For many years now I have lived in a Republican state, a Republican county, and a Republican city. My taxes are sky-rocketing! My properly taxes went up 23% this year. Republicans lie!!!
* Indeed, that is the one ulitimate Republican truism, they lie!
* Repubs may not say they are only for the filty rich but that is what their policies achieve. They can't get elected pandering only to the wealthy so they dress it all up and misdirect on social issues but they still only give a crap about wealthy, white, male Christians, anything good happening for anyone else is an accident.
* You are an american first, a Christian second. If it was the other way around, we'd be living in a theocracy. If people vote for a candidate based on their religion, then they have just wasted their vote. Because what do they think their candidate will do? Get congress to pass a law that respects the establishment of their religion? There is no point in even talking about god..it's meaningless
* Trump has been trying to buy the US gov with his lobbyists for years. If you help give him the Presidency for free, Big Business will finally own the gov. and you can be proud of helping them get our country cheaply.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Where Did the Republican Party Go?
By Michelle Tang, January 31, 2016
I thought that when I grew up I would vote Republican. I had an idea that when I got older, I would have "valuable stuff" to protect from taxation and I would support those people who would let me keep my valuable stuff. I became eligible to vote in the Reagan/Bush years and as my Democratic candidates were steadily defeated, I consoled myself with the thought that one day, I too would vote Republican, worry about my tax rate and yell things like, "Hey kids! Get off my lawn!" while I drank martinis and listened to Sinatra.
Enter 2016. I am almost 50. I finally have some stuff to protect. I like Sinatra and a good martini. And I am much more interested in taxes than I used to be. To be 100 percent transparent, I actually believe that paying taxes is a small enough sacrifice in order to live in a country that is comfortable and healthy for every American. So even though I haven't shifted ideologically as much as I expected I would, this still should be my time to at least THINK about voting Republican. But the reality is that I don't think the Republican Party is committed to my taxes anymore, and worse, they don't seem to be committed to women in general.
There was an article in the Washington Post that suggested the Republican Party in the House and Senate has polarized more quickly and more decisively than the Democratic Party, contributing to a widening gap in the moderate center. Some people theorize that this hole is partly what has given Donald Trump a firm base. I wondered if this shift was driven by an "official" Republican Party platform change, or if it was more organic. So, I grabbed the Republican Platform Statement from 1984 and the Republican Platform Statement from 2012 and fed them each into their own, plain text Word documents to look at word usage as an indicator of a possible shift in focus.
Shift in Talking about Taxes
I started with the concept of "tax" to see if there was the same focus on taxation as I thought there used to be. Wasn't the Republican Party all about smaller Federal Government and less tax? I started by searching the string "tax" in both the 1984 and 2012 Republican Platform documents. I chose that word as it would pick up not only the word "tax," but also the words "taxation" and "taxes" and might deliver a true read of the concept.
- In 1984, the Republican Platform mentioned "tax" 130 times.
- In 2012, by contrast, "tax" was mentioned 97 times -- 25% less than it was in 1984.
At this point, my husband, who is often a voice of reason, noted that there had been (*ahem*) a few changes in our country over the past 30 years and perhaps this wasn't the "apples to apples" comparison I was looking for. So, I made a martini and pulled up the 1984 and 2012 Democratic Platforms. My thought was that if the issue itself was no longer as much of a focus because of a changing environment in the U.S., perhaps the Democratic platforms would show a similar shift.
But there was no shift. The Democratic platform mentioned "tax" 62 times in 1984 and 82 times in 2012, an increase of 32%.
It could be that the change in the number of mentions on taxes between the two Republican Platforms reflects an audience that is no longer interested in concrete discussions about math-based things and are instead more interested in volatile and emotionally-charged discussions about non-math-based things. This article from The Nation states that the Republican Party made a specific decision in 1968 to change their platform in order to attract the Southern White voters. But regardless of the reason, the rough numbers seem to indicate that the Republican Party has less of a focus on taxes today than they did 30 years ago and that while the Democrats still talk about tax less often than the Republicans, it appears they are picking up their mentions. Super bad news for me and my itemized deductions.
Shift in Discussion of Women
As frequently happens when researching stuff, something else jumped out at me in the Platform comparisons. There was a disturbing change on how the Republican Party approached women.
I'm no fan of Ronald Reagan (I was one of the 12 people in 1984 who voted Mondale/Ferraro) but while I was actually reading the 1984 Republican Platform, I realized that, bless their hearts, they made a huge effort to draw in women and advocate for their advancement. Sure, there was a paragraph stating that the Republican Party opposed abortion, but there were also almost 1,400 words in the 1984 Republican Party Platform talking about mostly economic issues for women. This was, after all, the era of yuppie women in a short skirt and a long jacket.
Lately, I don't recall hearing a lot about what specifically the Republican Party wants to do in terms of women, so I decided to apply the same technique to the word "women" in the 1984 and 2012 Platform documents. I took out mentions of the phrases "men and women" and "women and men" to avoid counting mentions of our "men and women in the military" and the like. The upshot is that while Republicans might say that they are all about women, at least in 2012 women didn't get much press except in terms of eliminating abortion.
- In 1984, the Republican Party Platform mentioned "women" 40 times, but in 2012 they mentioned "women" only 7 times.
- Of those 7 times in 2012, 3 of them were in relation to the elimination of legal abortion.
This represents an 83% decline in even throwing women a bone and mentioning a women's issue of any kind, even if it is a uterine-based issue. Compared to the roughly 1,400 words used in 1984 to talk about programs for women, in 2012, there were just 257 words devoted to women. Just over half of those words pertained to eliminating abortion and the remainder was mainly about women in the military.
Again, the voice of reason in my head (which sounds a lot like my husband) urged that perhaps it was a universal change. There has definitely been progress made in women's roles between 1984 and 2012, and maybe it wasn't a Party-specific change. So I looked at the 1984 and 2012 Democratic Platforms to see if they also showed an overall decline in the use of the word "women". However, the Democratic Platforms showed a 5% increase in mentions of women -- 40 mentions in 1984 and 42 in 2012. In the interest of fairness, let's call it flat. Therefore, a decreasing focus on women's issues between 1984 and 2012 does not seem to be a universal trend.
But perhaps the thing that bothered me the most was the overall tone of the content about women. You can't easily quantify it with graphs, but in 1984, the Republican Party spoke with strong words in regard to women. They said things like "We are creating an environment in which individual talents and creativity can be tapped to the fullest, while assuring that women have equal opportunity, security, and real choices for the promising future."
OK, that sounds like a lot of "blah, blah, blah" rhetoric. But I still prefer it to 2012, where the tone is much more about protection, not enablement. For example, in 2012 the Republican Party Platform states "... we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy." Doesn't this sound like women need some help to meet their challenges because they can't figure it out alone? And doesn't it seem like women are expected to just go with whatever approach the Party decides to adopt? But thank goodness women will not be penalized for unplanned pregnancies, at least in 2012!
All of this analysis will probably help delay the early onset of dementia and it helped clarify my nostalgic confusion about why I can't vote Republican. The conclusion that I walked away with was that as a woman, I would be cutting my own throat to vote for anyone running under the Republican Platform because they don't care as much about my financial well-being as they used to, and they care even less about supporting progress for women. So unless the 2016 Platform (which will probably come out in August or September) has some major changes, I guess I will just have to vote the Democratic ticket, suck up the tax bills and let the kids play on my lawn until someone can send me a more moderate option to endorse.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, January 30, 2016
"... when [Republicans] talk about Obamacare, they exaggerate the downsides, ignore the upsides, and pretend they have better alternatives."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Two words: Preexisting conditions. Before the ACA, if you had 'em you were barred from purchasing health insurance. Period. End of story. Of course Cruz had no answer for this man's question.
* So why would anyone, anyone at all vote for a party that does not care about the people and their healthcare?
* It's also a sad fact that the same people who HATE Obamacare say they LOVE the ACA (and vice versa). I think Jimmy Fallon did a man on the street segment showing that. You hate something that benefits you ONLY because you don't like the person who's name was attached to it! They only made it Obamacare because there were people who would hate it JUST because of that one thing. Ridiculous.
* I don't get it. We in Canada has a simgle payer system. It's no more "socialist" than having the govemnent provide national defence, garbage collection or postal service. Our cost of health care is cheaper, people here a higher life expectancy, our drugs are half the price than Americans are paying in the "free enterprise" system. So what's the beef. Wake up people!!
* Cruz is a man with no soul.
* Republican version of healthcare = absolutely nothing, except for going to ER or dying.
...................................................................................................................................................................
An Iowa Voter Forced Ted Cruz To Confront The Human Toll Of Repealing Obamacare
Republicans have nothing to offer the millions who would lose insurance.
By Jonathan Cohn, January 30, 2016
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn’t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
“He had never been to a doctor for years,” Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. “Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We’re sorry, sir, there’s nothing we can do for you.’"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: “Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?”
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. “Under Obamacare,” Cruz said, “millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.” He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he’d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
Valde, apparently less amused, kept at it. “My question is, what are you going to replace it with?” he said. Cruz responded that he’d get there, but first he wanted to talk some more about the “millions of stories on the other side” -- people who'd had to give up their old plans and, as a result, ended up with higher premiums or co-pays, narrow networks of providers or some combination thereof.
Eventually Cruz suggested that if Valde’s brother-in-law couldn’t afford health insurance premiums previously, it was probably because government regulation had driven up the price -- and that the best solution, at this point, was to wipe the slate clean and build a new health care system, one in which people could purchase coverage across state lines.
It mirrored the answer Cruz had given just two days before, when Fox News host Bret Baier posed a similar question during Thursday's presidential debate in Des Moines. And Cruz's description of Obamacare’s effects hadn’t gotten any less misleading in the interim.
It’s true that President Barack Obama's signature health care law rewrote the rules for how insurance companies sell policies directly to individuals -- requiring that all policies include comprehensive benefits, for example, and prohibiting carriers from charging higher premiums or denying coverage outright to people who pose greater medical risks. And it’s true that, because of those changes, insurers cancelled some existing policies.
But early reports suggesting as many 5 million people lost their old policies appear to have been exaggerated. Subsequent studies estimated that the actual number was less than half of that.
Meanwhile, those people were able to get new coverage through the law’s marketplaces. And the best available research suggests that the majority ended up paying less money, not more, for their policies, while enjoying guarantees of coverage nobody had previously.
Overall, fewer and fewer Americans are reporting difficulty with medical bills and the proportion of Americans without coverage has fallen to historic lows. In Iowa specifically, the proportion of residents without health insurance fell by nearly half from 2013 to 2015, according to Gallup.
As for the claim that the Affordable Care Act has either destroyed jobs or turned millions of full-time positions into part-time ones, it appears to be just plain wrong. Anecdotal stories of employers capping hours got a lot of attention in 2014 and 2015, but experts have now had time to examine the data and they see no signs of a significant trend towards part-time work. (Also of note: the private sector has created jobs in every month since the Affordable Care Act became law.) Based on conversations with several well-respected economists, the website Politifact recently rated this favorite Republican argument “Pants on Fire.”
Like other efforts to gut existing rules on how insurers operate, it’d allow the industry to sell cheap, skimpy policies that might appeal to some healthy people, but would offer nothing to people need comprehensive coverage. In short, it’s a way of allowing insurers to act like they did before health care reform -- not a way to make sure millions get insurance.
There’s a reason Cruz didn’t have a better answer for Valde, and it’s the same reason Republicans never have a satisfying response to this question.
The Affordable Care Act has its pluses and minuses, with plenty of people legitimately aggrieved about what it’s done or how it’s worked out for them -- and plenty more opposed for philosophical reasons. But any alternative that provides similar (or better) access to health care protection from medical bills is bound to require a similar combination of regulation and government spending. Republicans oppose such measures on principle -- which is why, when they talk about Obamacare, they exaggerate the downsides, ignore the upsides, and pretend they have better alternatives.
While Cruz never responded to Valde, another candidate did. On Saturday evening, at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Clinton referenced the conversation that had taken place at the Cruz event. She noted that millions would lose their insurance if Cruz and the other Republicans have their way. "That’s fine with them," she said. "That’s not fine with me."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Two words: Preexisting conditions. Before the ACA, if you had 'em you were barred from purchasing health insurance. Period. End of story. Of course Cruz had no answer for this man's question.
* So why would anyone, anyone at all vote for a party that does not care about the people and their healthcare?
* It's also a sad fact that the same people who HATE Obamacare say they LOVE the ACA (and vice versa). I think Jimmy Fallon did a man on the street segment showing that. You hate something that benefits you ONLY because you don't like the person who's name was attached to it! They only made it Obamacare because there were people who would hate it JUST because of that one thing. Ridiculous.
* I don't get it. We in Canada has a simgle payer system. It's no more "socialist" than having the govemnent provide national defence, garbage collection or postal service. Our cost of health care is cheaper, people here a higher life expectancy, our drugs are half the price than Americans are paying in the "free enterprise" system. So what's the beef. Wake up people!!
* Cruz is a man with no soul.
* Republican version of healthcare = absolutely nothing, except for going to ER or dying.
...................................................................................................................................................................
An Iowa Voter Forced Ted Cruz To Confront The Human Toll Of Repealing Obamacare
Republicans have nothing to offer the millions who would lose insurance.
By Jonathan Cohn, January 30, 2016
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn’t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
“He had never been to a doctor for years,” Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. “Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We’re sorry, sir, there’s nothing we can do for you.’"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: “Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?”
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. “Under Obamacare,” Cruz said, “millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.” He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he’d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
Valde, apparently less amused, kept at it. “My question is, what are you going to replace it with?” he said. Cruz responded that he’d get there, but first he wanted to talk some more about the “millions of stories on the other side” -- people who'd had to give up their old plans and, as a result, ended up with higher premiums or co-pays, narrow networks of providers or some combination thereof.
Eventually Cruz suggested that if Valde’s brother-in-law couldn’t afford health insurance premiums previously, it was probably because government regulation had driven up the price -- and that the best solution, at this point, was to wipe the slate clean and build a new health care system, one in which people could purchase coverage across state lines.
It mirrored the answer Cruz had given just two days before, when Fox News host Bret Baier posed a similar question during Thursday's presidential debate in Des Moines. And Cruz's description of Obamacare’s effects hadn’t gotten any less misleading in the interim.
It’s true that President Barack Obama's signature health care law rewrote the rules for how insurance companies sell policies directly to individuals -- requiring that all policies include comprehensive benefits, for example, and prohibiting carriers from charging higher premiums or denying coverage outright to people who pose greater medical risks. And it’s true that, because of those changes, insurers cancelled some existing policies.
But early reports suggesting as many 5 million people lost their old policies appear to have been exaggerated. Subsequent studies estimated that the actual number was less than half of that.
Meanwhile, those people were able to get new coverage through the law’s marketplaces. And the best available research suggests that the majority ended up paying less money, not more, for their policies, while enjoying guarantees of coverage nobody had previously.
Overall, fewer and fewer Americans are reporting difficulty with medical bills and the proportion of Americans without coverage has fallen to historic lows. In Iowa specifically, the proportion of residents without health insurance fell by nearly half from 2013 to 2015, according to Gallup.
As for the claim that the Affordable Care Act has either destroyed jobs or turned millions of full-time positions into part-time ones, it appears to be just plain wrong. Anecdotal stories of employers capping hours got a lot of attention in 2014 and 2015, but experts have now had time to examine the data and they see no signs of a significant trend towards part-time work. (Also of note: the private sector has created jobs in every month since the Affordable Care Act became law.) Based on conversations with several well-respected economists, the website Politifact recently rated this favorite Republican argument “Pants on Fire.”
PolitiFact ✔ @PolitiFactAllowing people to buy insurance across state lines, as Cruz proposed, is something conservatives have long favored. It would allow insurers to start acting like credit card companies, relocating to whatever states have the least onerous regulations and selling all policies from them.
Pants on Fire! Ted Cruz claims at GOP debate that Obamacare is 'biggest job-killer' http://ow.ly/XH0V4
10:56 AM - 29 Jan 2016
Like other efforts to gut existing rules on how insurers operate, it’d allow the industry to sell cheap, skimpy policies that might appeal to some healthy people, but would offer nothing to people need comprehensive coverage. In short, it’s a way of allowing insurers to act like they did before health care reform -- not a way to make sure millions get insurance.
There’s a reason Cruz didn’t have a better answer for Valde, and it’s the same reason Republicans never have a satisfying response to this question.
The Affordable Care Act has its pluses and minuses, with plenty of people legitimately aggrieved about what it’s done or how it’s worked out for them -- and plenty more opposed for philosophical reasons. But any alternative that provides similar (or better) access to health care protection from medical bills is bound to require a similar combination of regulation and government spending. Republicans oppose such measures on principle -- which is why, when they talk about Obamacare, they exaggerate the downsides, ignore the upsides, and pretend they have better alternatives.
While Cruz never responded to Valde, another candidate did. On Saturday evening, at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Clinton referenced the conversation that had taken place at the Cruz event. She noted that millions would lose their insurance if Cruz and the other Republicans have their way. "That’s fine with them," she said. "That’s not fine with me."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Carson, you say that you seek the input of scientists but you aren't willing to listen to them on the question of climate change. Why?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Voter Asks Ben Carson: If You’re So Smart, Why Don’t You Accept Climate Change?
By Emily Atkin, January 30, 2016
Ben Carson is not a fan of the uneducated.
At his town hall meeting in Iowa City on Friday, the Republican presidential candidate insulted people with low IQs and lamented that they were allowed to vote. He said it was “disturbing” that many people are unable to pass the written test to get into the military. He urged the audience to “read up” on the history of Islam, and said progressives are “dumbing down our society” with calls for political correctness.
All of this intrigued Daniel Schnall, 29, a graduate student at the University of Iowa and registered independent. Schnall asked Carson: If you’re so passionate about being educated, then why don’t you accept the science of human-caused climate change?
“You’ve spoken a lot about using common sense and using your brain, and I really appreciate that,” Schnall said. “And in some of the questions in the debates, you responded that you really seek the input of experts.”
He continued: “The experts in the scientific community overwhelmingly agree that climate change is a problem. Can you explain that discrepancy, and why you’re not willing to listen to the experts?”
For the entirety of his presidential campaign, Carson has been unwilling to say he accepts the mainstream scientific opinion that carbon emissions from human activity cause climate change, and that climate change will have catastrophic effects if left unchecked. “There’s always going to be either cooling or warming going on,” Carson has said, implying that humans have nothing to do with how hot the Earth is becoming.
On Friday, he responded to Schnall’s question by saying that the climate science is “politicized.”
“I don’t subscribe to the politicization of the environment, because that’s what leads to things like the Clean Power Plan,” Carson said, referring to Obama’s regulations to limit carbon emissions from coal power plants. “The EPA has said that if we implement every aspect of the Clean Power Plan, it will lower the temperature of the Earth by 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit… that’s the benefit. The cost is billions of dollars and millions of jobs. That doesn’t make any sense, because that is ideologically driven.”
There’s a lot to unpack about Carson’s comments on the Clean Power Plan. For one, he said that regulations would be useless because they would only make a small dent in global temperatures. But that’s scientifically misleading — no one regulation in any one country can be significant enough to make a big dent in global temperatures. However, considering the United States is currently the world’s second-largest carbon emitter and by far its largest historically, the idea is that the U.S. must act first to motivate other countries to do the same.
And his claim that putting carbon regulations on the already-dying coal industry would cost “billions of dollars and millions of jobs” is also dubious — according to multiple studies, the regulations would actually create jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors, since both will have to be increased to meet the regulations’ requirements.
But the most notable portion of Carson’s response was what he didn’t say — and that’s anything about the actual science of human-caused climate change. Carson said the EPA had become politicized and that the Clean Power Plan wouldn’t work, but he didn’t say anything surrounding the actual question, which was why, scientifically, he doesn’t accept that climate change is a problem.
Schnall recognized this, telling ThinkProgress that he was “not really” happy with the candidate’s answer. Schnall said that while he’s “not the biggest climate change advocate,” he asked the question because he was frustrated with the polarization of climate change in politics. And for Carson in particular, he just didn’t understand how someone could preach the importance of education while denying mainstream science.
“If he’s going to stand up there and say we need to listen to the experts, and we need to use our brains — 97 percent of the scientific community agrees on this one,” he said. “It’s not just politicizing the issue. It’s a little more than that.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Voter Asks Ben Carson: If You’re So Smart, Why Don’t You Accept Climate Change?
By Emily Atkin, January 30, 2016
Ben Carson is not a fan of the uneducated.
At his town hall meeting in Iowa City on Friday, the Republican presidential candidate insulted people with low IQs and lamented that they were allowed to vote. He said it was “disturbing” that many people are unable to pass the written test to get into the military. He urged the audience to “read up” on the history of Islam, and said progressives are “dumbing down our society” with calls for political correctness.
All of this intrigued Daniel Schnall, 29, a graduate student at the University of Iowa and registered independent. Schnall asked Carson: If you’re so passionate about being educated, then why don’t you accept the science of human-caused climate change?
“You’ve spoken a lot about using common sense and using your brain, and I really appreciate that,” Schnall said. “And in some of the questions in the debates, you responded that you really seek the input of experts.”
He continued: “The experts in the scientific community overwhelmingly agree that climate change is a problem. Can you explain that discrepancy, and why you’re not willing to listen to the experts?”
For the entirety of his presidential campaign, Carson has been unwilling to say he accepts the mainstream scientific opinion that carbon emissions from human activity cause climate change, and that climate change will have catastrophic effects if left unchecked. “There’s always going to be either cooling or warming going on,” Carson has said, implying that humans have nothing to do with how hot the Earth is becoming.
On Friday, he responded to Schnall’s question by saying that the climate science is “politicized.”
“I don’t subscribe to the politicization of the environment, because that’s what leads to things like the Clean Power Plan,” Carson said, referring to Obama’s regulations to limit carbon emissions from coal power plants. “The EPA has said that if we implement every aspect of the Clean Power Plan, it will lower the temperature of the Earth by 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit… that’s the benefit. The cost is billions of dollars and millions of jobs. That doesn’t make any sense, because that is ideologically driven.”
There’s a lot to unpack about Carson’s comments on the Clean Power Plan. For one, he said that regulations would be useless because they would only make a small dent in global temperatures. But that’s scientifically misleading — no one regulation in any one country can be significant enough to make a big dent in global temperatures. However, considering the United States is currently the world’s second-largest carbon emitter and by far its largest historically, the idea is that the U.S. must act first to motivate other countries to do the same.
And his claim that putting carbon regulations on the already-dying coal industry would cost “billions of dollars and millions of jobs” is also dubious — according to multiple studies, the regulations would actually create jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors, since both will have to be increased to meet the regulations’ requirements.
But the most notable portion of Carson’s response was what he didn’t say — and that’s anything about the actual science of human-caused climate change. Carson said the EPA had become politicized and that the Clean Power Plan wouldn’t work, but he didn’t say anything surrounding the actual question, which was why, scientifically, he doesn’t accept that climate change is a problem.
Schnall recognized this, telling ThinkProgress that he was “not really” happy with the candidate’s answer. Schnall said that while he’s “not the biggest climate change advocate,” he asked the question because he was frustrated with the polarization of climate change in politics. And for Carson in particular, he just didn’t understand how someone could preach the importance of education while denying mainstream science.
“If he’s going to stand up there and say we need to listen to the experts, and we need to use our brains — 97 percent of the scientific community agrees on this one,” he said. “It’s not just politicizing the issue. It’s a little more than that.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... insult, an artless form perfected by Trump, isn’t politically INcorrect. It is rude. Name-calling isn’t clever; it is childish and lazy." Which means that Trump is rude, childish, and lazy!
..................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Whenever I hear someone say they like Trump because he's not politically correct, I wonder why on earth would anyone want a President who calls women "fat pigs," "bimbos," "dogs," "slobs," and "disgusting animals?" Most parents wouldn't put up with that kind of behavior from their first graders.
* Trump sounds and acts like a pubescent boy and a toddler all rolled into one.
* ... Trump is a narcisstic, racist, bigoted, sexist, ignorant, bully, who is incapable of rational thought or communication. He's a billionaire hateful bully con man, who is not qualified to be POTUS. He might as well be a pimp, or a gangster, or dictator thug. There is no need for anyone, including you, Ms. Parker to try and explain to the rest of us of what Trump means when he said we're all too politically correct all the time. Other than that, no one gives a rat's tail what Trump thinks, except for his small minded uneducated minions and rabble rousers. Now how was that for not being politically correct.
* Can you imagine Donald being interrogated by a hostile Congressional committee? I'd pay to see that.
* Trump is simply positioning himself to fill a demand that emanates from the most sordid side of politics. He is feeding on hate, fear and ignorance much of it either promoted or nurtured through tolerance by right wing forces, even many who now recoil in horror at what they have produced.
* In Trump-world, political incorrectness is only allowed to travel one direction.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump isn’t politically incorrect. He’s just simply incorrect.
By Kathleen Parker, January 29, 2016
If you ask Donald Trump fans why they like him, there’s an excellent chance they’ll say, “Because he’s not politically correct.”
But this is true only if you misunderstand the meaning of political correctness, as Trump himself apparently does.
Popularized in the ’90s to mean overcorrection in language and policies to avoid offending any group of people, it has been redefined by Trump to mean saying whatever slips from gray matter to tongue without the inhibitory processing that civilization demands.
We could fill volumes — and many have — with ridiculous examples of political correctness, especially on college campuses, where students are often coddled rather than taught. Oft-cited as a legitimate example is exclusion of literary works because of language or imagery that might result in some sensitive soul needing hugs and hankies. Or, if you’re a college student, haven in a “safe space.”
Intellectual rigor this is not.
This is true political correctness, silly and damaging to both sanity and educational integrity. Ovations to those who confront it.
But insult, an artless form perfected by Trump, isn’t politically INcorrect. It is rude. Name-calling isn’t clever; it is childish and lazy.
Yet Trump has managed to convince his legions that making vile comments about someone is a revolutionary act, a badge of honor and a long-overdue tipping of society’s scales back toward reason and truth. Sometimes he’s right, but so is the proverbial broken clock.
More often he’s wrong.
You could say, for example, that we need to secure our borders because, though most immigrants are good people in search of a better life, others are criminals or criminal-minded. This is both true and lacking in drama.
Instead, Trump — recognizing the anger in others that he either feels or feigns — took the low road and said people entering our country illegally are rapists and murderers, adding perfunctorily, “and some, I assume, are good people.”
This isn’t politically incorrect; it’s simply incorrect. It is also intentionally hyperbolic in the service of a campaign to incite and engage rage — the brimstone of a demagogue seeking to liberate populist anger to fuel his own lust for power.
This approach is plainly more rewarding for a certain kind of person. Trump’s inflammatory language goes straight to the gut (Jeb Bush owns the heart) of resentment that so many feel and that for too long has been neglected or dismissed by Washington. But it is wrong because, obviously, one is to infer from Trump’s remarks that animus toward Mexicans and other Latinos is justified for reasons that are largely untrue.
Trump reserves special venom for women, examples of which are too numerous to list. Most familiar is his recent assault on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. Trump made good on his threat to ditch Thursday’s debate if Kelly, whom he charged with treating him unfairly in an earlier debate, were a moderator.
She was; he bailed.
With his usual gentlemanly flair, Trump referred to Kelly as a “bimbo.” No, wait, he didn’t say that. He said he would not call her a bimbo but only “because that would not be politically correct.” Wrong again, Donnie.
Let’s parse this, shall we? Would it be politically incorrect to call a top-ranked female anchor (with a law degree) currently on the cover of Vanity Fair a bimbo? Or would it be rude, ludicrous, wrong and pathetic? Nothing about this is hard.
Ironically, the “unfairness” that got Trump so bunched up was Kelly’s apt question about whether, given his many derogatory remarks about women, he has the temperament to be president. It would appear that Kelly’s aim was true and Trump responded in consistent form. Among other boy-bathroom remarks, he implied that she might have been on her period. Charming.
Further, it would seem, Kelly rather precisely made her case.
As this sordid world turns, Trump once again succeeded in liberating the dirty little ids of his Twitter feed’s tiniest minds. Armed with their biggest, manliest tweets, Trumpulists wasted no time hammering Kelly with a urinal wall’s worth of female-specific, often-sexual insults. A Vocativ analysis of a day’s tweets included the following word counts: “bitch” (423), “bimbo” (404), “blonde” (128), “cheap” (66) and others too crude for print.
These wits probably thought they were being politically incorrect by saying exactly what was on their wee minds, but they merely revealed their limitations. Most women know what’s up when men behave this way toward a woman: Not with a 10-foot pole, honey.
And that goes for the Donnie boy, too.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Whenever I hear someone say they like Trump because he's not politically correct, I wonder why on earth would anyone want a President who calls women "fat pigs," "bimbos," "dogs," "slobs," and "disgusting animals?" Most parents wouldn't put up with that kind of behavior from their first graders.
* Trump sounds and acts like a pubescent boy and a toddler all rolled into one.
* ... Trump is a narcisstic, racist, bigoted, sexist, ignorant, bully, who is incapable of rational thought or communication. He's a billionaire hateful bully con man, who is not qualified to be POTUS. He might as well be a pimp, or a gangster, or dictator thug. There is no need for anyone, including you, Ms. Parker to try and explain to the rest of us of what Trump means when he said we're all too politically correct all the time. Other than that, no one gives a rat's tail what Trump thinks, except for his small minded uneducated minions and rabble rousers. Now how was that for not being politically correct.
* Trump is simply positioning himself to fill a demand that emanates from the most sordid side of politics. He is feeding on hate, fear and ignorance much of it either promoted or nurtured through tolerance by right wing forces, even many who now recoil in horror at what they have produced.
* In Trump-world, political incorrectness is only allowed to travel one direction.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump isn’t politically incorrect. He’s just simply incorrect.
By Kathleen Parker, January 29, 2016
If you ask Donald Trump fans why they like him, there’s an excellent chance they’ll say, “Because he’s not politically correct.”
But this is true only if you misunderstand the meaning of political correctness, as Trump himself apparently does.
Popularized in the ’90s to mean overcorrection in language and policies to avoid offending any group of people, it has been redefined by Trump to mean saying whatever slips from gray matter to tongue without the inhibitory processing that civilization demands.
We could fill volumes — and many have — with ridiculous examples of political correctness, especially on college campuses, where students are often coddled rather than taught. Oft-cited as a legitimate example is exclusion of literary works because of language or imagery that might result in some sensitive soul needing hugs and hankies. Or, if you’re a college student, haven in a “safe space.”
Intellectual rigor this is not.
This is true political correctness, silly and damaging to both sanity and educational integrity. Ovations to those who confront it.
But insult, an artless form perfected by Trump, isn’t politically INcorrect. It is rude. Name-calling isn’t clever; it is childish and lazy.
Yet Trump has managed to convince his legions that making vile comments about someone is a revolutionary act, a badge of honor and a long-overdue tipping of society’s scales back toward reason and truth. Sometimes he’s right, but so is the proverbial broken clock.
More often he’s wrong.
You could say, for example, that we need to secure our borders because, though most immigrants are good people in search of a better life, others are criminals or criminal-minded. This is both true and lacking in drama.
Instead, Trump — recognizing the anger in others that he either feels or feigns — took the low road and said people entering our country illegally are rapists and murderers, adding perfunctorily, “and some, I assume, are good people.”
This isn’t politically incorrect; it’s simply incorrect. It is also intentionally hyperbolic in the service of a campaign to incite and engage rage — the brimstone of a demagogue seeking to liberate populist anger to fuel his own lust for power.
This approach is plainly more rewarding for a certain kind of person. Trump’s inflammatory language goes straight to the gut (Jeb Bush owns the heart) of resentment that so many feel and that for too long has been neglected or dismissed by Washington. But it is wrong because, obviously, one is to infer from Trump’s remarks that animus toward Mexicans and other Latinos is justified for reasons that are largely untrue.
Trump reserves special venom for women, examples of which are too numerous to list. Most familiar is his recent assault on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. Trump made good on his threat to ditch Thursday’s debate if Kelly, whom he charged with treating him unfairly in an earlier debate, were a moderator.
She was; he bailed.
With his usual gentlemanly flair, Trump referred to Kelly as a “bimbo.” No, wait, he didn’t say that. He said he would not call her a bimbo but only “because that would not be politically correct.” Wrong again, Donnie.
Let’s parse this, shall we? Would it be politically incorrect to call a top-ranked female anchor (with a law degree) currently on the cover of Vanity Fair a bimbo? Or would it be rude, ludicrous, wrong and pathetic? Nothing about this is hard.
Ironically, the “unfairness” that got Trump so bunched up was Kelly’s apt question about whether, given his many derogatory remarks about women, he has the temperament to be president. It would appear that Kelly’s aim was true and Trump responded in consistent form. Among other boy-bathroom remarks, he implied that she might have been on her period. Charming.
Further, it would seem, Kelly rather precisely made her case.
As this sordid world turns, Trump once again succeeded in liberating the dirty little ids of his Twitter feed’s tiniest minds. Armed with their biggest, manliest tweets, Trumpulists wasted no time hammering Kelly with a urinal wall’s worth of female-specific, often-sexual insults. A Vocativ analysis of a day’s tweets included the following word counts: “bitch” (423), “bimbo” (404), “blonde” (128), “cheap” (66) and others too crude for print.
These wits probably thought they were being politically incorrect by saying exactly what was on their wee minds, but they merely revealed their limitations. Most women know what’s up when men behave this way toward a woman: Not with a 10-foot pole, honey.
And that goes for the Donnie boy, too.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sarah loooooves to spend money!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* This shows what a cheapskate she is as well, at least when she pays her employees. Two staffers got a total of $30,000? They got $15,000 each? If they have families, that's below the poverty level!
* The grift that keeps on grifting.
* The only bad news for SaraPac is Sara.
* She what? ... spent $18,000 on speech writing? lol ... and it was worth every penny maybe according to Lorne Michaels and Tina Fey.
* Hey, getting someone to write a speech in Palindrone is expensive. It's one of those rarely used languages, like Latin.
* The fact that anyone would donate any of their money to her is what's wrong with this country...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bad News For Sarah Palin's PAC
The Alaskan is spending money on self, not conservative candidates.
By Dave Levinthal, January 29, 2016
In a blaze of rhyming, rambling glory, Sarah Palin this month glommed onto Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Trump beamed. Comedy shows rejoiced. And Palin, who's belly-up online channel, kaput Fox News contract and son's domestic violence arrest rank among recent indignities, thrust herself back into lame-stream media headlines.
But the former Alaska governor's own political action committee, once prodigious, is flaming out: Palin's appetite for luxury travel and pricey consultants has depleted its cash reserves to historically low levels, a Center for Public Integrity review of new federal records indicate.
Sure, lots of political committees would love to have the $380,000 that remained in Sarah PAC’s coffers as of Dec. 31.
But not since mid-2009, just after Palin formed SarahPAC following her unsuccessful vice presidential bid, has the group’s cash stash dipped so low. It sat on $1 million as recently as mid-2014.
How’d this happen?
SarahPAC is simply burning through more money than it’s bringing in.
For a chart showing fundraising by Sarah Palin's SarahPAC, visit the Center for Public Integrity.
During 2015, SarahPAC expenditures ($1.4 million) outpaced income (about $950,000), federal records show. This, from a former politician who markets her “fiscal responsibility” bona fides and once urged lawmakers to “cut spending — don't just simply slow down a spending spree” as an elixir to the Great Recession.
By another measure: the $457,459 SarahPAC reported raising from July 1 through Dec. 1 represents its smallest half-year haul since its formation in early 2009.
Meanwhile, conservative politicians’ campaigns didn’t receive a dime of SarahPAC’s heavy spending during the second half of 2015. Only a handful of lawmakers directly received cash during the first half of 2015.
This might surprise Palin supporters, who she solicits to “chip in $25 today to help us stack Congress with true conservatives” while asserting that SarahPAC is “working hard to support and elect conservative leaders.” (Prior to endorsing Trump, Palin pointed to Sen. Ted Cruz’s praise for SarahPAC as proof.)
There are other ways that PACs may support political candidates. A frequent method is “independent expenditures”— money that supports a candidate through television, radio, digital or other forms of advertising. But SarahPAC reported no independent expenditures during 2015.
SarahPAC officials did not return requests for comment.
So where did SarahPAC’s money go? Mostly toward efforts that supported Palin’s travels or helped SarahPAC sustain its own existence.
It’s [sic] expenditures from July 1 through Dec. 31 include:
SarahPAC’s most dedicated donors of late 2015 — those giving more than $200 — are elderly: More than three in five such contributors listed their occupation as “retired” or some variation thereof. They are most likely to hail from California, Texas or Florida.
But small-dollar donors, who don’t have to publicly reveal who they are or what they do, provided the lion’s share of SarahPAC contributions during late 2015.
To woo them, SarahPAC offers public television-like incentives to supporters willing to make a more modest contribution.
Backers donating at least $75 receive an autographed copy of Palin’s book “Sweet Freedom: A Devotional.”
Those who give $100 take home a plush “SarahPAC mama grizzly bear” toy.
Many of those donations — $22,325 in all during the second half of 2015, federal records show — funded SarahPAC’s purchase of Palin’s own book and those grizzly bear toys.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* This shows what a cheapskate she is as well, at least when she pays her employees. Two staffers got a total of $30,000? They got $15,000 each? If they have families, that's below the poverty level!
* The grift that keeps on grifting.
* The only bad news for SaraPac is Sara.
* She what? ... spent $18,000 on speech writing? lol ... and it was worth every penny maybe according to Lorne Michaels and Tina Fey.
* Hey, getting someone to write a speech in Palindrone is expensive. It's one of those rarely used languages, like Latin.
* The fact that anyone would donate any of their money to her is what's wrong with this country...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bad News For Sarah Palin's PAC
The Alaskan is spending money on self, not conservative candidates.
By Dave Levinthal, January 29, 2016
In a blaze of rhyming, rambling glory, Sarah Palin this month glommed onto Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Trump beamed. Comedy shows rejoiced. And Palin, who's belly-up online channel, kaput Fox News contract and son's domestic violence arrest rank among recent indignities, thrust herself back into lame-stream media headlines.
But the former Alaska governor's own political action committee, once prodigious, is flaming out: Palin's appetite for luxury travel and pricey consultants has depleted its cash reserves to historically low levels, a Center for Public Integrity review of new federal records indicate.
Sure, lots of political committees would love to have the $380,000 that remained in Sarah PAC’s coffers as of Dec. 31.
But not since mid-2009, just after Palin formed SarahPAC following her unsuccessful vice presidential bid, has the group’s cash stash dipped so low. It sat on $1 million as recently as mid-2014.
How’d this happen?
SarahPAC is simply burning through more money than it’s bringing in.
For a chart showing fundraising by Sarah Palin's SarahPAC, visit the Center for Public Integrity.
During 2015, SarahPAC expenditures ($1.4 million) outpaced income (about $950,000), federal records show. This, from a former politician who markets her “fiscal responsibility” bona fides and once urged lawmakers to “cut spending — don't just simply slow down a spending spree” as an elixir to the Great Recession.
By another measure: the $457,459 SarahPAC reported raising from July 1 through Dec. 1 represents its smallest half-year haul since its formation in early 2009.
Meanwhile, conservative politicians’ campaigns didn’t receive a dime of SarahPAC’s heavy spending during the second half of 2015. Only a handful of lawmakers directly received cash during the first half of 2015.
This might surprise Palin supporters, who she solicits to “chip in $25 today to help us stack Congress with true conservatives” while asserting that SarahPAC is “working hard to support and elect conservative leaders.” (Prior to endorsing Trump, Palin pointed to Sen. Ted Cruz’s praise for SarahPAC as proof.)
There are other ways that PACs may support political candidates. A frequent method is “independent expenditures”— money that supports a candidate through television, radio, digital or other forms of advertising. But SarahPAC reported no independent expenditures during 2015.
SarahPAC officials did not return requests for comment.
So where did SarahPAC’s money go? Mostly toward efforts that supported Palin’s travels or helped SarahPAC sustain its own existence.
It’s [sic] expenditures from July 1 through Dec. 31 include:
- $248,750 on various consultants, including those providing fundraising, research and “logistics” services.
- $160,141 on fundraising, direct mail and related website management, including HSP Direct, a Virginia-based firm that describes itself as an agency that targets people who believe in the “values of conservatism, patriotism and integrity.”
- $84,789 on postage.
- About $48,336 on travel, lodging and related services. When Palin traveled to Washington, D.C., in September to appear at a rally alongside Trump and Cruz, her PAC covered a $4,700 bill at the Hotel George, which promises guests it’ll accommodate their every need — “even those wishes you didn’t yet know you had.” In August, while guest hosting a One America News Network show in San Diego, during which she interviewed Trump, Palin’s PAC spent $643 to put her up at the Fairmont Grand Del Mar. The resort boasts of its “unrivaled five-star/five diamond service.” SarahPAC spent thousands of dollars on vehicle rentals from companies such as BAC Transport of Alaska, which features a fleet of high-end SUVs and limousines.
- $30,000 on two clerical staffers.
- $29,683 to produce a videos
- $18,000 on speechwriting. Aries Petra Consulting LLC, a small firm formed in Virginia and operating from Los Angeles, provided the services. Some political observers might argue Palin hasn’t gotten her money’s worth. Among the gems from Palin’s Trump endorsement speech: “Well, and then, funny, ha ha, not funny, but now, what they’re doing is wailing, ‘Well, Trump and his Trumpeters, they’re not conservative enough.’” And, on U.S. policy in the Middle East: “You quit footing the bill for these nations who are oil-rich, we’re paying for some of their squirmishes that have been going on for centuries. Where they’re fighting each other and yelling ‘Allahu akbar,’ calling jihad on each other’s heads forever and ever.”
- $11,529 on legal fees and services
SarahPAC’s most dedicated donors of late 2015 — those giving more than $200 — are elderly: More than three in five such contributors listed their occupation as “retired” or some variation thereof. They are most likely to hail from California, Texas or Florida.
But small-dollar donors, who don’t have to publicly reveal who they are or what they do, provided the lion’s share of SarahPAC contributions during late 2015.
To woo them, SarahPAC offers public television-like incentives to supporters willing to make a more modest contribution.
Backers donating at least $75 receive an autographed copy of Palin’s book “Sweet Freedom: A Devotional.”
Those who give $100 take home a plush “SarahPAC mama grizzly bear” toy.
Many of those donations — $22,325 in all during the second half of 2015, federal records show — funded SarahPAC’s purchase of Palin’s own book and those grizzly bear toys.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, January 29, 2016
You go, J.K.!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* That tweet is funny considering that Donald is not pure breed (mother born in UK) nor are 4 of his 5 children.
* UK, a heinz 57 breeds of picts, celts, french, anglo, saxons, normans... with a German Queen to rule over them to boot ... aka The Donald is a mutt ...
* Why is anyone surprised these statements are coming from the Trump camp?
* Herr Drumpf may have German ancestory on his paternal side but can claim Scottish ancestry on his mother's side. )A MacLeod from the Isle of Lewis). Where else would he get that ginger rug if not from a Celt or a Pict? One should not expect decorum from Drumpf or anyone connected with him. Rudeness, racism and sexism are the Drumpf playbook; after all, he has aboslutlely nothing else to offer.
* Well put Mrs. Rowling, the "pure-blood” reference fits right in with Republican front-runner Donald Trump who said Friday that Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is an "anchor baby." It was all part of Trump's repeated riffing on the fact that Cruz was born in Canada. "Now, Ted Cruz may not be a U.S. citizen. Right? But he's an anchor baby in Canada. No, he's an anchor baby. Ted Cruz is an anchor baby in Canada," Trump said at an event in New Hampshire, according to ABC News.
...................................................................................................................................................................
J.K. Rowling Shuts Down Trump Spokesperson With 'Harry Potter' Death Eater Dig
Make America magical again.
By Carly Ledbetter, January 25, 2016
J.K. Rowling has never been one to hold back about Donald Trump on Twitter.
So when the Harry Potter author had the opportunity to burn Trump's spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, for an insensitive tweet, she delivered the ultimate Death Eater dig.
It all started with Pierson's disgustingly racist tweet about "pure breeds" in 2012, which recently resurfaced.
Rowling saw the tweet (of course she would, she's magical) and fired back with an insult of her own that put everyone else's to shame.
Make America magical again.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* That tweet is funny considering that Donald is not pure breed (mother born in UK) nor are 4 of his 5 children.
* UK, a heinz 57 breeds of picts, celts, french, anglo, saxons, normans... with a German Queen to rule over them to boot ... aka The Donald is a mutt ...
* Why is anyone surprised these statements are coming from the Trump camp?
* Herr Drumpf may have German ancestory on his paternal side but can claim Scottish ancestry on his mother's side. )A MacLeod from the Isle of Lewis). Where else would he get that ginger rug if not from a Celt or a Pict? One should not expect decorum from Drumpf or anyone connected with him. Rudeness, racism and sexism are the Drumpf playbook; after all, he has aboslutlely nothing else to offer.
* Well put Mrs. Rowling, the "pure-blood” reference fits right in with Republican front-runner Donald Trump who said Friday that Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is an "anchor baby." It was all part of Trump's repeated riffing on the fact that Cruz was born in Canada. "Now, Ted Cruz may not be a U.S. citizen. Right? But he's an anchor baby in Canada. No, he's an anchor baby. Ted Cruz is an anchor baby in Canada," Trump said at an event in New Hampshire, according to ABC News.
...................................................................................................................................................................
J.K. Rowling Shuts Down Trump Spokesperson With 'Harry Potter' Death Eater Dig
Make America magical again.
By Carly Ledbetter, January 25, 2016
J.K. Rowling has never been one to hold back about Donald Trump on Twitter.
So when the Harry Potter author had the opportunity to burn Trump's spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, for an insensitive tweet, she delivered the ultimate Death Eater dig.
It all started with Pierson's disgustingly racist tweet about "pure breeds" in 2012, which recently resurfaced.
Katrina Pierson ✔ @KatrinaPiersonPierson's tweet earned the criticism of many over the weekend, with one "Harry Potter" fan saying Pierson sounded like Draco Malfoy. Malfoy, of course, was a "pure-blood," or a wizard of fully magical heritage, who hated others who weren't like him (most notably Muggles, aka non-magical people, and mudbloods, aka Muggle-born witches and wizards).
Perfect Obama's dad born in Africa, Mitt Romney's dad born in Mexico. Any pure breeds left? #CNNDebate
6:06 PM - 19 Jan 2012
Rowling saw the tweet (of course she would, she's magical) and fired back with an insult of her own that put everyone else's to shame.
J.K. Rowling ✔ @jk_rowlingJ.K. Rowling, dropping the mic wand.
Death Eaters walk among us. https://twitter.com/katrinapierson/status/160181303680040960 …
1:39 AM - 24 Jan 2016
Make America magical again.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz has "an authenticity problem" which leads to "the deep dislike even Republicans have for" him. It doesn't help that he looks like Joe McCarthy!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rand Paul perfectly summed up why Ted Cruz has no friends in the Senate
By German Lopez, January 28, 2016
At the Republican debate on Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul called out Sen. Ted Cruz for an attitude that has turned Cruz into one of the most disliked figures within the Republican Party.
"What is particularly insulting, though, is that he is the king of saying, 'Oh, you're for amnesty. Everybody's for amnesty except for Ted Cruz.' But it's a falseness," Paul said. "And that's an authenticity problem — that everybody he knows is not as perfect as him, because we're all for amnesty."
While the specific topic is immigration, Paul's comments are actually tapping into a much broader sentiment toward Cruz: Not even his Republican colleagues really like him.
(There are questions about whether Paul's characterization of Cruz's position is right. Read more about that here.)
Vox's Andrew Prokop wrote about the deep dislike even Republicans have for Cruz:
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rand Paul perfectly summed up why Ted Cruz has no friends in the Senate
By German Lopez, January 28, 2016
At the Republican debate on Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul called out Sen. Ted Cruz for an attitude that has turned Cruz into one of the most disliked figures within the Republican Party.
"What is particularly insulting, though, is that he is the king of saying, 'Oh, you're for amnesty. Everybody's for amnesty except for Ted Cruz.' But it's a falseness," Paul said. "And that's an authenticity problem — that everybody he knows is not as perfect as him, because we're all for amnesty."
While the specific topic is immigration, Paul's comments are actually tapping into a much broader sentiment toward Cruz: Not even his Republican colleagues really like him.
(There are questions about whether Paul's characterization of Cruz's position is right. Read more about that here.)
Vox's Andrew Prokop wrote about the deep dislike even Republicans have for Cruz:
Being a team player is very important in politics. It's common for presidential candidates to trash Washington on the campaign trail: Barack Obama did it, and George W. Bush did it before him, and Bill Clinton did it before him. But all three were members of good standing in their respective parties — they didn't pick gratuitous fights with their major partisan allies, and they certainly didn't portray their parties' leading electoral officials as corrupt sellouts trying to hoodwink their own voters.This is a problem that has seriously hurt Cruz on the campaign trail — to the point that even as Cruz looked like the only candidate who could really beat Donald Trump in Iowa, much of the Republican establishment picked Trump over Cruz. It was the undertone of Paul's comments at the debate.
Cruz has done just the opposite. For the past three years, he has been engaged in a very specific, pointed, and personal attempt aimed at painting practically every Republican in Washington as a corrupt phony and himself as the only honest man in the city. And his fellow Republicans don't like this one bit.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Carly, you're the one continuing "to lie to the American people ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Carly learned her lines and now she can't vary from them
* Of course she lies about PP. It deflects from questions about her nearly running a great American tech company-Hewlett/Packard-into the ground. Go away, Carlie.
* When you lie, lie big and often, do not deviate from the lie and soon others will believe the lie in the face of facts. Hallmarks of the new corporate media sound byte driven republican party.
* and you will start believeing your own lies
* The problem with Republicans is even when they are faced with facts, evidence and the truth, they knowingly and willingly choose to ignore it.
* She is just another Conservative that believes ONLY what they want to believe - no matter how much evidence is stacked up to disprove it. There has now been no fewer than SEVEN State investigations that have cleared PP... it is inexcusable for someone of Fiorina's stature to continue spewing such statements. She is unfit to be President due to her stubborn willingness to cling to her own delusions despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Carly Fiorina Continued to Lie About Planned Parenthood at Fox's Undercard GOP Debate
By Claire Lampen, January 28, 2016
Carly Fiorina hears only what she wants to hear, apparently.
In Thursday's GOP undercard debate, the presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard executive clung to the notion that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue for profit, an allegation that a Texan grand jury declared baseless on Tuesday. Fiorina, however, is having none of that.
"Here are the facts," she said in the debate. "Planned Parenthood engages in partial birth abortion, in late-term abortion. They alter those abortion techniques to harvest and sell body parts."
To be clear: There is no evidence that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue for profit. But the video at the center of the grand jury's investigation has proved a useful piece of evidence for Fiorina over the course of this campaign.
In September, she described a scene from this video — which was made by a pair of undercover anti-abortion activists and heavily edited — in vivid detail, saying that she would defund Planned Parenthood if elected president. Her statement was met with active applause. As it turned out, the scene she described didn't depict an abortion as she alleged that it did.
Despite facts that continue to point in the opposite direction of Fiorina's claims, she continues to put them out there. Which is exactly the practice for which she lampooned her Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in Thursday's undercard debate.
"She continues to lie to the American people," she said. "It's called the Clinton way...Say whatever you have to say, do whatever you have to do. Lie as long as you can get away with it. Hillary Clinton cannot be the president of these United States."
And by that logic, neither can Carly Fiorina.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Carly learned her lines and now she can't vary from them
* Of course she lies about PP. It deflects from questions about her nearly running a great American tech company-Hewlett/Packard-into the ground. Go away, Carlie.
* When you lie, lie big and often, do not deviate from the lie and soon others will believe the lie in the face of facts. Hallmarks of the new corporate media sound byte driven republican party.
* and you will start believeing your own lies
* The problem with Republicans is even when they are faced with facts, evidence and the truth, they knowingly and willingly choose to ignore it.
* She is just another Conservative that believes ONLY what they want to believe - no matter how much evidence is stacked up to disprove it. There has now been no fewer than SEVEN State investigations that have cleared PP... it is inexcusable for someone of Fiorina's stature to continue spewing such statements. She is unfit to be President due to her stubborn willingness to cling to her own delusions despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Carly Fiorina Continued to Lie About Planned Parenthood at Fox's Undercard GOP Debate
By Claire Lampen, January 28, 2016
Carly Fiorina hears only what she wants to hear, apparently.
In Thursday's GOP undercard debate, the presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard executive clung to the notion that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue for profit, an allegation that a Texan grand jury declared baseless on Tuesday. Fiorina, however, is having none of that.
"Here are the facts," she said in the debate. "Planned Parenthood engages in partial birth abortion, in late-term abortion. They alter those abortion techniques to harvest and sell body parts."
To be clear: There is no evidence that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue for profit. But the video at the center of the grand jury's investigation has proved a useful piece of evidence for Fiorina over the course of this campaign.
In September, she described a scene from this video — which was made by a pair of undercover anti-abortion activists and heavily edited — in vivid detail, saying that she would defund Planned Parenthood if elected president. Her statement was met with active applause. As it turned out, the scene she described didn't depict an abortion as she alleged that it did.
Despite facts that continue to point in the opposite direction of Fiorina's claims, she continues to put them out there. Which is exactly the practice for which she lampooned her Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in Thursday's undercard debate.
"She continues to lie to the American people," she said. "It's called the Clinton way...Say whatever you have to say, do whatever you have to do. Lie as long as you can get away with it. Hillary Clinton cannot be the president of these United States."
And by that logic, neither can Carly Fiorina.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... I cannot countenance the misdirection of their anger, and the ugly bigotry that has been stoked by opportunistic politicians like Donald Trump."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Sad that your aspirations are in the hands of voters who can't see beyond the fantasy Apprentice.
* Trump is a griotesque image of white rich male backlash. If not for his money and privilege he would be laughed out of town.
* ... Thank you so much for taking the tme to write this. You have expressed my frustration exactly. I want to live in a country where the laws and services work for everybody equally, no matter their color, gender, religion, age or sexual orientation. Trump's supporters don't seem to have the critical thinking it takes to realize the terrible, long term implications of a Trump preseidency. They keep saying "He speaks his mind." But what they really mean is that he is speaking THEIR minds, their fears and their misplaced anger and not realizing that he's using it to his advantage and for his own personal gain. He doesn't really care one iota about them. In fact, he's probably riding around in his limousine laughing at them and calling them losers, because they don't have what he has. This is a game to a narcissist and sociopath like Trump, but the direction our country is taking is something serious for the rest of us and in some cases it could mean life or death.
* Ever wonder why a billionaire is trying so hard to get a 400,000 dollar a year job? Ego is a large part of it, but I think having control of regulations for business and the environment is probably his main goal. The damage he could do is frightning.
* If Trump diden't see a way to profit from it he would not bother running for president rember the only two things he believes in are himself and money
* "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." ~ LYNDON B. JOHNSON, 1960. Meet the P.T. Barnums of our day who've suckered the misguided and ignorant angry whities into their grasp; the far right coalition of mostly Republican politicians but also some Democrats as well..
...................................................................................................................................................................
I'm an Angry Old White Guy. Here's Why.
By Gara LaMarche, January 29, 2016
I keep reading that people like me -- older white guys -- are angry about what is happening to their country. In recent years, their grievances have been voiced by Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Then they found an outlet in the Tea Party. Now they are filling the seats at Donald Trump rallies and perhaps propelling him toward what seemed unthinkable, the Republican presidential nomination.
Trump explained his own anger this way in the last Republican debate he took part in:
I was born in 1954, just a few months after the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, dealt the biggest blow to white supremacy since the beginning of the republic, when a bunch of property-owning white men -- to whom the franchise was restricted at the time -- drafted a constitution in which Black slaves were considered three-fifths of a human being.
When I was in grade school, Betty Friedan wrote The Feminist Manifesto, and the pill liberated women to begin the long and still-incomplete march to full participation in the workplace and in political life. A vibrant and courageous civil rights movement brought about the landmark civil rights acts of the mid-1960s, which also saw the establishment of Medicare and the end of racist immigration quotas.
When I was in high school, the Environmental Protection Agency was established, and the Stonewall uprising marked the dawn of the modern gay rights movement whose arc, yet unfinished, led to last year's glorious Supreme Court decision making marriage equality the law of the land.
When I was in college, the Roe v. Wade decision ended back-alley abortions and affirmed the right of women to control their own bodies and therefore their full personhood.
I'm angry not because all these things happened. I'm angry because they are in jeopardy from the likes of Donald Trump and his fellow Republican presidential candidates. They rail about "political correctness" to justify bigotry and cruelty, when in fact the most vigorous enforcer of political correctness is the far right "base" of the Republican Party and its amen corner in the media. Thanks to them, no candidate may dare buck the NRA's absolutist -- and murderous -- stance against any sensible gun regulation. No candidate may acknowledge the reality of climate change and what is needed to save the planet, or the humanity of immigrants and refugees who deserve a medal for enduring untold hardships to make it to this country -- where they are a vital part of its economy and its very fabric -- not the scorn and abuse that has been heaped upon them.
I'm angry because I'm sick and tired of the lies we have been told. That raiding the Treasury for huge tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to working people, when in fact the gulf between the superrich and everyone else has grown to unsustainable dimensions which threaten the very social compact. That waging a war of choice in Iraq would usher in a democratic resurgence and make us safe, when it has left the Middle East in lethal turmoil, cost the lives of many thousands of young soldiers, maimed many multiples more, and sapped the country's capacity to attend to the urgent needs here at home, like roads and bridges and schools. When my grandson's pre-K teacher tells us that she has to spend hundreds of dollars from her own pocket for school supplies, it makes my blood boil.
I'm angry because the first African American president, elected to do something about the wretched mess he inherited, with a financial system on the brink of collapse and a soaring unemployment rate -- and who has done something about it -- has been opposed and vilified at every turn, from a right-wing which questions his very legitimacy (down to the facts of his biography) and whose most passionate cause is to strip away health security from millions who now have it, thanks to this President, for the first time in their lives.
I'm angry because Black Lives Matter is so necessary, given the epidemic of police murders of Black and Brown people trying to go about their lives. The law, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, may not be able to make a man love me, but it can stop him from killing me. But when it is the law that is killing you, we have come very far from King's hopeful promise.
I understand that many white men -- and women and people of color as well -- who have been left out of this economy, who can't make ends meet, who feel that the American dream is not working for them, are very angry about this, and justifiably so. But I cannot countenance the misdirection of their anger, and the ugly bigotry that has been stoked by opportunistic politicians like Donald Trump. Their anger should be focused on the greedy and lawless and their enablers in politics, not on those who, like themselves, are casualties of a political and economic system that operates for the benefit of a privileged few, not for all of us.
My grandson will grow up in a country in which most people don't look like him, in which people of color and women will be the overwhelming majority. If work hard to restore the momentum toward a just and inclusive society that filled my younger years with optimism and hope about the future, this new majority will take its rightful place in the leadership of our key institutions, from boardrooms to capitols. There will be room for him, too, if we turn this country's priorities around. But he will make his way without benefit of the rigged rules that men of my generation grew up with, where women and minorities were largely excluded from the game. When everyone is included, everyone benefits. That's why I'm channeling my anger into pushing for policies and the candidates who will back them, that make our democracy and our economy work for all people.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Sad that your aspirations are in the hands of voters who can't see beyond the fantasy Apprentice.
* Trump is a griotesque image of white rich male backlash. If not for his money and privilege he would be laughed out of town.
* ... Thank you so much for taking the tme to write this. You have expressed my frustration exactly. I want to live in a country where the laws and services work for everybody equally, no matter their color, gender, religion, age or sexual orientation. Trump's supporters don't seem to have the critical thinking it takes to realize the terrible, long term implications of a Trump preseidency. They keep saying "He speaks his mind." But what they really mean is that he is speaking THEIR minds, their fears and their misplaced anger and not realizing that he's using it to his advantage and for his own personal gain. He doesn't really care one iota about them. In fact, he's probably riding around in his limousine laughing at them and calling them losers, because they don't have what he has. This is a game to a narcissist and sociopath like Trump, but the direction our country is taking is something serious for the rest of us and in some cases it could mean life or death.
* Ever wonder why a billionaire is trying so hard to get a 400,000 dollar a year job? Ego is a large part of it, but I think having control of regulations for business and the environment is probably his main goal. The damage he could do is frightning.
* If Trump diden't see a way to profit from it he would not bother running for president rember the only two things he believes in are himself and money
* "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." ~ LYNDON B. JOHNSON, 1960. Meet the P.T. Barnums of our day who've suckered the misguided and ignorant angry whities into their grasp; the far right coalition of mostly Republican politicians but also some Democrats as well..
...................................................................................................................................................................
I'm an Angry Old White Guy. Here's Why.
By Gara LaMarche, January 29, 2016
I keep reading that people like me -- older white guys -- are angry about what is happening to their country. In recent years, their grievances have been voiced by Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Then they found an outlet in the Tea Party. Now they are filling the seats at Donald Trump rallies and perhaps propelling him toward what seemed unthinkable, the Republican presidential nomination.
Trump explained his own anger this way in the last Republican debate he took part in:
I'm very angry because our country is being run horribly and I will gladly accept the mantle of anger. Our military is a disaster. Our health care is a horror show. Obamacare, we're going to repeal it and replace it. We have no borders. Our vets are being treated horribly. Illegal immigration is beyond belief. Our country is being run by incompetent people.Hey, Donald! I'm angry, too. But the sources of my anger are quite different than yours. Let me explain.
I was born in 1954, just a few months after the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, dealt the biggest blow to white supremacy since the beginning of the republic, when a bunch of property-owning white men -- to whom the franchise was restricted at the time -- drafted a constitution in which Black slaves were considered three-fifths of a human being.
When I was in grade school, Betty Friedan wrote The Feminist Manifesto, and the pill liberated women to begin the long and still-incomplete march to full participation in the workplace and in political life. A vibrant and courageous civil rights movement brought about the landmark civil rights acts of the mid-1960s, which also saw the establishment of Medicare and the end of racist immigration quotas.
When I was in high school, the Environmental Protection Agency was established, and the Stonewall uprising marked the dawn of the modern gay rights movement whose arc, yet unfinished, led to last year's glorious Supreme Court decision making marriage equality the law of the land.
When I was in college, the Roe v. Wade decision ended back-alley abortions and affirmed the right of women to control their own bodies and therefore their full personhood.
I'm angry not because all these things happened. I'm angry because they are in jeopardy from the likes of Donald Trump and his fellow Republican presidential candidates. They rail about "political correctness" to justify bigotry and cruelty, when in fact the most vigorous enforcer of political correctness is the far right "base" of the Republican Party and its amen corner in the media. Thanks to them, no candidate may dare buck the NRA's absolutist -- and murderous -- stance against any sensible gun regulation. No candidate may acknowledge the reality of climate change and what is needed to save the planet, or the humanity of immigrants and refugees who deserve a medal for enduring untold hardships to make it to this country -- where they are a vital part of its economy and its very fabric -- not the scorn and abuse that has been heaped upon them.
I'm angry because I'm sick and tired of the lies we have been told. That raiding the Treasury for huge tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to working people, when in fact the gulf between the superrich and everyone else has grown to unsustainable dimensions which threaten the very social compact. That waging a war of choice in Iraq would usher in a democratic resurgence and make us safe, when it has left the Middle East in lethal turmoil, cost the lives of many thousands of young soldiers, maimed many multiples more, and sapped the country's capacity to attend to the urgent needs here at home, like roads and bridges and schools. When my grandson's pre-K teacher tells us that she has to spend hundreds of dollars from her own pocket for school supplies, it makes my blood boil.
I'm angry because the first African American president, elected to do something about the wretched mess he inherited, with a financial system on the brink of collapse and a soaring unemployment rate -- and who has done something about it -- has been opposed and vilified at every turn, from a right-wing which questions his very legitimacy (down to the facts of his biography) and whose most passionate cause is to strip away health security from millions who now have it, thanks to this President, for the first time in their lives.
I'm angry because Black Lives Matter is so necessary, given the epidemic of police murders of Black and Brown people trying to go about their lives. The law, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, may not be able to make a man love me, but it can stop him from killing me. But when it is the law that is killing you, we have come very far from King's hopeful promise.
I understand that many white men -- and women and people of color as well -- who have been left out of this economy, who can't make ends meet, who feel that the American dream is not working for them, are very angry about this, and justifiably so. But I cannot countenance the misdirection of their anger, and the ugly bigotry that has been stoked by opportunistic politicians like Donald Trump. Their anger should be focused on the greedy and lawless and their enablers in politics, not on those who, like themselves, are casualties of a political and economic system that operates for the benefit of a privileged few, not for all of us.
My grandson will grow up in a country in which most people don't look like him, in which people of color and women will be the overwhelming majority. If work hard to restore the momentum toward a just and inclusive society that filled my younger years with optimism and hope about the future, this new majority will take its rightful place in the leadership of our key institutions, from boardrooms to capitols. There will be room for him, too, if we turn this country's priorities around. But he will make his way without benefit of the rigged rules that men of my generation grew up with, where women and minorities were largely excluded from the game. When everyone is included, everyone benefits. That's why I'm channeling my anger into pushing for policies and the candidates who will back them, that make our democracy and our economy work for all people.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)