To Participate on Thurstonblog

email yyyyyyyyyy58@gmail.com, provide profile information and we'll email your electronic membership


Monday, February 29, 2016

"Some senators are looking back wistfully at last decade’s rank-and-file uprising." Unfortunately, there never will be any "wistfulness" from the GOP.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
read my lips ...NO Democrat ever announced that ANY person the President nominated would be refused - without committee hearing or a vote on the Senate Floor. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/13/1484831/-S   Sen. Mitch McConnell, in 2005, defending the absolute right of a sitting president to nominate judges.  "The Constitution of the United States is at stake.  Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.  The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.”  "[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote  THE GD REPUBLICANS ARE IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION - FOR THE NEXT 10 MONTHS.
*  you are falling into common error ...  The Democrats NEVER refused to hold hearings ... never decided ahead of time that NO candidate the President nominated would even be considered in Committee. McConnell believes that this President only has 3/5ths of 2nd term .... ignoring that - like it or not - the PEOPLE elected President Obama - and he has almost a whole year left.
*  The point being ... the nominee got a committee hearing and the nomination was brought to the floor for a vote.  The Current Crop of Republicans is refusing to follow the Constitution.  What are they going to do when Mrs. Clinton wins? Obstruct Forever?
*  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/13/1484831/-S  Sen. Mitch McConnell, in 2005, defending the absolute right of a sitting president to nominate judges.  "The Constitution of the United States is at stake.  Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.  The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.”   "[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote.  little hypocritical liar ....
*  Jim DeMint's (R) comment made it really clear --- and the games continue … ”Our goal is a complete gridlock. There is no place for bi-partisanship, compromise, only acceptable outcome is total victory and any politician that disagrees will be treated as a traitor. This is war”   war on America & American People .... and their Constitution.
*  Not if they want to do their constitutionally assigned duty. I do not recall our Founders ever intending to create a dictatorship by the Senate majority leadership.
...................................................................................................................................................................
No bipartisan ‘gang’ to save the Senate this time on Supreme Court nomination fight
By Paul Kane, February 29, 2016

Almost 11 years ago, the Supreme Court faced the same kind of ideological hinge point that it confronts today.

In June 2005, Sandra Day O’Connor, after nearly 25 years as the key swing vote on many social issues, announced she was retiring, setting up a potentially brutal confirmation battle for her successor. Two months later, Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, creating what could’ve been an even more dire situation.

Instead, the next six months saw tough-but-fair hearings and two confirmations in relatively short order. The court never really lost its full allotment of nine justices. That’s largely because, a few months earlier, a bipartisan group of 14 rank-and-file senators seized control of the judicial wars from party leaders, steering the Senate away from constant brinkmanship on the federal courts.

No such rump caucus exists today, as the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has left the two parties in a daggers-drawn posture over replacing the staunch conservative with a liberal or even a moderate justice.

Some senators are looking back wistfully at last decade’s rank-and-file uprising.

“That suggests a roadmap, doesn’t it?” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a relative newcomer who is exasperated by the current ideological stalemate over replacing Scalia.

One of the most junior members of the Judiciary Committee, Coons is searching for like-minded senators who don’t have decades of scar tissue from previous judicial showdowns in a bid to try to replicate the work of the “Gang of 14” in 2005.

“People who haven’t spent 30 years fighting with each other and can recite chapter and verse every previous offense, every previous assault,” he said of his targets.

But the odds are stacked heavily against him because the current Senate bears almost no resemblance to the one in 2005.

Of the 14 senators who joined that rebellion then, just three remain in office: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). The rest have either died, retired or lost reelection. And for the remaining “gang” members, the goodwill is mostly gone.

“I think the environment is too poisoned, the atmosphere is too poisoned, on all sides,” McCain said.

McCain said that he would only meet President Obama’s eventual Supreme Court nominee as a polite courtesy and that he was otherwise staunchly behind Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) call to leave Scalia’s seat vacant until the presidential race is decided.

“It would be pointless,” McCain said of meeting the nominee.

Graham has a similar view. “This is not the time to replace a Supreme Court justice, in an election year. It’s not consistent with the way the Senate has operated,” he said.

Former senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is dismayed by the current state of affairs. No one has reached out to him to ask how he led the 2005 effort to pull the Senate out of its constitutional showdown over federal judges.

Back then, as Democrats mounted an unprecedented filibuster blockade of George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees, Republicans pushed for changing the rules to allow for confirmation on a simple majority vote. They wanted to deploy the “nuclear option,” as then-Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) dubbed it, because they were going to change the rules on a party-line vote instead of the normal super-majority vote required to alter the rules.

Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), then the majority leader, and Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had fully dug in for the fight; the atmosphere was toxic and nothing was getting anything accomplished.

Several senators began musing about a compromise, and one day the late Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), the longest-serving senator in history, grabbed Nelson by the lapels.

“Governor, you’ve gotta do what you talked about,” Byrd told the former Nebraska governor.

“Well, senator, I’m new here. I don’t know how you put something like that together,” Nelson recalled telling Byrd.

He went to work with Lott, McCain and others that spring. The group knew from the outset that Rehnquist, then 80, was ill while O’Connor was 75 and Justice John Paul Stevens was 85.

“We need to do this, because we’ll end up with a constitutional crisis. Not just with the appellate court here, but maybe the Supreme Court,” Nelson said, describing the ethos of the moment.

The Senate was split 55 to 45 in favor of Republicans. So if they got six senators from each party, they would have 51 votes to thwart Frist’s “nuclear” bid but also 61 votes to clear the filibuster on Bush’s appellate court nominees.

They ended up with seven from each side, and they weren’t just centrists trying to make good politics back home. Some had stature that rivaled or exceeded the leaders. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Navy secretary and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, literally locked arms with Byrd, a former majority leader, to walk to McCain’s office for the final negotiations.

Lott, not formally part of the group, was the former majority leader who served as a freelance negotiator. The late Arlen Specter (Pa.), then a Republican chairing Judiciary, never declared how he’d vote, leaving the count at 50 votes against and 49 in favor of the rules change. If Specter said yes, Richard B. Cheney would have cast a tie-breaking vote as Bush’s vice president to give Frist his rules change.

Instead, Specter joined Lott in advising the 14 senators and helped seal the deal. Six of Bush’s nominees were quickly confirmed, two others withdrew, and the “gang” agreed that only “extraordinary circumstances” would prompt a filibuster.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito faced tough hearings, but each was confirmed relatively easily. The Senate went another six years before the minority party successfully blocked a judicial nominee through a filibuster.

“I just think there was more of an environment of working together to achieve results which both sides aimed for,” McCain said of the 2005 era.

Now, the Senate has few big personalities. McConnell and Reid hold more power over what happens on the Senate floor than any set of leaders in a generation. After Republicans fillibustered some Obama nominees, Reid flipped his opposition to the “nuclear option” and in 2013 changed the rules on a party-line vote that allowed for simple majorities to confirm everyone except Supreme Court justices.

Of the 14 “gang” members, eight have been replaced by senators who are clearly more partisan. For example, Lincoln Chafee, then a moderate Republican, lost in 2006 to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), one of the most outspoken liberals. Mark Pryor, a moderate Democrat, lost in 2014 to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a staunch conservative.

“Perhaps it reflects the change in times, or the shrinking of the center,” Collins said.

Coons recalls his first Judiciary Committee meeting in which the top senators traded charges dating back several decades. He’s one of 45 senators who have never been involved in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, all with less than six years in office.

Those are his targets for what, he hopes, will be a bid to reprise what Nelson’s “gang” did.

“It was senators generally motivated by a concern about the health and functioning of the institution,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"The idea that Trump had to be tricked into his comments about Duke and white nationalists is belied by his conduct throughout the campaign."

...................................................................................................................................................................
After Juan Williams Criticizes Trump’s KKK Comments, Fox Hosts Freak Out
By Judd Legum, February 29, 2016

Fox News pundit Juan Williams took issue with Trump’s repeated refusal on Sunday to disavow David Duke, a notorious former KKK member and white supremacist. Trump later “clarified” on Twitter that he does disavow Duke.
Fox News ✔  @FoxNews
.@kimguilfoyle: "I don't think in any way, shape, or form that [@realDonaldTrump's] a racist or a bigot." #TheFive
2:23 PM - 28 Feb 2016
“I don’t think you can excuse this kind of behavior where you just conveniently close your eyes,” Williams, who is African American, said. “In this moment, right before the SEC primary, he finds it convenient not to disavow.”

“It has particular power because so much of the anger that Donald Trump is talking about giving voice to is really anger in sort of a white populist movement,” Williams continued.

Before he even finished speaking, Williams was upbraided by his four white co-hosts.

“He disavowed him on Twitter!” Eric Bolling protested.

“Juan, you are not paying attention to the facts,” Kimberly Guilfoyle said.

The longest lecture came from Melissa Frances, who blamed the media for badgering Trump. “Now he’s been badgered repeatedly on the same front,” she said. “At the beginning of that interview we saw he said ‘I don’t support David Duke. No, no, no.’ And they kept asking him the question until they said something that can kind of be used.”

It’s unclear what interview Frances was referring to because he did not disavow Duke during the CNN interview at issue.

The idea that Trump had to be tricked into his comments about Duke and white nationalists is belied by his conduct throughout the campaign. On more than one occasion, Trump has retweeted “White Genocide” accounts on Twitter. He also retweeted fake, inaccurate and racist murder statistics from a neo-Nazi account.

Trump initially rose to political prominence by suggesting that Obama was born abroad — a claim that tapped into racial resentments and prejudices.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have criticized Trump for his comments about Duke but have still pledged to support him if he wins the nomination.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Christie perhaps fancied himself as Trump’s VP or attorney general. If he did, he was not thinking clearly." I don't think Christie ever thought clearly.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  I think Christie jumped on the Trump wagon because the AG spot was dangled in front of him. Christie's change of heart vis-à-vis Trump just really shows he's a man of jello-like convictions on top of being rude and obnoxious. I agree with Rubin on this (will need to note this in my calendar) - Christie is ruined.
*  Gov. Christie has not been ruined so much as "exposed."
*  I find it hilarious that the Republicans are now in such a panic - as if what's going on is a new phenomenon, originating with Trump. It's been going on since Nixon's Southern Strategy, and Reagan's "Young Buck" and Welfare Queens in Pink Cadillacs, dog whistles and "religious freedom" as an excuse for racism, homophobia, nativism, and misogyny.  Christie hasn't changed; he's still the self-serving, vain, vile politician he always has been. Just now, it can't be denied or smoothed over. Along with the rest of what's happening. 
*  Christie was already a 'Dead Man Walking'. His term as governor is coming to an end, he'll never win another election in New Jersey. He had nothing to lose.  The real contest will be where the unemployed Republican driftwood winds up post election. Fox News can't hire them all. Rubio, Christie, Carson and Fiorina can't all be pundits.
   *  Christie might be. They love a pugilistic personality.
*   No one with a smidgen of self-respect or dignity would hitch his wagon to Trump's star. Christie may have thought he was doing something politically expedient, but he's lost all semblance of intellect and decency in the process. Short sighted and not worth it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Chris Christie is now ruined
By Jennifer Rubin, February 29, 2016

Since New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has endorsed Donald Trump, he has been:
  • Humiliated by video showing Trump ordering him onto the plane and telling him to “go home.”
  • Condemned by his former finance co-chair Meg Whitman. (“The Governor is mistaken if he believes he can now count on my support, and I call on Christie’s donors and supporters to reject the Governor and Donald Trump outright. I believe they will. For some of us, principle and country still matter.”)
  • Excoriated for his disastrous TV interview on Sunday. Phrases like “train wreck,” “off the rails” and “disaster” were used to describe his appearance.
In other words, if it had not been obvious to him before this weekend, his political career is essentially over. He has gone from someone admired for his political talent to the object of derision as an errand boy for someone who espouses fascistic ideas (e.g., punishing the press) and openly displays his bigotry (e.g., retweeting a Mussolini quote). Christie is now signed up with the man who the Anti-Defamation League on Sunday was compelled to call out for pretending initially not to know who David Duke is:
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is providing information on extremists and hate groups to all of the presidential candidates, including Donald Trump, who earlier today in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper indicated he did not know anything about notorious former Klansman and racist hatemonger David Duke. Last week, Duke endorsed Trump’s candidacy for president.

“David Duke is a notorious anti-Semite and racist and his name is synonymous with bigotry,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt
, ADL’s CEO. “Duke is a perennial candidate for elected office and perhaps America’s best known racist and anti-Semite. He is a former Imperial Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. His message is racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American to its very core, and he’s clearly exploiting Mr. Trump’s candidacy to get publicity for himself and his hateful ideas.” . . .

“The last thing we want is for white supremacists to use this campaign to mainstream their bigotry,” Mr. Greenblatt said. “It is imperative for elected leaders and political candidates like Mr. Trump and others in the public eye to disavow haters such as Duke and the other white supremacists who have endorsed his candidacy. By not disavowing their racism and hatred, Trump gives them and their views a degree of legitimacy. Even if it is unintentional on his part, he allows them to feel that they are reaching mainstream America with their message of intolerance.”
Christie perhaps fancied himself as Trump’s VP or attorney general. If he did, he was not thinking clearly. To begin with, it is less and less likely with each passing day that Trump will ever become president. Moreover, Christie himself has so soiled his reputation that it is doubtful he would ever be confirmed for a Cabinet post. And with his awful Sunday interview, Trump will undoubtedly look for a different running mate if it gets to that.

Trump has rendered Christie an isolated, pathetic object of scorn. Other Republicans should take note.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"A huge group that skews under 40, white and non-immigrant, the Nones want politicians to tone it down ... because they are fed up with religious institutions they see as corrupt and discriminatory."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  This article resonates with me and with millions of others. Hillary is no paragon of virtue, and though I do "feel" the Bern, I'm uneasy with such a dramatic departure from market economics. Au contraire, the evangelical right, as represented by Cruz, Rubio, and Trump, are engaged in grade school, playground bullying, carrying on about the significance of hair, ear, and hand sizes, and I am puking,as I write. Now trump is courting the KKK, and the right is ripe with righteous indignation...Mike Huckabee, grinning like a hyena, is Trumps inappropriate mouthpiece. Enough!
*  Not a single day passes without some "believer" doing/saying something that provides absolute proof that all believers are complete idiots.
*  I'm one None who will vote---against every Republican candidate or rip-off religious hypocrite possible.
*  So I'm a none, good to know! I was republican but there is no room in their tent for me anymore. I switched to democrat last year. I'm not religious at all, there is separation of church and state for a reason. Nones for everyone!
*  Organized Religion has become the hallmark for intolerance, hatred and violence. No wonder more and more people are abandoning their Church. All organized religions and churches should be shut down, the country and the people would be much better off.
*   I suppose "Nones" is a less socially stigmatized way of saying agnostic, and agnostic is a less politically-charged way of saying atheist.  It's just semantics.
    *  So Faithful is just less politically charged way of saying zealot, religious extremist. It's just semantics.
        *  I'd say faithful is a kinder way of saying dupe, and religious extremist is a more accurate way of saying Evangelical Christian.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Meet the ‘Nones,’ the Democratic Party’s biggest faith constituency
By Michelle Boorstein, February 29, 2016

Joe Stone is part of an enormous but invisible voting constituency.

A “troubled atheist,” the retired Virginia accountant calls himself spiritual, celebrates Christmas and defines religious as the need to “do good.” He says organized religion — Christianity as well as Islam — has “gone off the deep end” and political candidates who emphasize the rightness of a certain faith turn him off. At the same time, Stone calls himself “religiously open-minded.”

When Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders told a New Hampshire town hall last month that religion is a way of saying all people are connected, Stone agreed. “He is speaking directly to me,” he said.

Stone is part of a massive group of Americans who reject any label or affiliation to describe their faith. At 23 percent of the U.S. population, this left-leaning group called “Nones” are the Democratic parallel to the GOP’s white evangelicals — except without organization, PACs, leadership and a clear agenda. They do, however, have one big expectation of political candidates: Be ethical, and go light on the God talk.

The Nones’ impact will be tested on Super Tuesday, when multiple states with large unaffiliated populations hold contests: Virginia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Colorado. So far, Sanders has a large edge among Nones.



A huge group that skews under 40, white and non-immigrant, the Nones want politicians to tone it down not because they’ve made some final determination about God — the vast majority are believers — but because they are fed up with religious institutions they see as corrupt and discriminatory. And in the process, they are rewriting the country’s political discourse on morality.

Experts say the country is just beginning to feel Nones’ political power, in good part because their turnout has been low at about 12 percent — unsurprising for a disproportionately young group. But that is likely to change, with early research suggesting they are not inclined to become more religious as they grow older.

Political scientist David Campbell, who focuses on religion, compared the Nones of today to evangelicals of the 1970s — who grew in number and slowly became a massive, organized political force.

“You might say we are awaiting the emergence of a secular Jerry Falwell,” said Campbell, who chairs the political science department at the University of Notre Dame.

With their socially liberal viewpoints, Nones will pull the Democrats to the left — which is already happening with Sanders, said Mark Rozell, dean of the government and policy school at George Mason University and author of multiple books on religion and politics.

“It will make a profound change in American politics in the long run. Put up a candidate who challenges people’s right to love who they want and make decisions about their own lifestyles, and see what happens among the unaffiliated. A lot of other issues go to the back burner,” Rozell said.

If Sanders or Democratic rival Hillary Clinton start talking too much about religion as the race veers South, among Nones that would be “dangerous,” he said.

‘We need a revolution’

Nones talk about tolerance, fairness, choice and “making the world a better place.” In interviews some describe their worldview as being more authentically holy than people who cite Scripture and denominational labels.

“My girlfriend said, ‘Greta, you’re the best Christian I know that doesn’t go to church,’ ” said Greta Clark, 81, of Youngstown, Ohio, an agnostic who says her religion is “do no wrong.” Stone says he has an answer for Christians who are skeptical of Sanders’s bio: “Wait a minute, Jesus was a Jewish socialist.”

In addition to their skepticism about religious institutions, Nones share anger at secular institutions they feel are immoral, interviews show. Their political priorities include reducing big money’s influence on politics, raising wages and making college affordable. They do not trust government to police personal morality.



“We need a revolution at this point because corruption is so vast,” said Cheryl, a 43-year-old chief financial officer from Atlanta. She spoke on condition that her last name not be used because she said the stigma of being not religious in the South would harm her career and her child. She doesn’t like it when candidates talk about religion, but it bothers her less if it seems like lip service — evidence that they probably won’t apply dogma to public policy. If they’re saying it just to get elected, that’s more okay, she said.

“It doesn’t bother me because I’ve done the same thing, tried to pass,” she said. “I have no idea whether there is a God and I don’t think that’s an answerable question.” Before she got married, however, she put “atheist” in her dating profile instead of “agnostic” only to turn off fundamentalist Christians who might misinterpret her as open to their belief.

Although most evangelicals and Catholics say terrorism is their top voting priority, Nones say theirs is the economy, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in December.

The major check on Nones’ political power is their lack of group awareness.

“This cohort is as large as evangelicals, but very poorly organized, and they don’t have the discipline or political reflex. But you can’t tell me campaigns aren’t thinking about them, especially the Democrats,” said Jacques Berlinerblau, a Georgetown University sociologist who has written several books about the role of religion in politics. Democrats, he said, have to straddle the Nones, most of whom feel candidates are talking too much about their faith and prayer, and the rest of the Democratic faith coalition — which includes progressive Jews, Catholics and Protestants — “who don’t mind it as long as it doesn’t get overwrought.”

A quarter of President Obama’s voters in 2012 were religiously unaffiliated — by far the largest “faith” group in his coalition. Perhaps in consideration of his religiously independent supporters, the president gave the first inaugural nod in his 2008 address to “nonbelievers.”

At the moment Nones are breaking hard for Sanders, a secular Jew who seems ambivalent about how to portray his faith. He has said he is not religious and chose to spend last Rosh Hashanah — a major Jewish holiday — speaking to evangelicals at Liberty University. When he won in New Hampshire last month, becoming the first American Jew to win a presidential primary, Sanders didn’t mention that fact in his victory speech, instead calling himself the “son of a Polish immigrant.” However, last fall when The Washington Post ran an article entitled: “Bernie Sanders: Our first non-religious president?” the Sanders campaign quickly emailed the reporter to point out a September interview about Pope Francis in which the senator referred to a “belief in God . . . that requires me to do all that I can to follow the Golden Rule.”



‘A delicate balance’

Mike McCurry, a communications consultant to candidates and faith groups who served as press secretary to Bill Clinton, said top Democratic advisers to campaigns “just don’t get” the role of faith groups — including the Nones.

“They don’t see it as a political constituency to mobilize,” McCurry said. That said, “it’s a delicate balance. [Nones] want to hear about your values and what gives you a moral stake, but they don’t want an agenda that’s forced down their throat.”

In fact, the Nones are a complex and sometimes contradictory group. They believe in God — but on their own terms. They don’t particularly want to hear about religion, but they aren’t anti-religion.

Clark said she doesn’t believe in confession, doesn’t think she believes in God, considers herself a Christian “in some ways,” thinks candidates shouldn’t mention religion and is disgusted by “houses of worship fancied up with icons and statues, big churches built from poor people’s money.” But she and her husband sent their now-grown sons to Catholic school. To her, the main election issues are things like roads, bridges and clean water. The issue of water contamination “is a disgrace.”

Of Sanders’s statement that religion means “we’re all in this together,” Clark said: “I’ve got to agree with him there. But he has the young people all worked up, they think they’re going to get something for nothing. It don’t work that way.” Of anyone, she said she prefers Sanders, but she is undecided.

Stone sees in Sanders a glimpse of his youth — a time when religion seemed less angry, less divided, when his folks could buy a home in Massachusetts for $8,000, when the system didn’t seem rigged. More recently, he and his wife, Betsy, — both accountants — “retired reluctantly, more or less.” Not that he’s complaining or bitter, and he has lots of positive things to say about religious relatives and pastors he’s known. Stone even regrets a bit not raising his children to be more religious, if only so that when religion and Scripture come up in conversation, they’d be able to more knowledgeably talk — or debate.

Stone sees Sanders as serious about getting money out of politics. He said he trusts Sanders when the senator talks about his spirituality. He even trusts Clinton — a Methodist his age — when he heard her tell an Iowa voter: “I am a person of faith, I am a Christian, I am a Methodist.” But he wishes there was no need for candidates to state their religion.

“I wish we didn’t have to talk about religion in politics. This is not a religious race,” Stone said. He grew up in a big religious family but feels church has become arrogant and intolerant. “We should be a spiritual country, meaning we should endeavor to have a good government in the eyes of whatever God you feel is right, or in the eyes of no God.”

Christianity has become too broken into sects and intolerant, “it’s split up more,” he said.

“Back then Muslims were peaceful happy people and, for whatever reason, they got angry. Religions have gotten wacky,” Stone said. “Morality comes from another place. It’s a chicken or egg thing. The morality came before the stories” of religion.

‘A bunch of little things’

Alexis Echevarria, 20, calls herself a None because “I don’t want to label myself. I believe in a bunch of little things, other religions,” including the Catholicism to which her family holds fast and in which she was raised. But in recent years she has started questioning some church teachings, doesn’t like labels and sees her peer group in Katy, Tex., outside Houston, as split on religion — half her friends are religious and half are not. She values choice, whether that comes to whether to go to church, accept abortion or homosexuality or to even call yourself a believer.

“I’m open to everything and everyone,” Echevarria said, including candidates who talk, or don’t talk, about their faith. She has heard “very very little” about candidates’ religion, except Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talking about religion and immigration, “which is baloney,” she said.

In truth, she said, she has been paying limited attention to the campaign, except that she knows she likes Sanders for her first-ever presidential vote. The senator’s talk about raising the minimum wage and making college more affordable “would be awesome.”

Her feelings about Sanders reminds her of the ones she had about Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee. “Sanders seems like a genuine guy, and so did Romney,” she said.

Asked how she can tell if a candidate is speaking genuinely about their faith, Echevarria’s sunny, non-judgmental vocabulary shifted. “I was told candidates lie,” she said. “I’m guarded with everyone. Open, but guarded.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

Sunday, February 28, 2016

We'll believe you after you remove the makeup!

....................................................................................


Aw, c'mon, Donald, don't expect us to believe that you never heard of the Ku Klux Klan?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Conservatives love making excuses for their leader, Grand Wizard Trump.
*  If he really doesn't know who David Duke is he may be the most uninformed person to ever run for the Presidency.
   *  I'm 33 years old and I don't know who David Duke is, but if your running for Presidenf and your going to let someone endorse you maybe you should find out who they are before you accept their endorsement
*  In 2008 Farakhan endorsed 9bama who came back and said he didn't want it. Not long ago a bunch of sexists endorsed Bernoe, he said he didn't want it. The point is not if you know or don't know who they are, the point is if I were looking at a candidate and that candidate were were endorsed by a known hate group and didn't say he didn't want it.. I would look at him in a negative light. He knows who the #$%$ is and exactly what they stand for! Its not something you have to look into
*  and the man thats not tue brightest star in the sky and has a problem responding to pointed questions is the man people want to be POTUS?!?  Wnt to know how to answer that question?  Trump: David Duke, sorry Im not familiar with him.   Trapper: he is the grand dragon of the #$%$.  Trump: No I do not want nor need his endorsement.  Answer over and this is a non issue
*   "I don't know anything..." "I can't really say...." "I know nothing about..." This, from the man who would be king. I. Don't. Know.
*  ... Trump is both a fool AND a liar. He rejected Duke's support in 2000 when he was contemplating a presidential run with the Reform Party. He's a liar to feign ignorance, and a fool to think he wouldn't be found out.
...................................................................................................................................................................
CNN anchor Jake Tapper asks Donald Trump 3 times if he would condemn David Duke and the KKK
By Colin Campbell, February 28, 2016

CNN anchor Jake Tapper repeatedly asked Donald Trump on Sunday to denounce David Duke's support for his candidacy, but Trump insisted he didn't know anything about the former KKK grand wizard.

"Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don't want his vote and that of other white supremacists in this election?" Tapper asked Trump on "State of the Union."

But Trump, the Republican presidential frontrunner, said he didn't have enough information to answer the question: 
I don't know anything about David Duke, OK? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So I don't know. I mean, I don't know — did he endorse me or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.
BuzzFeed reported last week that Duke, a prominent white nationalist, urged his supporters to back Trump. Duke was quoted saying on his radio show that "voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage."

On his Sunday show, Tapper continued to press Trump on the subject. 

"Even if you don't know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you. Would you just say unequivocally that you condemn them and you don't want their support?" he asked Trump.

But Trump again insisted again he didn't know about Duke:
I have to look at the group. I mean, I don't know what group you're talking about. You wouldn't want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And certainly I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong. 
"The Ku Klux Klan?" Tapper interjected.

Trump continued his answer without addressing the KKK.

"You may have groups in there that are totally fine and it would be very unfair. So give me a list of the groups, and I'll let you know," he told Tapper.

Tapper seemed somewhat perplexed.

"OK, I mean, I'm just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but ..." he said, trailing off and inviting Trump to comment.

"Honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I've ever met him. I'm pretty sure I've didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him," Trump said.

On Friday, Trump briefly said at a press conference that he would disavow Duke's support.

Watch below:
.@realDonaldTrump: "I know nothing about David Duke" https://t.co/6OZtrfIwim #CNNSOTU https://t.co/1M0QYEODMV
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) February 28, 2016
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... what today's GOP has become: Not simply the Party of No, but the Party of We Will Do Everything In Our Power To Delegitimize This President And Anything To Do With Him."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Senate Republicans are being dreadfully honest about their Supreme Court machinations
By Emily L. Hauser, February 26, 2016

Tuesday was a humdinger of a day for the GOP leadership. The morning dawned with seemingly every congressional Republican with access to a microphone announcing their intention to block President Obama's plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay; by noon, the Republicans who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee had also announced that they would refuse a hearing to whoever the president might nominate to the Supreme Court — all in response to plans and persons that were, at the time of said announcements, sight-unseen.

For the likes of me — a two-time Obama voter who's conservative in the sense that she would like to conserve the Constitution — it was a pretty infuriating morning, and one rather gets the impression that I was not alone in my fury.

Yet as maddening as the flurry of "no"s was, it was also, in its own way, useful. If nothing else, Tuesday provided the country with an invigorating reminder as to what today's GOP has become: Not simply the Party of No, but the Party of We Will Do Everything In Our Power To Delegitimize This President And Anything To Do With Him.

It can be reasonably argued that the GOP began its transformation into a reflexively anti-Democratic obstructionist movement during the Clinton Administration, but the election of the country's first African-American president induced a kind of contempt-tinged hysteria that demanded new heights of sabotage, starting at a conclave of Republican bigwigs on the very night of the president's first inauguration.

What began in almost cartoonish cloak-and-dagger fashion — a cabal of GOP grandees agreeing secretly over lavish steak dinners to offer "unyielding opposition to every one of the Obama administration's legislative initiatives," according to author Robert Draper — became open policy in 2010 when now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

In this, of course, the GOP failed. Rather spectacularly. In fact, it's remarkable just how spectacularly the Republicans have failed to deny this president a legacy, given their efforts and the inordinate amount of time it took Obama himself to understand that — no, really — the Republicans were never going to meet him half-way.

These (mostly) men have gathered and plotted time and again for more than seven years , and for all their time in Washington, all their political acumen, all their unrepentant obduracy, they have consistently underestimated Barack Obama and failed in their overall mission — the guy they thought they would run out of town has achieved national health care reform; struck a nuclear deal with Iran; normalized relations with Cuba; taken aggressive action on climate change; ended Don't Ask Don't Tell; mandated a higher federal minimum wage; and prevented George W. Bush's Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. Etc., and so on.

The fight over filling Antonin Scalia's vacancy on the Supreme Court is likely the GOP's last, best hope to throw a spanner in the Obama works — a project made all the more urgent by the demagoguery, bigotry, and populist bedlam that the establishment's scorched-earth methods have unleashed into the election cycle. Having empowered tea partiers and their fellow travelers for their own anti-Obama ends, establishment Republicans who've spent their lives in the hallowed halls of government now face the real possibility of staring down Candidate Trump's supporters with nothing real to show for two solid terms of intransigence. If they're not panicking, they probably should be.

And so in the interim since Tuesday morning, I've moved from rage to a kind of gratitude to the Republican leadership for its latest machinations — there's something bracing in the clarity of their honesty. They are who we thought they were.

Motivated by class interests, a towering sense of entitlement, and a deep fear of the loss of existing power and power structures, today's GOP would rather cripple our nation's highest court for a year or more than provide the sitting president with advice and/or consent on a judicial nominee (not to mention continuing to acquiesce a prison system so fundamentally unconstitutional that it had to be located off American soil).

The Supreme Court battle is still a long way from over, but one can only hope that Democrats meet Republicans' brutal honesty head-on: Create a shadow hearing process for Obama's nominee, to demonstrate how dedicated the GOP is to doing nothing; present the nominee to the American public at every opportunity, to demonstrate how dedicated Democrats are to putting a highly-qualified jurist on the bench; make it crystal clear that the 2016 election is a choice between a party that takes governance seriously, and a party that chose to set the world on fire.

And for the love of God, get out the vote.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Trump "broke from attacking Rubio to threaten the press, promising to weaken free speech protections so that supporters could sue news outlets more easily." I bet he'd try to do it, too!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Boyoboy,  There are going to be a whole lot of bummed out white conservatives in November.
*  Yeah, what DID happen to the six million Trump raised for the vets? Where is it? Did some of his donors renege on their pledge or were there any donors at all? If Trump is so filthy rich he could easily advance the money until it came in from the donors. It should be no problem for Trump to make good on his promise. Where's the money!??
*  The GOP have nurtured this hateful rabble since the Nixon years.  Now they have just the kind of candidate who will spew what they all think on a national stage.  Trouble is the other 70% of us aren't buying it.  By the looks of it, neither is most of the GOP themselves buying it.  So that leaves the Donald to work the art of the deal on his already sold minions, who appear to have not much upstairs to work with, and usually begin their posts with BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  Thankfully, their numbers add up to far less than the majority needed to win this office.  This should mark the end of the party, the end of our national disgrace.  There really have been no great GOP presidents, certainly not in the last 100 years.  Eisenhower was competent; Reagan and Lincoln couldn't be nominated in what has become of their once honorable party.  There is no honor in this bunch anymore.
   *  And we....all of us...allowed this travesty to happen.  Hopefully the Democrats will get off the couch and go vote this November!  Otherwise we are all doomed as it will only get worse.
*  The trouble with conservatives is that they lie, make up stuff or pervert the truth. Obama did NOT give Iran $150 billion. That money belonged to Iran before sanctions froze those assets. There were 6 nations that brokered the Iran Nuke deal. The UN then voted to accept. The frozen assets were released.  Cotton wrote a letter to the President of Iran and the Supreme Leader to NOT trust the US government. The Iranian president asked them to tell him something he did not know. Cotton and the 47 are traitors to the United States of American. Trump is up there with Cotton.
*   So well put.  The GOP has encouraged, emulated, and driven racist and misogynistic behavior.  This is what happens. Trump, Rubio, and Cruz don't deserve to be president of a homeowner's association. A narcissist, neophyte, and theocrat -- with the depth of a puddle.  Dear God -- if there is one -- help every sane person come out and vote in November.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP race becomes the nightmare the party feared
By Benjy Sarlin, February 27, 2016

The Republican Party’s civil war gave way to a surreal and bitter spectacle on Friday. Sen. Marco Rubio labeled Donald Trump a “con artist” who possibly urinates himself. Trump responded with his own bodily fluid-related taunts, authoritarian threats against the press, and finally the biggest endorsement of the cycle.

By the end of the day, the race seemed more chaotic and divided than ever as conservatives lamented that things were falling apart, the center could not hold, and mere anarchy would soon be loosed upon the party. 

The morning began when Rubio, jumping off his confident debate performance, fired up a Dallas rally with a string of schoolyard disses that jarringly resembled Trump’s own insult comic routines.

“He went backstage, he was having a meltdown,” Rubio told a screaming crowd of admirers. “First, he had this little makeup thing applying, like, makeup around his mustache cause he had one of those sweat mustaches. Then, then he asked for a full-length mirror. I don’t know why, because the podium goes up to here but he wanted a full-length mirror. Maybe to make sure his pants weren’t wet.”

He trotted out a new angle depicting his rival as a wussy (Trump would use another word) who threatened protesters with violence despite having “never punched anyone in the face” himself and requesting Secret Service protection before other candidates.

In between jokes about Trump’s bladder and a dramatic reading of his misspelled tweets to the crowd, Rubio made a coherent case that the billionaire made his career “selling people lies so that they come in and buy his product.”  He cited a lawsuit by Trump University graduates who say the founder charged them tens of thousands of dollars for useless seminars at the non-accredited program. He brought up a New York Times expose of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, which turned down hundreds of American job applicants while applying to bring in foreign workers.

Conservative critics of Trump celebrated. It was everything that strategists combating Trump had been begging Rubio and his rivals to do for months: turn Trump into an object of mockery, undercut his populist message, keep him off balance with continuous attacks. They wished Rubio had arrived here sooner, but hopes rose Friday that he and Cruz – who also savaged Trump on the trail – could maybe drag the front-runner down before it was too late.

But the celebration was short-lived once Trump debuted his newest supporter: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Christie, who had mocked Trump while running against him for president, became the first governor to back the billionaire just days after Reps. Chris Collins and Duncan Hunter became the first members of Congress to do so. It was easily the biggest sign yet that the brittle wall of establishment opposition to Trump was crumbling as he neared the nomination.

“America must have a strong leader again that can restore American jobs that can restore American confidence — and Donald Trump is just the man to do it,” Christie said at a rally with Trump in Fort Worth, Texas.

Within hours, Maine Gov. Paul LePage – a kind of proto-Trump who recently railed against drug dealers who might “impregnate a young, white girl” in his state — added his endorsement as well.

Watching the news unfold, one could almost see traditional conservatives moving along the Kubler-Ross scale in real time, landing somewhere between the “denial” and “anger” phases.

Anti-Trump activists, commentators, and strategists set social media ablaze with raw fury at Christie. Establishment operatives like former Bush strategist David Kochel bitterly pelted Christie with fat jokes. Others tried desperately to convince themselves all was well, even suggesting Christie’s endorsement was somehow a sign that Trump’s collapse was even more imminent than before.

They were angry for a reason. Christie was by far the highest-profile mainstream Republican figure yet to back Trump, and raised concerns that others would soon break ranks in hopes of currying favor with the front-runner.

“This Chris Christie endorsement of Trump is real signal to GOP establishment that they had better begin thinking about Trump as the future,” Former House Speaker and once-presidential candidate Newt Gingrich tweeted.
Newt Gingrich ✔  @newtgingrich
This Chris Christie endorsement of Trump is real signal to GOP establishment that they had better begin thinking about Trump as the future
10:20 AM - 26 Feb 2016
As conservatives grappled with that disturbing possibility, Trump let loose with one of his signature screeds against “lowlife” Rubio, with plenty of emphasis on his appearance.

“He’s a nervous wreck because here’s a guy – you had to see him backstage,” Trump said in Fort Worth. “He was putting on makeup with a trowel. I will not say that he was trying to cover up his ears, I will not say that. He was just trying to cover up the sweat that pours – did you ever see a guy sweat like this?”

Trump waved a bottle of water in the air and shouted “It’s Rubio!” before tossing it behind him, a reference to Rubio sipping from a small bottle during his 2013 State of the Union Response.

He broke from attacking Rubio to threaten the press, promising to weaken free speech protections so that supporters could sue news outlets more easily. 

“We’re going to open up those libel laws folks and we’re going to have people sue you like you never got sued before,” Trump said. “We have many things to do. We have many, many things to do.”

At the same time, Cruz tried to avoid being pushed out of the conversation and offered up his own set of accusations against Trump’s ethics.

“Every deal Donald does, whether its Vera Coking with eminent domain, or whether it is using illegal immigrants to build Trump Tower, the people who get hammered are the working man and women,” he said. “He gets rich and everyone else gets left holding the bag. “ 

Cruz repeated his line from the debate that Trump was on “The Apprentice” with former basketball star Dennis Rodman during the 2013 immigration debate. Rodman tweeted at Cruz that Trump would “fire your ass.”

Looming in the background, Politico reported that a group of Republican donors were looking at the feasibility of fielding an independent candidate in the event Trump won the nomination. Billionaire former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is already exploring a run and is expected to decide whether to move forward within weeks.

“If he wins, you will see the real splintering of the party,” Katie Packer Gage, who runs the anti-Trump Our Principles PAC, told NBC News.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Saturday, February 27, 2016

"You don’t need a lot of Capitol Hill experience to know confident senators don’t flee questions about an ongoing controversy. But flee they did."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Maybe McTurtle and Senator HogSlop finally figured out that the votes of the people in 2012 should count as much as or more than those who have not yet voted in 2016.  Nah, probably not.
*  Not a chance. This has been their strategy since day one of plotting to make Obama a one term President.  Their unbridled hatred of Obama is now an all consuming obsession they are willing to commit Treason over. They are sick with hatred for Obama and the American people who twice committed the gravest of all sins, in their warped and twisted minds, elected an "uppity @!$%#" who had the gall to think he could even walk in their rarefied world no less as the most important and powerful man in the world.  What the GOP are doing, and have been doing, is damaging the very fabric of our Nation and is unprecedented. Their obstruction and willingness to use taxpayer money for their political vendettas is criminal.  No one has done anything to punish them so this is now how govt will be conducted. Pettiness and spite shall be the first ingredient before putting the well being of the people and the Country.
*  Haven't we had enough of these Republicans in Congress?  It's long past time to vote them out.
*  Another reason we need term limits and election reform.
*  My thinking is considering how we already know how McConnell will react, a qualified nomination will appear in mid May, use the summer for exposure of the obstructionism, then withdrawal and present another just before the election.
*   If they don't want to do their jobs then stop paying them and their staff.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Senate Republicans capable of embarrassment after all
By Steve Benen, February 26, 2016

As a rule, congressional Republicans are, in a rather literal sense, shameless. They take quite a bit of pride in their issue positions, their partisan tactics, and their far-right ideology. Regardless of criticisms, election results, policy analyses, or any other considerations, GOP lawmakers hold their heads high – confident in their unapologetic righteousness.

At least most of the time, that is.

The Republicans’ decision to impose a Supreme Court blockade against any President Obama nominee, sight unseen, without regard for qualifications, is an obstructionist tactic unlike anything seen in American history. And in an interesting twist, GOP lawmakers don’t seem altogether proud of themselves.

On Tuesday, for example, reporters waited outside the Senate chamber, eager to speak to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) about the unfolding scandal. The New York Times reported that the Iowa Republican, upon leaving the chamber, “raised a binder to cover his face before hurriedly retreating.”

No “Profile in Courage” award for you, Chuck.

Of course, it’s not just the troubled Judiciary Committee chairman feeling uneasy about trying to defend the indefensible. The Huffington Post reported yesterday on the case of bashfulness that’s broken out among the Republican ranks.
As Democrats tried to raise the pressure on their recalcitrant colleagues on Thursday by accusing them of abandoning their responsibility to the Constitution, Republicans on Capitol Hill were ducking and dodging reporters’ questions on what’s shaping up to be one of the biggest battles in Washington.

Several senators ran away from The Huffington Post this week as we tried to ask if they thought a Supreme Court nominee should get a hearing.
You don’t need a lot of Capitol Hill experience to know confident senators don’t flee questions about an ongoing controversy.

But flee they did.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said she had to “go vote,” even though she could have talked as she walked to an elevator down the hall. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) didn’t even let HuffPost get the full question out before saying, “I don’t do hallway interviews.” Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said he had to “run to a meeting” and disappeared into an elevator. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) listened to the question and, with a blank look, said, “I’m not doing any interviews.” […]

Asked about his signature on a letter stating that Obama’s nominee shouldn’t get a hearing or a vote, [Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)] reiterated he did not wish to discuss the subject.
That’s just a sampling. Others were equally reluctant to defend their own party’s tactics.

It’s an unusual posture for the party. Indeed, most of the time, it seems Senate Republicans aren’t capable of embarrassment at all.

But that’s how ridiculous the GOP’s Supreme Court blockade is. We’ve finally seen a partisan tantrum so extreme that congressional Republicans themselves are reluctant to even try to defend it.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"How much does the vagueness of Trump’s proposals matter? ... he doesn’t have any detailed policies. They asked for those details. Again and again. He responded with insults and boasts."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  unlike democrats, neither republican candidates nor voters wish to have serious policy discussions, instead discourse is characterized by insults and character assasination
really bizarre, stupid, and frightening*  When I see these debates I am genuinely fearful for our country.
*  People don't like government because they don't like Congress. The reason they don't like Congress is because it is gridlocked, and doesn't get anything done. The reason it does't get anything done is because Mitch McConnell embarked on a strategy of overt obstructionism. The reason another Democrat will be elected is because of Mitch McConnell. Thanks Mitch!
*  The Trumpster; a silver spoon-fed misogynistic spoiled princeling of a teenager who has never needed to grow up. What a joke.
*  The unfabulous Three screaming that the others did not have a Policy, only rhetoric, would be hilarious were it not so grave and ominous. Three nasty jokers in dapper, designer suits. I cringe when I think about the rest of the world looking into our Country, a Country which is the very bed of Democracy, a Constitution and prides on Exceptionalism. Yes, these Three has made us very exceptional indeed - exceptional as the only circus with rabid, nasty, frightening clowns in the world.
*   GOP pundits wishfully continue to cite policy gaffs that will tumble Trump. There are no gaffs or policy blanks that can tar him; his appeal is fearless belligerent ignorance with a dollop of bravado & magical thinking, bluster, humor and street sneers. Rubio&Cruz lack the charm, gravitas, or even likability to cause much trouble.  I suspect Trump will pick Kasich for VP...he'll want someone with basic governing cred.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Five Big Questions After a G.O.P. Debate That Targeted Trump
By Frank Bruni, February 25, 2016

Were Brakes Just Put on the Trump Juggernaut?

Something profound happened on the stage in Houston on Thursday night. Both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz stopped focusing on each other long enough to turn toward the person who is actually beating both of them and at this point favored to win the Republican nomination: Donald Trump.

Cruz dismissed Trump as someone who’d discovered certain concerns — who’d discovered conservatism, really — only when he became a candidate. Cruz said that while he was working to combat the illegal immigration that so inflames Trump now, “Where was Donald? He was firing Dennis Rodman on ‘Celebrity Apprentice.’”

But Rubio turned in Trump’s direction with particular force. With ferociousness, in fact. He recited a meticulously memorized litany of Trump’s transgressions, especially those that contradict Trump’s words now: the illegal immigrants that Trump reportedly hired for his construction projects, the litigation against a college bearing his name, multiple bankruptcies associated with him.

Referring to Trump’s promised barrier along the Mexican border, Rubio sniped: “If he builds the wall the way he built Trump Towers, he’ll be using illegal immigrant labor to do it.”

He went after the notion that Trump is a good businessman. He went after the idea that Trump is a straight talker. He called Trump a liar — repeatedly.

In other words, he finally hit Trump where Trump lives: image-wise. This had to happen, because one explanation for Trump’s success is how reluctant his adversaries have been to confront him as they quarreled with one another instead.

And this had to hurt Trump, because he was shown in a harsher light than he’d been shown in at any previous debate, and his face reddened in the glare.

But Thursday night may well have been too late, and Trump has been made to mimic a ripe tomato before — with minimal political damage to him.

Besides which, Trump at times pushed back as effectively as possible, brushing off charges of hypocrisy and painting Rubio as a pipsqueak with no knowledge of business, and Cruz as an obnoxious scold despised by his Senate colleagues. Those were the smart colors to apply to them.

Did Rubio Go Too Far?

Almost each of his attacks on Trump made good sense. All were entirely fair. But as they piled up higher than even the most majestic Trump-envisioned border wall could ever reach, he came across as strident, mocking, condescending, bratty.

And it was impossible not to wonder if he was doing precisely what Chris Christie had when he tried to take Rubio down in the debate just before the New Hampshire primary: bloodying his adversary at a cost of seriously wounding himself.

He talked over Trump. Trump talked over him. He talked louder over Trump. Trump talked even louder over him. There was one extended exchange, with each of them accusing the other of being more robotic and programmed, that will live on in highlight reels forevermore.

“Now he’s repeating himself,” Rubio pointed out, referring to Trump.

“I don’t repeat myself,” said Trump.

“You don’t repeat yourself,” Rubio responded — disbelievingly, facetiously.

And so it went. Rubio’s hectoring melody overlapped Trump’s exasperated harmony.

But when music gets that ugly, everyone involved can wind up sounding equally bad. And the flip side of Rubio’s — and Cruz’s — assertiveness was desperation. They were both on the offensive on Thursday night because they were both on the ropes. Some viewers undoubtedly perceived it that way.

What’s more, Rubio undercut his considerable efforts so far to be — and to label himself as — the candidate of optimism, uplift, positivity. He took another risk as well. He incurred Trump’s wrath, and while Trump has savaged Cruz and Jeb Bush during this campaign, he hasn’t vilified Rubio to the same extent.

Tomorrow and the next day and the day after that, he will.

How Much Does the Vagueness of Trump’s Proposals Matter?

It was predictable that Rubio and Cruz would portray Trump as someone whose campaign contributions over time, comments from yesteryear and herky-jerky swerves in the present all call into question how committed and trustworthy a conservative he is.

But they lavished nearly as much energy on revealing Trump as an empty suit — as someone who cannot provide any policy details because he doesn’t have any detailed policies. They asked for those details. Again and again. He responded with insults and boasts.

The moderators pressed him for those details. He responded with boasts and insults. And at one cringe-inducing moment, he batted away a question from Hugh Hewitt by saying: “Very few people listen to your radio show.”

Trump never got around to explaining how his health care plan would keep people from dying in the streets without committing the government to significantly increased spending. He never got around to explaining much of anything.

And in the context of that void — and of Rubio’s imitation of a typical Trump answer — his most shopworn, banal phrases stood out.

“We’re going to win a lot,” Trump said, for the millionth time.

“Believe me,” he said, for the trillionth. Those two evasive words sounded smaller and sillier than ever.

Should Someone Have Organized a Search Party for Ben Carson and John Kasich?

The lack of time given to these two was absolutely criminal.

Granted, Kasich has only a prayer of going on to win the Republican nomination. And Carson doesn’t even have that much.

But they showed up. There were five candidates on that stage, not three. And fair is fair.

Besides which, Kasich, when he did get to speak, was a typically welcome relief from the fractiousness and the “I-loved-Antonin-Scalia-even-more-than-you-did” happening to his side.

In his oratory and proposals, he’s the least divisive of the remaining Republican presidential aspirants. He’s also the closest to the center and, because of that, might be the fiercest adversary for any Democratic nominee.

But he was elbowed out of a debate format and debate rules that gave extra time to anyone who was attacked, meaning more and more words for and from Trump, Rubio and Cruz.

Carson perfectly captured this dynamic by blurting out: “Can somebody attack me please?”

Do Trump, Rubio and Cruz Have a Future as 1960s-Style Girl Group?

I previously mentioned the interweaving voices of Trump and Rubio. Toward the end of the debate, these candidates did a reprise, and Cruz also stormed into the song, so that all three of them spoke at the same time and formed a clangorous chorus.

As that chorus continued and its volume rose, CNN’s camera pulled back far enough to show the men standing there side by side, in almost identical dress. I couldn’t help thinking that they were performing an audition or a concert — that they were some modern, male, unendurable antonym to Diana Ross and the Supremes.

In Houston for one night only, ladies and gentlemen! Donald Trump and the Extremes.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Clinton is the only candidate who has invested anything of herself into the Martin case. The others mostly just spoke platitudes.

...................................................................................................................................................................
Trayvon Martin Was Killed 4 Years Ago. Here’s What Our Next President Said About Him.
By Carimah Townes, February 26, 2016

Four years ago today, Trayvon Martin was shot dead by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. The 17-year-old hadn’t committed any crimes. He was merely walking to his temporary home, Skittles in hand, when Zimmerman attacked him.

Although he wasn’t killed by police, Martin inspired the Black Lives Matter movement because his death — and the smear campaign waged against himwas a prime example of anti-black violence. His name has also come up in the presidential race.

His mother, Sybrina Fulton, just joined black mothers of other police and gun violence victims to support Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, because Clinton was listening to their stories when nobody else would.

“Nobody else listened to us,” she said at a campaign event in South Carolina this week. “She never made the first promise about what she’s going to do when she gets in office. What she did say was that she’ll make every effort to make change, and we believe that.”

Here’s a look at what the other presidential candidates — Democrats and Republicans — have said about Martin and his killer since 2012:

Ted Cruz

During a 2013 Congressional hearing about Stand Your Ground laws, Cruz offered his condolences to Fulton before discussing the merits of the jury system that acquitted Zimmerman. He criticized people for politicizing Martin’s death along racial lines and said Stand Your Ground laws aren’t racist.

“We have seen efforts to undermine the verdict of the jury and, more broadly, to inflame racial tensions that I think are sad and irresponsible. I recognize that for the family, you’re simply mourning the loss of your son, and I understand that. But there are other players who are seeking to do a great deal more, based on what happened that Florida night,” he said.

Donald Trump

In late 2012, Trump expressed sadness about what happened to Martin on Showbiz Tonight.

“It’s terrible, what happened. Seventeen years old, and now there are all sorts of stories that don’t sound right. So something has to be done very quickly, because it really is a horrible situation.”

The next year, during an interview with Fox & Friends, Trump slammed Zimmerman’s character but backed the jury’s decision.

“I didn’t like the fact that Zimmerman was told to stay in his truck, don’t move, and he went out and he certainly moved,” Trump said. “This is not a guy who doesn’t deserve certain blame.”

“I don’t disagree with the verdict,” he clarified, when Fox hosts questioned his stance on the trial. “This has been really a traumatic verdict for the country.”

In 2013, Trump also posted a video on Instagram calling Zimmerman “nothing but trouble” and “no angel.”

Ben Carson

In response to discussions of race surrounding Martin’s shooting and Zimmerman’s acquittal, Carson defended the country’s legal process.

“I understand why there’s a lot of outrage. You have a situation where you have a young black male walking home, not doing anything incorrect, and he ends up killed. And nobody suffers any consequences. On the surface, that would appear to be a gross miscarriage of justice,” he said on Fox News in 2013. “However, one also has to integrate into that the fact that we have a legal system in which we appoint jurors, in which they have access to all of the facts.”

When asked by Chris Wallace if racial profiling is the greatest threat to young black men, Carson responded “I don’t think it is.” He then explained that Martin’s inner city background could have triggered a “fight or flight” mentality that caused him to engage with Zimmerman.

Marco Rubio

During a 2012 press conference, Rubio said Martin’s death was a “tremendous tragedy,” while cautioning against rushing to judgment about the case. Rubio remained silent about the verdict, but has since been a staunch supporter of Florida’s permissive gun laws.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton has been vocal about Martin’s death since the verdict was handed down in Zimmerman’s trial.

“My prayers are with the Martin family and with every family who loves someone who is lost to violence,” she told the (historically black) Delta Sigma Theta Sorority at its annual conference in 2013. “No mother, no father should ever have to fear for their child walking down a street in the United States of America.”

She also invoked Martin’s name during her criminal justice speech at Columbia University last April.

“We should begin by heeding the pleas of Freddie Gray’s family for peace and unity, echoing the families of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and others in the past years,” she said, calling for systemic reform. Clinton met with Fulton and the mothers of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Jordan Davis last November.

Bernie Sanders

While Sanders has been an outspoken advocate for criminal justice and spoken out against police violence, he’s said little about Martin specifically. In what could be a reference to the Skittles Martin was holding, his racial justice platform says, “Today in America, if you are black, you can be killed for getting a pack of Skittles during a basketball game.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

Friday, February 26, 2016

We can only hope that you self-destruct.

..................................................................................


"The only thing they proved is that none of them are remotely qualified to lead a country." -- Commentator.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  ... Donald Trump is the political monster created from spare parts of Fox News, the GOP and the GOP base. It's escaped and no one knows how to restrain it.  It will be a dark day for America if it ever becomes president.
*  ... The debate lacked presidential quality. Two desperate contenders involved in a screaming match like childre on a playground. Rubio with his pre-rehearsed one liners and well place chorus in the audience the other a lying non-stop. The democrats are the only ones who have serious presidential debates that acutally inform the voting public.
*  Trump lies and acts like a bully, too. All the GOP candidates are liars. None of them are presidential. None of them are worthy to hold the office of POTUS.
*  What does trump say he's going to do? He just says what and who he hates and throws out buzzlines like "let's make america great again." I've never heard him say any tangible policy that he plans on implementing, other than building an impractical wall that apparently will solve all our problems
*  Wolf Blitzer did not help CNN's cause last night. He looked and acted like a substitute teacher in a raucas classroom.
    *  A classroom full of hateful, spiteful, xenophobic, fear-mongering adults who behave like spoiled, petulant children.
*  2016 GOP autopsy report: Death by self-inflicted wounds.
*  Not one of them were discussing the country and its needs, it was all fighting and name calling. The only thing they proved is that none of them are remotely qualified to lead a country. Though they might do well on a playground. If the mothers aren't there to chastize them for bullying each other.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Who Won the Republican Debate? Democrats.
By Brian Hanley, February 26, 2016

Thursday night's Republican debate reached circus levels of absurdity. Wolf Blitzer lost control. Donald Trump took over. Marco Rubio dripped in sweat. Ted Cruz looked lost at home. Ben Carson seldom spoke but produced the wittiest zinger of the night. "Can someone attack me please," he begged, in an effort to be noticed amidst the massacre.



Winners

1. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

Tonight's debate was an intra-party feud. While the Democrats all came up, there wasn't much time spent critiquing them. Instead, Rubio took on Trump and Trump made fun of him then Cruz took on Trump and Trump made fun of him.

2. Donald Trump

If you've read my work, you know that I don't say this with any pleasure: Trump was the clear winner of tonight's debate. After dominating in three straight states, the nomination is Trump's to lose and tonight, he remained in control.

3. John Kasich

Kasich stood up to the immigration Nazis, contending that it's unrealistic to deport millions of people who call this country home. It's neither practical nor American. In doing so, Kasich stood out as a decent alternative to his less positive counterparts. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Trump looked to him for the VP spot.

4. Ben Carson

Ben Carson had easily the funniest moment of the night when he begged to be attacked. It was a brilliant response to a debate that fed nearly every question to the frontrunner.

Losers

1. Wolf Blitzer

Wolf Blitzer looked like a small dog walker walking a large Great Dane, but to make matters worse, that Great Dane was involved in all-out warfare with a Rottweiler from Texas and Pit bull from Florida.

2. Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz had home-field advantage tonight, but failed to slay the Donald in Texas, where Trump is currently giving Cruz a run for his money. The two no doubt exchanged blows tonight, but Trump made contact more cleanly and more frequently.

3. Marco Rubio

Trump belittled Rubio for most of the night. He called Rubio a "choke artist," asserting that the Senator melted under Chris Christie's prosecution. However, Rubio had his moments. He swung back, insisting that Trump would hire illegal immigrants to build the infamous wall. The crowd went wild when Rubio stood up to Trump.

In sum, Rubio needed a bigger night than he had. There aren't many, if any states, that Rubio is projected to win, Florida included. He didn't have the breakout performance he needed to defeat Trump, and neither did the local, Ted Cruz.
...................................................................................................................................................................