Thursday, June 30, 2016
Of course they do.... NOT.
.................................................................................
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Isn't that just great? CNN has gone over to the dark side.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Why would CNN hire a "commentator" that has a non disclosure agreement with Trump, and whom Trump will sue for breach of contract if he ever says anything that offends the Donald? CNN is nothing but show business.
* There are those who suspect that Lewandowski's "firing" was/is a sham and another con by Trumpolini. The bet was on some media outlet hiring "Lew" who would then shamelessly campaign and cheerlead for his "ex"-boss.
* CNN is paying a guy to give Trump free publicity. That's stupid to the 6th power.
* This another example of why you can't make someone into something they are not. First example this year is trying to make a businessman into a credible President. This example is what happens when you try and make a "whatever he was" into "whatever you want him to be"
* True. I'm surprised he didn't end up on Fox. That's usually where all the liars end up.
* I'm boycotting CNN until he's gone.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Corey Lewandowski’s Debut On CNN Is Going Just Awfully
Corey Lewandowski’s first week on CNN isn’t going so great amid criticism that Donald Trump‘s former campaign manager is just promoting the candidate and never should have been offered a job at the network.
Lewandowski, who is paid to ostensibly give insightful analysis for the network, simply repeated talking points for the Trump campaign after the business mogul spoke on the economy Tuesday, saying over and over that it was his best speech yet. Lewandowski, who was fired June 20, signed a nondisclosure agreement with Trump that would prevent him from revealing information about the presumptive GOP nominee’s presidential campaign. A nondisclosure agreement provided to the AP by a former Trump employee to the campaign contains language that prevents the employee from disparaging Trump and his family.
Journalists watching the appearance immediately criticized Lewandowski.
“Even in the highly competitive, ratings-mad, hardball-playing world of cable television, there should be a bridge too far. In hiring Donald Trump’s fired campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, CNN ran blithely across that bridge and plunged into a sea of muck,” Sullivan wrote. “Bringing Lewandowski onboard is an astonishing reward for behavior that should cause him to be shunned by respectable journalistic organizations.”
Even employees at CNN are reportedly uncomfortable with Lewandowski’s hiring.
Despite his history with reporters, Lewandowski insisted he had a great relationship with the press during an interview on CNN Monday.
“I have great relationships in the media. Those individuals who are embeds get to know me the best. The individuals who I spoke to on a regular basis, the individuals who are on your set here today.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Why would CNN hire a "commentator" that has a non disclosure agreement with Trump, and whom Trump will sue for breach of contract if he ever says anything that offends the Donald? CNN is nothing but show business.
* There are those who suspect that Lewandowski's "firing" was/is a sham and another con by Trumpolini. The bet was on some media outlet hiring "Lew" who would then shamelessly campaign and cheerlead for his "ex"-boss.
* CNN is paying a guy to give Trump free publicity. That's stupid to the 6th power.
* This another example of why you can't make someone into something they are not. First example this year is trying to make a businessman into a credible President. This example is what happens when you try and make a "whatever he was" into "whatever you want him to be"
* True. I'm surprised he didn't end up on Fox. That's usually where all the liars end up.
* I'm boycotting CNN until he's gone.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Corey Lewandowski’s Debut On CNN Is Going Just Awfully
It seems he’s more interested in giving out Trump campaign talking points.
By Sam Levine, June 29, 2016Corey Lewandowski’s first week on CNN isn’t going so great amid criticism that Donald Trump‘s former campaign manager is just promoting the candidate and never should have been offered a job at the network.
Lewandowski, who is paid to ostensibly give insightful analysis for the network, simply repeated talking points for the Trump campaign after the business mogul spoke on the economy Tuesday, saying over and over that it was his best speech yet. Lewandowski, who was fired June 20, signed a nondisclosure agreement with Trump that would prevent him from revealing information about the presumptive GOP nominee’s presidential campaign. A nondisclosure agreement provided to the AP by a former Trump employee to the campaign contains language that prevents the employee from disparaging Trump and his family.
Journalists watching the appearance immediately criticized Lewandowski.
David Frum ✔ @davidfrumWashington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan also harshly criticized the network for hiring Lewandowski after he blacklisted several news organizations and physically attacked a reporter while serving on Trump’s campaign.
CNN is doing a service by putting Corey Lewandowski on the air, thus providing an advance glimpse of the standards of a Trump administration
4:33 AM - 29 Jun 2016
Rosie Gray ✔ @RosieGray
if this is the level of analysis Lewandowski is going to offer, what's in it for CNN? may as well have actual campaign spoxes come on
12:07 PM - 28 Jun 2016
“Even in the highly competitive, ratings-mad, hardball-playing world of cable television, there should be a bridge too far. In hiring Donald Trump’s fired campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, CNN ran blithely across that bridge and plunged into a sea of muck,” Sullivan wrote. “Bringing Lewandowski onboard is an astonishing reward for behavior that should cause him to be shunned by respectable journalistic organizations.”
Even employees at CNN are reportedly uncomfortable with Lewandowski’s hiring.
Despite his history with reporters, Lewandowski insisted he had a great relationship with the press during an interview on CNN Monday.
“I have great relationships in the media. Those individuals who are embeds get to know me the best. The individuals who I spoke to on a regular basis, the individuals who are on your set here today.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The Judiciary may be an independent branch of government, but it should not be beyond the law."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Will SCOTUS Apply Its Ruling On Political Corruption To Itself?
By Jamie Court, June 29, 2016
It takes hubris befitting a king for the US Supreme Court to rule, on the eve of celebrating the Declaration of Independence, our founding screed against political corruption, that a jury cannot convict a governor for taking $177,000 in loans and favors from a donor he used his political office to help.
Forget that trial by jury was one of the grievances enumerated against King George, or that quid-pro-quo corruption by the King and his men was at the heart of America’s founding. The fact is that the standard SCOTUS put in place in McDonnell v. the United States, by overturning the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, for taking six-figure gifts and loans from a tobacco supplement maker he used his office to help, cannot be applied to itself.
SCOTUS ruled that pay for access and to get the means of “constituent services” is a reasonable function of government and that political corruption can only be prosecuted for focused and concrete misconduct that goes beyond buying influence. Yet the Supreme Court has exempted itself from specific and concrete conflict of interest laws that apply to all other federal judges and recently has a ignored a petition to apply that standard to its members.
“Currently there are no formal guidelines to guide conflict of interest decisions before the Supreme Court,” writes Harry Snyder, the former West Coast director of Consumers Union and a pioneering public interest lawyer, in his petition. “There is no transparency into a judge’s recusal decision, nor are there procedures for addressing complaints concerning bias, prejudice or conflict of interest.”
In other words, whether Supreme Court justices have to withdraw from cases because of specific conflict interest of interests that would preclude them from ruling fairly, due to financial or other considerations, is beyond the law, but left up to each judge’s whim.
Snyder argues that Justice Roberts should adopt the rules that apply to all federal judges for the Court, but has yet to receive a response to his petition filed months ago.
The Declaration harkens: “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”
In light of the ruling in McDonnell v. United States, eroding conflict of interest laws and claiming violations of specific standards are necessary for proving abuse of public trust, shouldn’t the Supreme Court set specific standards for itself?
The Judiciary may be an independent branch of government, but it should not be beyond the law. Members of our highest court should re-read the Declaration of Independence and answer Mr. Snyder’s petition.
The citizens of the United States, like the signers of the Declaration, continue to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to defend government based on the consent of the governed and the obligation of those whose govern, including in the courts, to be free from corruption and bias.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Will SCOTUS Apply Its Ruling On Political Corruption To Itself?
By Jamie Court, June 29, 2016
It takes hubris befitting a king for the US Supreme Court to rule, on the eve of celebrating the Declaration of Independence, our founding screed against political corruption, that a jury cannot convict a governor for taking $177,000 in loans and favors from a donor he used his political office to help.
Forget that trial by jury was one of the grievances enumerated against King George, or that quid-pro-quo corruption by the King and his men was at the heart of America’s founding. The fact is that the standard SCOTUS put in place in McDonnell v. the United States, by overturning the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, for taking six-figure gifts and loans from a tobacco supplement maker he used his office to help, cannot be applied to itself.
SCOTUS ruled that pay for access and to get the means of “constituent services” is a reasonable function of government and that political corruption can only be prosecuted for focused and concrete misconduct that goes beyond buying influence. Yet the Supreme Court has exempted itself from specific and concrete conflict of interest laws that apply to all other federal judges and recently has a ignored a petition to apply that standard to its members.
“Currently there are no formal guidelines to guide conflict of interest decisions before the Supreme Court,” writes Harry Snyder, the former West Coast director of Consumers Union and a pioneering public interest lawyer, in his petition. “There is no transparency into a judge’s recusal decision, nor are there procedures for addressing complaints concerning bias, prejudice or conflict of interest.”
In other words, whether Supreme Court justices have to withdraw from cases because of specific conflict interest of interests that would preclude them from ruling fairly, due to financial or other considerations, is beyond the law, but left up to each judge’s whim.
Snyder argues that Justice Roberts should adopt the rules that apply to all federal judges for the Court, but has yet to receive a response to his petition filed months ago.
The Declaration harkens: “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”
In light of the ruling in McDonnell v. United States, eroding conflict of interest laws and claiming violations of specific standards are necessary for proving abuse of public trust, shouldn’t the Supreme Court set specific standards for itself?
The Judiciary may be an independent branch of government, but it should not be beyond the law. Members of our highest court should re-read the Declaration of Independence and answer Mr. Snyder’s petition.
The citizens of the United States, like the signers of the Declaration, continue to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to defend government based on the consent of the governed and the obligation of those whose govern, including in the courts, to be free from corruption and bias.
...................................................................................................................................................................
" Trump ... threatens to revive a laundry list of historical evils ..." Thank you, Ken Burns.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Watch Ken Burns insult Donald Trump for 7 minutes straight at Stanford’s commencement
By Libby Nelson, June 14, 2016
Documentary historian Ken Burns delivered an urgent message to Stanford’s class of 2016 on Sunday: Forget the banal life advice that commencement speakers usually give. Defeating Donald Trump — whom he called "an insult to our history" — is the most important thing you can do right now.
Burns argued that Trump’s candidacy is an existential threat to American democracy, and that the stakes of the 2016 election are just as high as they were before the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln declared, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
His remarks start at the 1 hour and 12 minute mark, and the remarks about Trump specifically start around 1:23:00:
During his career, Burns said, he’s tried to be politically neutral in public. But "there comes a time when I, and you, can no longer remain neutral and silent," Burns said. "We must speak up and speak out."
And then he did, delivering a seven-minute string of blistering insults to Trump, calling him an "infantile, bullying man," a "spoiled, misbehaving child," a "charlatan," and a "naked emperor." He blasted Trump’s speeches as riddled with "troubling, unfiltered Tourette’s of his tribalism."
Trump, Burns said, threatens to revive a laundry list of historical evils:
...................................................................................................................................................................
Watch Ken Burns insult Donald Trump for 7 minutes straight at Stanford’s commencement
By Libby Nelson, June 14, 2016
Documentary historian Ken Burns delivered an urgent message to Stanford’s class of 2016 on Sunday: Forget the banal life advice that commencement speakers usually give. Defeating Donald Trump — whom he called "an insult to our history" — is the most important thing you can do right now.
Burns argued that Trump’s candidacy is an existential threat to American democracy, and that the stakes of the 2016 election are just as high as they were before the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln declared, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
His remarks start at the 1 hour and 12 minute mark, and the remarks about Trump specifically start around 1:23:00:
During his career, Burns said, he’s tried to be politically neutral in public. But "there comes a time when I, and you, can no longer remain neutral and silent," Burns said. "We must speak up and speak out."
And then he did, delivering a seven-minute string of blistering insults to Trump, calling him an "infantile, bullying man," a "spoiled, misbehaving child," a "charlatan," and a "naked emperor." He blasted Trump’s speeches as riddled with "troubling, unfiltered Tourette’s of his tribalism."
Trump, Burns said, threatens to revive a laundry list of historical evils:
We see nurtured in his campaign an incipient proto-fascism, a nativist anti-immigrant Know Nothing-ism, a disrespect for the judiciary. The prospect of women losing authority over their own bodies, African Americans again asked to go to the back of the line, voter suppression gleefully promoted, jingoistic saber rattling. A total lack of historical awareness. A political paranoia that, predictably, points fingers, always making the other wrong…It’s up to graduates to reverse it, he said, to applause: "Asking this man to assume the highest office in the land would be like asking a newly minted car driver to fly a 747."
We know from our history books that these are the diseases of ancient and now fallen empires.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... both the Bush and Obama administration officials have refrained from using 'Islamic radicalism' and its variants not because of 'political correctness' but because of their nuanced knowledge of the diversity of Islamic ideologies."
...................................................................................................................................................................
I worked in the CIA under Bush. Obama is right to not say "radical Islam."
The recent verbal attacks by the Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump and his supporters on President Barack Obama for avoiding the phrase "radical Islam" in his public pronouncements are simplistic, racially inflammatory — and flatly misinformed.
Settling upon accurate and strategically nuanced terms to describe the post-9/11 enemy is not the product of "political correctness" (contra Trump) or a failure to understand the enemy (contra a much-discussed Atlantic cover story). Nor are objections to using overly broad terms like "Islamic radicalism" limited to Democrats. The Bush administration understood the power of words, too. It concluded that distinctions that may seem small to Christian-American ears make a big difference to the mainstream Muslims we need on our side.
When I directed the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program at the CIA in the early 2000s, I frequently interacted with senior Bush administration policymakers about how to engage Muslim communities and, when doing so, which words and phrases to use to best describe the radical ideology preached by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Always, the aim was to distinguish between radicals and extremists and the vast majority of mainstream Muslims, and to make sure the latter understood that we were not lumping them in with the former.
Like the Obama administration, the Bush administration correctly judged that the term "radical Islam" was divisive and adversarial, and would alienate the very people we wanted to communicate with.
Trump and those who echo his views must realize there is no such thing as one Islamic world or one Islamic ideology — or even one form of radicalism in the Muslim world. Many diverse ideological narratives characterize Muslim-majority and Muslim-minority countries and the 1.6 billion Muslims across the globe. To paint them all with the same broad brush of radicalism and extremism is absurd, dangerous, and politically self-serving.
Trump and those who share his views on this question may truly believe, as they insist when pressed, that "Islamic radicalism" describes only a subset of Muslims. But to Muslims, or for anyone familiar with the many strands of Islam, the phrase connotes a direct link between the mainstream of the Muslim faith and the violent acts of a few. What’s more, Trump appears to be recklessly pandering to the uninformed part of the American electorate that does believe in such a connection between the mainstream and the fringe.
Like the Obama administration, the Bush administration knew words matter
The project of choosing words carefully must begin with knowledge. Al-Qaeda, and more recently ISIS, have mostly drawn on the radical Sunni Wahhabi-Salafi ideology, which primarily emanates from Saudi Arabia. How to describe that narrow ideology to a broader audience was the focus of many conversations and briefings I attended after 9/11.
Many in the West, including some senior policymakers, have had only a scant knowledge of this type of ideology, which has wreaked deadly violence against Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I recall a conversation I had with a senior policymaker in which he asked me to explain "Wahhabism." Since he had very limited time, I told him, "Wahhabists are akin to Southern Baptists." That is: They read the holy text literally and are intolerant of other religious views. Wahhabists, like some Baptists, also abhor reasoning or "ijtihad" that would encourage them to question their religious brand. (Further complicating matters, Saudi Arabian officials, who generally embrace Wahhabi Salafism, describe those who use this ideology to justify their attacks on Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states as "deviants" from the faith.)
The roots of this radicalism go back to the Hanbali School of Jurisprudence, one of the four Schools in Sunni Islam, dating to the ninth century. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, an 18th century Saudi theologian, adopted the teachings of the Hanbali School as the authentic teachings of Islam. This Saudi strain of Islam has been further radicalized by Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other Sunni terrorist groups. The other three, generally more liberal, schools are the Shafi’i, the Maliki, and the Hanafi — also named after their founders in the eighth and ninth centuries. Adherents of these more tolerant schools live across the wider Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia, from Turkey to South Asia.
Any terminology that the commander in chief of the United States settles on ought to reflect that we are speaking of Sunni-based radicalism — a strain that takes a particularly intolerant, exclusive, narrow-minded view of Islam and its relations with other Muslims and the non-Muslim world.
But there are at least two reasons why speaking of Wahhabism, while accurate, won’t fly in most public pronouncements: The word means little to the US domestic audience, and it could alienate Saudi Arabia, a complicated partner (to say the least) in anti-terror efforts. This is the one area in which the charge of "political correctness" carries some weight (although "political realism" may be a more reasonable way of describing the phenomenon).
Beyond ruling out "radical Islam" as overly broad, policymakers and advisors under both the Bush and Obama administrations have been careful not to accept the characterizations that violent extremists give to themselves, which inflate their role within their faith. That is why we don’t call them "jihadists" or, more obviously, "martyrs."
The decision to avoid "radical Islam" is a strategic one
In short, both the Bush and Obama administration officials have refrained from using "Islamic radicalism" and its variants not because of "political correctness" but because of their nuanced knowledge of the diversity of Islamic ideologies. The term doesn’t enhance anyone’s knowledge of the perpetrators of terrorism or of the societies that spawn them, and it might hurt us in the global war of ideas. Policymakers refer to members of al-Qaeda and ISIS as "hijackers" of their faith in order to signal their support for mainstream Islamic leaders in an alliance against minor radical offshoots, not because they are unaware that some members of al-Qaeda and ISIS are theologically "sophisticated" (or "very Islamic," as the Atlantic provocatively put it).
As our interest in Saudi Arabia’s oil wanes, some expect future administrations to take a tougher approach toward Saudi Arabia on the question of radical religious ideology. We may yet begin to hear talk of Wahhabi Salafism from a future White House.
But more likely, the next administration — I expect it will be the Clinton administration — will continue the policy the Bush administration began of referring to terrorists by the names of their organizations: Hezbollah, Ahl al-Bayt, the (Iranian) Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Quds Force, ISIS, and so on.
Using such terms avoids demonizing majorities of Sunni Muslims who just want to follow their faith, devoid of politics or activism. Simple terms like "terrorists," "killers," and "criminals" are also quite effective.
...................................................................................................................................................................
I worked in the CIA under Bush. Obama is right to not say "radical Islam."
Avoiding the phrase isn't "politically correct." It's strategic.
By Emile Nakhleh, June 28, 2016The recent verbal attacks by the Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump and his supporters on President Barack Obama for avoiding the phrase "radical Islam" in his public pronouncements are simplistic, racially inflammatory — and flatly misinformed.
Settling upon accurate and strategically nuanced terms to describe the post-9/11 enemy is not the product of "political correctness" (contra Trump) or a failure to understand the enemy (contra a much-discussed Atlantic cover story). Nor are objections to using overly broad terms like "Islamic radicalism" limited to Democrats. The Bush administration understood the power of words, too. It concluded that distinctions that may seem small to Christian-American ears make a big difference to the mainstream Muslims we need on our side.
When I directed the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program at the CIA in the early 2000s, I frequently interacted with senior Bush administration policymakers about how to engage Muslim communities and, when doing so, which words and phrases to use to best describe the radical ideology preached by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Always, the aim was to distinguish between radicals and extremists and the vast majority of mainstream Muslims, and to make sure the latter understood that we were not lumping them in with the former.
Like the Obama administration, the Bush administration correctly judged that the term "radical Islam" was divisive and adversarial, and would alienate the very people we wanted to communicate with.
Trump and those who echo his views must realize there is no such thing as one Islamic world or one Islamic ideology — or even one form of radicalism in the Muslim world. Many diverse ideological narratives characterize Muslim-majority and Muslim-minority countries and the 1.6 billion Muslims across the globe. To paint them all with the same broad brush of radicalism and extremism is absurd, dangerous, and politically self-serving.
Trump and those who share his views on this question may truly believe, as they insist when pressed, that "Islamic radicalism" describes only a subset of Muslims. But to Muslims, or for anyone familiar with the many strands of Islam, the phrase connotes a direct link between the mainstream of the Muslim faith and the violent acts of a few. What’s more, Trump appears to be recklessly pandering to the uninformed part of the American electorate that does believe in such a connection between the mainstream and the fringe.
Like the Obama administration, the Bush administration knew words matter
The project of choosing words carefully must begin with knowledge. Al-Qaeda, and more recently ISIS, have mostly drawn on the radical Sunni Wahhabi-Salafi ideology, which primarily emanates from Saudi Arabia. How to describe that narrow ideology to a broader audience was the focus of many conversations and briefings I attended after 9/11.
Many in the West, including some senior policymakers, have had only a scant knowledge of this type of ideology, which has wreaked deadly violence against Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I recall a conversation I had with a senior policymaker in which he asked me to explain "Wahhabism." Since he had very limited time, I told him, "Wahhabists are akin to Southern Baptists." That is: They read the holy text literally and are intolerant of other religious views. Wahhabists, like some Baptists, also abhor reasoning or "ijtihad" that would encourage them to question their religious brand. (Further complicating matters, Saudi Arabian officials, who generally embrace Wahhabi Salafism, describe those who use this ideology to justify their attacks on Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states as "deviants" from the faith.)
The roots of this radicalism go back to the Hanbali School of Jurisprudence, one of the four Schools in Sunni Islam, dating to the ninth century. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, an 18th century Saudi theologian, adopted the teachings of the Hanbali School as the authentic teachings of Islam. This Saudi strain of Islam has been further radicalized by Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other Sunni terrorist groups. The other three, generally more liberal, schools are the Shafi’i, the Maliki, and the Hanafi — also named after their founders in the eighth and ninth centuries. Adherents of these more tolerant schools live across the wider Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia, from Turkey to South Asia.
Any terminology that the commander in chief of the United States settles on ought to reflect that we are speaking of Sunni-based radicalism — a strain that takes a particularly intolerant, exclusive, narrow-minded view of Islam and its relations with other Muslims and the non-Muslim world.
But there are at least two reasons why speaking of Wahhabism, while accurate, won’t fly in most public pronouncements: The word means little to the US domestic audience, and it could alienate Saudi Arabia, a complicated partner (to say the least) in anti-terror efforts. This is the one area in which the charge of "political correctness" carries some weight (although "political realism" may be a more reasonable way of describing the phenomenon).
Beyond ruling out "radical Islam" as overly broad, policymakers and advisors under both the Bush and Obama administrations have been careful not to accept the characterizations that violent extremists give to themselves, which inflate their role within their faith. That is why we don’t call them "jihadists" or, more obviously, "martyrs."
The decision to avoid "radical Islam" is a strategic one
In short, both the Bush and Obama administration officials have refrained from using "Islamic radicalism" and its variants not because of "political correctness" but because of their nuanced knowledge of the diversity of Islamic ideologies. The term doesn’t enhance anyone’s knowledge of the perpetrators of terrorism or of the societies that spawn them, and it might hurt us in the global war of ideas. Policymakers refer to members of al-Qaeda and ISIS as "hijackers" of their faith in order to signal their support for mainstream Islamic leaders in an alliance against minor radical offshoots, not because they are unaware that some members of al-Qaeda and ISIS are theologically "sophisticated" (or "very Islamic," as the Atlantic provocatively put it).
As our interest in Saudi Arabia’s oil wanes, some expect future administrations to take a tougher approach toward Saudi Arabia on the question of radical religious ideology. We may yet begin to hear talk of Wahhabi Salafism from a future White House.
But more likely, the next administration — I expect it will be the Clinton administration — will continue the policy the Bush administration began of referring to terrorists by the names of their organizations: Hezbollah, Ahl al-Bayt, the (Iranian) Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Quds Force, ISIS, and so on.
Using such terms avoids demonizing majorities of Sunni Muslims who just want to follow their faith, devoid of politics or activism. Simple terms like "terrorists," "killers," and "criminals" are also quite effective.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obviously, no "there" there.
....................................................................................
Truth will out. (Betcha any Republican women who want an abortion don't have any trouble getting one.)
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Women's health indeed. They couldn't care less about ANYONE"S health. They know damn well that if women cant get a legal abortion, women will resort to coat hangers or drinking bleach. They don't care. This is how they will make America great again.
* NOW they're telling the truth. Imagine that!
* So the Texas Republican Leaders intentionally violated the rights of women...no real surprise. It would be nice if those leaders paid the state back for their illegal efforts. I wonder if those Texas abortion clinics can sue the State of Texas...
* I would absolutely love to see Planned Parenthood and all other abortion providers sue the state. Hey, PP, if you read this post, please contact me - I will donate to PP legal fees for it.
* So much for Robert's disingenuous lie about just calling balls and strikes and respecting stare decisis during his confirmation hearings. The other two con job jackasses, Thomas and Alito, were never real judges. They were politicians with a religious bent.
* The hypocrisy of the conservative Republicans never seems to end. They moan and groan about America turning its back on religious freedom and claim the high ground in protecting it by throwing young women and their personal rights under the bus. Then they use their legal tools to inflict their narrow religious social interpretations onto all the rest of us without regard to our religious views or how they might differ. My vote will always be aimed at disempowering these loveless, heartless, uncompassionate, miserable, fanatical right wing-nuts.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas Governor Admits Anti-Abortion Law Was About Restricting Abortion
After the Supreme Court on Monday struck down his state’s law that would have shuttered dozens of abortion clinics, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) condemned the decision by arguing that it jeopardizes the state’s objective “to protect innocent life.”
“The decision erodes States’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost,” he said in a press release. “Texas’ goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.”
In admitting that the law, HB 2, was meant to limit abortions, Abbott deviated from the state’s initial justification for the law, as presented during the case’s oral arguments. Attorneys for the state noted that the law was implemented in order to “protect women’s health” and improve safety at abortion clinics. When pressed by the justices, they insisted that “abortion is legal and accessible” in Texas.
HB 2 imposes obstacles on abortion clinics by requiring that they invest in expensive building upgrades to meet the more stringent standards of ambulatory surgical centers, or mini-hospitals. It also mandates that abortion doctors obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Since the law’s passage in 2013, the number of abortion providers in the state has plummeted from 42 to 19.
In Monday’s ruling, the Court affirmed that the law presents “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion” and “an undue burden on abortion access.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion eviscerating the state’s argument that the law was passed to protect women’s health.
“[I]t is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions,’” she wrote. “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners ... at great risk to their health and safety.”
Read more on the case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and the Supreme Court’s ruling here.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Women's health indeed. They couldn't care less about ANYONE"S health. They know damn well that if women cant get a legal abortion, women will resort to coat hangers or drinking bleach. They don't care. This is how they will make America great again.
* NOW they're telling the truth. Imagine that!
* So the Texas Republican Leaders intentionally violated the rights of women...no real surprise. It would be nice if those leaders paid the state back for their illegal efforts. I wonder if those Texas abortion clinics can sue the State of Texas...
* I would absolutely love to see Planned Parenthood and all other abortion providers sue the state. Hey, PP, if you read this post, please contact me - I will donate to PP legal fees for it.
* So much for Robert's disingenuous lie about just calling balls and strikes and respecting stare decisis during his confirmation hearings. The other two con job jackasses, Thomas and Alito, were never real judges. They were politicians with a religious bent.
* The hypocrisy of the conservative Republicans never seems to end. They moan and groan about America turning its back on religious freedom and claim the high ground in protecting it by throwing young women and their personal rights under the bus. Then they use their legal tools to inflict their narrow religious social interpretations onto all the rest of us without regard to our religious views or how they might differ. My vote will always be aimed at disempowering these loveless, heartless, uncompassionate, miserable, fanatical right wing-nuts.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas Governor Admits Anti-Abortion Law Was About Restricting Abortion
The cat’s out of the bag.
By Marina Fang, June 27, 2016After the Supreme Court on Monday struck down his state’s law that would have shuttered dozens of abortion clinics, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) condemned the decision by arguing that it jeopardizes the state’s objective “to protect innocent life.”
“The decision erodes States’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost,” he said in a press release. “Texas’ goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.”
In admitting that the law, HB 2, was meant to limit abortions, Abbott deviated from the state’s initial justification for the law, as presented during the case’s oral arguments. Attorneys for the state noted that the law was implemented in order to “protect women’s health” and improve safety at abortion clinics. When pressed by the justices, they insisted that “abortion is legal and accessible” in Texas.
HB 2 imposes obstacles on abortion clinics by requiring that they invest in expensive building upgrades to meet the more stringent standards of ambulatory surgical centers, or mini-hospitals. It also mandates that abortion doctors obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Since the law’s passage in 2013, the number of abortion providers in the state has plummeted from 42 to 19.
In Monday’s ruling, the Court affirmed that the law presents “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion” and “an undue burden on abortion access.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion eviscerating the state’s argument that the law was passed to protect women’s health.
“[I]t is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions,’” she wrote. “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners ... at great risk to their health and safety.”
Read more on the case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and the Supreme Court’s ruling here.
...................................................................................................................................................................
As I said last year, "Take that, Stormans". Stuff your religious objections-- Plan B is NOT an abortifacient and is not illegal!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* This case, like the Hobby Lobby case, should never have made it to court. It is based on a false premise. That being that Plan B causes an abortion. Pharmacists should have had training and education showing that medications like Plan B have a mechanism of action of delaying ovulation. They have no effect on a fertilized egg. They do not prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. They do not cause the abortion of the fertilized egg. They prevent the meeting of the unfertilized egg and the sperm. The sad thing is, these pharmacists knew that. Just like the Green's did in Hobby Lobby. But like all fundamentalist christians, they have an overwhelming, all consuming hatred of all things Obama, and Democrat.
* Despite what the christian Taliban would have you believe, this nation was not founded upon christian values or on the concept of freedom of religion. This nation was founded on the principle of freedom FROM religion, and a christian religion at that. Why do you think that our founding fathers wrote the separation clause. SCOTUS has ruled over three times that freedom of and freedom from religion are the same. If you do not like what the Supreme Court says, you can pack your bags and start your own little theocracy. Which has been tried more than once with a complete failure. History doesn't lie christians. Be thankful that atheists like myself are willing to fight for your religious freedom, don't abuse it, it, like all of our freedoms have limitations and your god does not supercede the laws of this secular nation. Learn to coexist or pay the price for your hate, intolerance, and arrogance.
* If this pharmacy were allowed to refuse medical services on religious grounds, it would pave the way for ER doctors to refuse to treat people on religious grounds. It would allow the ultra conservative Christian ER doctor to refuse to treat a Muslim patient, allowing him to die rather than treat him. That's where this would lead if the Court hadn't been wise enough to stop it in its tracks. Once you start allowing people to do anything they want under the guise of "religious freedom," there is no end. A civilized society has limits on what you can and cannot do, even if your religion demands it.
* I don't understand the part where people think THEIR "religious rights" SUPERCEDE someone ELSE's civil rights, do you ?
* When dealing with the public, the law takes precedence over your own religious beliefs, Deal with it!
* So the couple "associates" the morning after pill with abortion? Who cares what they associate it with, it's not an abortion pill. It's a very high dose of the same drug present in daily birth control pills and cannot affect an existing pregnancy. Wow, just wow.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Divided Supreme Court rejects family pharmacy's religious claim
By Lawrence Hurley, June 28, 2016
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away an appeal by a family-owned pharmacy that cited Christian beliefs in objecting to providing emergency contraceptives to women under a Washington state rule, prompting a searing dissent by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.
The justices left in place a July 2015 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a state regulation that requires pharmacies to deliver all prescribed drugs, including contraceptives, in a timely manner.
Three conservatives among the eight justices argued that the court should have agreed to hear the appeal by the Stormans family, which owns Ralph's Thriftway grocery story and pharmacy in Olympia.
Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court's decision not to hear it is "an ominous sign" for the future of religious liberty claims.
"If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern," Alito added.
The court may be less likely to rule in favor of people making such claims following February's death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, especially if he is replaced by a liberal appointee.
The American Civil Liberties Union praised the court's action.
"When a woman walks into a pharmacy, she should not fear being turned away because of the religious beliefs of the owner or the person behind the counter," said Louise Melling, the group's deputy legal director.
Evolving American social attitudes and changes in the law relating to issues such as gay marriage and birth control coverage in health insurance have spurred numerous court challenges by individuals, businesses and nonprofit employers who say their religious liberty has been violated. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of religion.
Washington state permits a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny medicine, as long as another pharmacist working at the location provides timely delivery. The rules require a pharmacy to deliver all medicine, even if the owner objects.
The Supreme Court in 2014 allowed certain businesses to object on religious grounds to the Obamacare law's requirement that companies provide employees with insurance that pays for women's contraceptives. The court in May sent a similar dispute brought by nonprofit Christian employers back to lower courts without resolving the main legal issue.
The Stormans family is made up of devout Christians who associate "morning after" emergency contraceptives with abortion. Two individual pharmacists who worked elsewhere also joined the lawsuit.
"The dilemma this creates for the Stormans family and others like them is plain: Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business," Alito said.
Thirty-eight state and national pharmacy associations had urged the court to take up the case, saying pharmacies generally get to choose what products they stock.
Alito said there is evidence the state's regulation was adopted because of "hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state" and designed "to stamp out religious objectors."
The appeals court said the rules rationally further the state's interest in patient safety. Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception, that court said.
"Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the taking of human life," said Kristen Waggoner, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal group representing the Stormans.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* This case, like the Hobby Lobby case, should never have made it to court. It is based on a false premise. That being that Plan B causes an abortion. Pharmacists should have had training and education showing that medications like Plan B have a mechanism of action of delaying ovulation. They have no effect on a fertilized egg. They do not prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. They do not cause the abortion of the fertilized egg. They prevent the meeting of the unfertilized egg and the sperm. The sad thing is, these pharmacists knew that. Just like the Green's did in Hobby Lobby. But like all fundamentalist christians, they have an overwhelming, all consuming hatred of all things Obama, and Democrat.
* Despite what the christian Taliban would have you believe, this nation was not founded upon christian values or on the concept of freedom of religion. This nation was founded on the principle of freedom FROM religion, and a christian religion at that. Why do you think that our founding fathers wrote the separation clause. SCOTUS has ruled over three times that freedom of and freedom from religion are the same. If you do not like what the Supreme Court says, you can pack your bags and start your own little theocracy. Which has been tried more than once with a complete failure. History doesn't lie christians. Be thankful that atheists like myself are willing to fight for your religious freedom, don't abuse it, it, like all of our freedoms have limitations and your god does not supercede the laws of this secular nation. Learn to coexist or pay the price for your hate, intolerance, and arrogance.
* If this pharmacy were allowed to refuse medical services on religious grounds, it would pave the way for ER doctors to refuse to treat people on religious grounds. It would allow the ultra conservative Christian ER doctor to refuse to treat a Muslim patient, allowing him to die rather than treat him. That's where this would lead if the Court hadn't been wise enough to stop it in its tracks. Once you start allowing people to do anything they want under the guise of "religious freedom," there is no end. A civilized society has limits on what you can and cannot do, even if your religion demands it.
* I don't understand the part where people think THEIR "religious rights" SUPERCEDE someone ELSE's civil rights, do you ?
* When dealing with the public, the law takes precedence over your own religious beliefs, Deal with it!
* So the couple "associates" the morning after pill with abortion? Who cares what they associate it with, it's not an abortion pill. It's a very high dose of the same drug present in daily birth control pills and cannot affect an existing pregnancy. Wow, just wow.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Divided Supreme Court rejects family pharmacy's religious claim
By Lawrence Hurley, June 28, 2016
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away an appeal by a family-owned pharmacy that cited Christian beliefs in objecting to providing emergency contraceptives to women under a Washington state rule, prompting a searing dissent by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.
The justices left in place a July 2015 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a state regulation that requires pharmacies to deliver all prescribed drugs, including contraceptives, in a timely manner.
Three conservatives among the eight justices argued that the court should have agreed to hear the appeal by the Stormans family, which owns Ralph's Thriftway grocery story and pharmacy in Olympia.
Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court's decision not to hear it is "an ominous sign" for the future of religious liberty claims.
"If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern," Alito added.
The court may be less likely to rule in favor of people making such claims following February's death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, especially if he is replaced by a liberal appointee.
The American Civil Liberties Union praised the court's action.
"When a woman walks into a pharmacy, she should not fear being turned away because of the religious beliefs of the owner or the person behind the counter," said Louise Melling, the group's deputy legal director.
Evolving American social attitudes and changes in the law relating to issues such as gay marriage and birth control coverage in health insurance have spurred numerous court challenges by individuals, businesses and nonprofit employers who say their religious liberty has been violated. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of religion.
Washington state permits a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny medicine, as long as another pharmacist working at the location provides timely delivery. The rules require a pharmacy to deliver all medicine, even if the owner objects.
The Supreme Court in 2014 allowed certain businesses to object on religious grounds to the Obamacare law's requirement that companies provide employees with insurance that pays for women's contraceptives. The court in May sent a similar dispute brought by nonprofit Christian employers back to lower courts without resolving the main legal issue.
The Stormans family is made up of devout Christians who associate "morning after" emergency contraceptives with abortion. Two individual pharmacists who worked elsewhere also joined the lawsuit.
"The dilemma this creates for the Stormans family and others like them is plain: Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business," Alito said.
Thirty-eight state and national pharmacy associations had urged the court to take up the case, saying pharmacies generally get to choose what products they stock.
Alito said there is evidence the state's regulation was adopted because of "hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state" and designed "to stamp out religious objectors."
The appeals court said the rules rationally further the state's interest in patient safety. Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception, that court said.
"Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the taking of human life," said Kristen Waggoner, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal group representing the Stormans.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
"... [GOP] proposals seem designed to make adequate care harder to obtain." Of course!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Is the ACA better than the status quo? The data presented in the fourth paragraph point to 'yes'. Is the ACA better than an alternate reform plan? That depends on the alternate reform plan and so far there isn't one. Ryan has put forth the outlines of what might become a plan, but has yet to provide the details necessary to make comparisons. The ACA is far from perfect and there is plenty of room for improvement. But before we take the route of 'repeal and replace' it would be prudent to know what the replacement is and how it will be truly the better alternative.
* This is medical inflation over time. We're currently at a very low point, the lowest 5 year inflation rate since 1965. Why are you calling the lowest rate of medical inflation in a half century an expensive failure?
* That's private enterprise, right? And that was a Bush program, not Obamacare. Thanks for your erroneously blaming ACA for Bush's unfunded mandate.
* Instead of doing away with the ACA, it just needs fine tuning. Something the repubs refuse to do.
* There is ONE reason for the GOP "plans".....to create a mandatory that is NOT the ACA...... period.....at any expense......without regard to "COVERAGE" or ELIGIBILITY! It remains APPALLING that Americans still believe the GOP is working for THEM....with the truckloads of evidence that indicates the contrary! BTW, "vouchers" are a public policy FARCE & COP OUT and why they haven't been adopted decades ago!
* No one claims the current GOP/Tea/Fox/Koch/Jesus party really care about anyone except themselves; all are me-me persons are self before party then country.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans' Health-Care Plan: Not Much Care, Not Much Plan
By Bloomberg Editorial Board, June 28, 2016
Republicans’ long-promised health-care plan has arrived -- though it’s light on the health care and offers too little detail to tell whether it’s a realistic plan.
Many aspects of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s proposal are clear: It would permit health insurers to cover far fewer services than they have to cover under Obamacare, and it would reduce federal subsidies for buying insurance, pare protections for people with pre-existing conditions, roll back funding for Medicaid, and convert Medicare to a voucher-type program. Ryan hasn’t said what this would cost, or how many people would end up with insurance -- perhaps because that number would be far smaller than it is under Obamacare.
The question is: What problem is the plan meant to solve? Before Obamacare took effect six years ago, Republicans questioned whether it would meaningfully expand insurance coverage and warned of soaring health-care costs. Employers might stop providing insurance to their workers, they said, the labor participation rate might plummet, and the federal deficit might soar. No one knew how many people would buy insurance on the new state exchanges, or how they would like their coverage.
But these problems never materialized. The share of Americans without insurance has dropped to 9 percent, from 15 percent in 2011. Health-care spending from 2015 to 2019 now looks to be $2.6 trillion lower than projected when the Affordable Care Act was signed. The share of working-age adults in the workforce has risen. The federal deficit has shrunk. The number of people with employer-based coverage remains stable. More than 12 million people have enrolled in Obamacare plans, and two-thirds of them say they’re happy with the coverage.
One Republican worry has come to pass: Obamacare has increased federal spending, and has paid for it in part by hiking taxes on higher earners. Reversing those hikes is a legitimate, if narrow, policy preference. But if lower taxes and spending are what drive the Republicans to want to replace Obamacare, they should say so. Otherwise, their proposals seem designed to make adequate care harder to obtain.
The U.S. health-care system continues to face two big challenges: to insure still more people, and to more quickly bring costs under control. Meeting the first of these will require innovations that may not be popular, such as automatically enrolling every eligible American into an Obamacare plan, or giving undocumented immigrants the option to buy unsubsidized exchange coverage.
Taming price growth is harder still. Critics of Obamacare are right that deductibles and premiums are rising fast. But the way to fix that is to lower the underlying cost of care, not to let insurers arbitrarily cut benefits. America needs innovative ways to pay doctors and hospitals that don't incentivize overtreatment, as well as mechanisms for pricing drugs and procedures according to how well they work. On all these counts, Republican ideas would be most welcome.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Is the ACA better than the status quo? The data presented in the fourth paragraph point to 'yes'. Is the ACA better than an alternate reform plan? That depends on the alternate reform plan and so far there isn't one. Ryan has put forth the outlines of what might become a plan, but has yet to provide the details necessary to make comparisons. The ACA is far from perfect and there is plenty of room for improvement. But before we take the route of 'repeal and replace' it would be prudent to know what the replacement is and how it will be truly the better alternative.
* This is medical inflation over time. We're currently at a very low point, the lowest 5 year inflation rate since 1965. Why are you calling the lowest rate of medical inflation in a half century an expensive failure?
* That's private enterprise, right? And that was a Bush program, not Obamacare. Thanks for your erroneously blaming ACA for Bush's unfunded mandate.
* Instead of doing away with the ACA, it just needs fine tuning. Something the repubs refuse to do.
* There is ONE reason for the GOP "plans".....to create a mandatory that is NOT the ACA...... period.....at any expense......without regard to "COVERAGE" or ELIGIBILITY! It remains APPALLING that Americans still believe the GOP is working for THEM....with the truckloads of evidence that indicates the contrary! BTW, "vouchers" are a public policy FARCE & COP OUT and why they haven't been adopted decades ago!
* No one claims the current GOP/Tea/Fox/Koch/Jesus party really care about anyone except themselves; all are me-me persons are self before party then country.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans' Health-Care Plan: Not Much Care, Not Much Plan
By Bloomberg Editorial Board, June 28, 2016
Republicans’ long-promised health-care plan has arrived -- though it’s light on the health care and offers too little detail to tell whether it’s a realistic plan.
Many aspects of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s proposal are clear: It would permit health insurers to cover far fewer services than they have to cover under Obamacare, and it would reduce federal subsidies for buying insurance, pare protections for people with pre-existing conditions, roll back funding for Medicaid, and convert Medicare to a voucher-type program. Ryan hasn’t said what this would cost, or how many people would end up with insurance -- perhaps because that number would be far smaller than it is under Obamacare.
The question is: What problem is the plan meant to solve? Before Obamacare took effect six years ago, Republicans questioned whether it would meaningfully expand insurance coverage and warned of soaring health-care costs. Employers might stop providing insurance to their workers, they said, the labor participation rate might plummet, and the federal deficit might soar. No one knew how many people would buy insurance on the new state exchanges, or how they would like their coverage.
But these problems never materialized. The share of Americans without insurance has dropped to 9 percent, from 15 percent in 2011. Health-care spending from 2015 to 2019 now looks to be $2.6 trillion lower than projected when the Affordable Care Act was signed. The share of working-age adults in the workforce has risen. The federal deficit has shrunk. The number of people with employer-based coverage remains stable. More than 12 million people have enrolled in Obamacare plans, and two-thirds of them say they’re happy with the coverage.
One Republican worry has come to pass: Obamacare has increased federal spending, and has paid for it in part by hiking taxes on higher earners. Reversing those hikes is a legitimate, if narrow, policy preference. But if lower taxes and spending are what drive the Republicans to want to replace Obamacare, they should say so. Otherwise, their proposals seem designed to make adequate care harder to obtain.
The U.S. health-care system continues to face two big challenges: to insure still more people, and to more quickly bring costs under control. Meeting the first of these will require innovations that may not be popular, such as automatically enrolling every eligible American into an Obamacare plan, or giving undocumented immigrants the option to buy unsubsidized exchange coverage.
Taming price growth is harder still. Critics of Obamacare are right that deductibles and premiums are rising fast. But the way to fix that is to lower the underlying cost of care, not to let insurers arbitrarily cut benefits. America needs innovative ways to pay doctors and hospitals that don't incentivize overtreatment, as well as mechanisms for pricing drugs and procedures according to how well they work. On all these counts, Republican ideas would be most welcome.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"As a justice who clearly enjoys the exercise of power, Kennedy may be finding a continuing embrace of the liberals the most congenial path." YES!!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Justice Kennedy opts for a liberal legacy
By Jeffrey Toobin, June 28, 2016
Perhaps Anthony Kennedy sees the writing on the wall. Perhaps he recognizes that the Supreme Court is heading in a more liberal direction, and he intends to lead it there -- as he has led the court so often in his extremely consequential nearly three decades as a justice.
That's one possible explanation for Kennedy's crucial pair of votes at the end of this year's Supreme Court term. Last week, Kennedy wrote the court's opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which preserved the right of universities to consider race as one factor in admissions.
Monday, Kennedy provided the winning margin to the court's four liberals to strike down Texas's strict regulations of abortion clinics and abortion providers, in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. To put it another way, in the space of week, Kennedy saved both affirmative action and abortion rights -- an extraordinary liberal perfecta.
What makes Kennedy's votes so striking is that he had often voted the other way -- that is, with the court's conservatives -- on these very issues.
In 2003, the court heard a challenge to the admissions program at the University of Michigan law school, a case that bore considerable similarities to the one in Texas. In that case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion for the court upheld the Michigan plan in Grutter v. Bollinger, but Kennedy dissented.
In a similar vein, in 2007's Gonzales v. Carhart, Kennedy wrote for the court in upholding the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions. To be sure, the issues were not identical in these cases, but they were pretty close. Against abortion rights in Carhart; for those rights in Hellerstedt. Against affirmative action in Grutter; for the practice in Fisher.
What's going on? Justices always say that they take each case as it comes, and Kennedy may simply have seen close issues differently on these occasions. It is true, too, that Kennedy's judicial philosophy has been less predictable than most of his colleagues. That's why he's been the swing vote for so long.
He led the conservative fight to deregulate American political campaigns in Citizen United and subsequent cases; he is also the architect and chief author of the gay civil rights revolution, which culminated in his opinion last year that guaranteed gay people the right to marry in all 50 states.
But justices count votes, just like the rest of us. After the death of Antonin Scalia in February, the lineup of the Supreme Court included four consistent liberals -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. There are three consistent conservatives, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and (most of the time) Chief Justice John Roberts. Kennedy usually votes with the conservatives, but not always.
President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. Though that nomination is stalled, perhaps forever, the polls suggest that a Democratic president will fill that seat, with Garland or someone of similar views
In all, then, it seems likely (as it may seem likely to Kennedy) that there may soon be five consistent liberal votes on the court. They will call the shots.
Kennedy will turn 80 in less than a month. He faces the prospect of spending his last years on the court as an architect of a new liberal ascendancy -- or as a powerless figure in dissent. This month at least, Kennedy chose the liberal side. As a justice who clearly enjoys the exercise of power, Kennedy may be finding a continuing embrace of the liberals the most congenial path.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Justice Kennedy opts for a liberal legacy
By Jeffrey Toobin, June 28, 2016
Perhaps Anthony Kennedy sees the writing on the wall. Perhaps he recognizes that the Supreme Court is heading in a more liberal direction, and he intends to lead it there -- as he has led the court so often in his extremely consequential nearly three decades as a justice.
That's one possible explanation for Kennedy's crucial pair of votes at the end of this year's Supreme Court term. Last week, Kennedy wrote the court's opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which preserved the right of universities to consider race as one factor in admissions.
Monday, Kennedy provided the winning margin to the court's four liberals to strike down Texas's strict regulations of abortion clinics and abortion providers, in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. To put it another way, in the space of week, Kennedy saved both affirmative action and abortion rights -- an extraordinary liberal perfecta.
What makes Kennedy's votes so striking is that he had often voted the other way -- that is, with the court's conservatives -- on these very issues.
In 2003, the court heard a challenge to the admissions program at the University of Michigan law school, a case that bore considerable similarities to the one in Texas. In that case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion for the court upheld the Michigan plan in Grutter v. Bollinger, but Kennedy dissented.
In a similar vein, in 2007's Gonzales v. Carhart, Kennedy wrote for the court in upholding the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions. To be sure, the issues were not identical in these cases, but they were pretty close. Against abortion rights in Carhart; for those rights in Hellerstedt. Against affirmative action in Grutter; for the practice in Fisher.
What's going on? Justices always say that they take each case as it comes, and Kennedy may simply have seen close issues differently on these occasions. It is true, too, that Kennedy's judicial philosophy has been less predictable than most of his colleagues. That's why he's been the swing vote for so long.
He led the conservative fight to deregulate American political campaigns in Citizen United and subsequent cases; he is also the architect and chief author of the gay civil rights revolution, which culminated in his opinion last year that guaranteed gay people the right to marry in all 50 states.
But justices count votes, just like the rest of us. After the death of Antonin Scalia in February, the lineup of the Supreme Court included four consistent liberals -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. There are three consistent conservatives, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and (most of the time) Chief Justice John Roberts. Kennedy usually votes with the conservatives, but not always.
President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. Though that nomination is stalled, perhaps forever, the polls suggest that a Democratic president will fill that seat, with Garland or someone of similar views
In all, then, it seems likely (as it may seem likely to Kennedy) that there may soon be five consistent liberal votes on the court. They will call the shots.
Kennedy will turn 80 in less than a month. He faces the prospect of spending his last years on the court as an architect of a new liberal ascendancy -- or as a powerless figure in dissent. This month at least, Kennedy chose the liberal side. As a justice who clearly enjoys the exercise of power, Kennedy may be finding a continuing embrace of the liberals the most congenial path.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Trump may or may not make America great again, but he is making Obama look pretty good again. The new poll put Obama’s approval rating at 56 percent ..." Keep digging, #TruthlessTrump/#Lyin'Donald.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Republicans have stated many times in the past 8 years they want the country to fail. The Republicans have brought us to the point we are at now, just think about it, you know it's true.
* Thanks to the do nothing republican congress. You do know budgets and approval for this type of projects come from congress then the president signs them into law. Separation of power. Republicans blame him for their inaction.
* "Nothing of substance was done" You forget the Affordable Care Act, which republicans refused to read and participate in--the first in a long line of obstructionist B.S. they perpetrated and they had gall to say that the President "did nothing." On the contrary he did some incredible things in spite of the hypocritical, anti-American insanity that are the republicans. The first two years in Congress, Democrats passed ACA, and could have done much, much more. The People are responding to this and Donald Trump, just like you, will not be able to ignore it.
* GOPers have not submitted a jobs bill, an immigration bill, a healthcare bill, a bill to authorize action in the middle east. WHAT DO THEY DO?
* Nothing... stealing lots of money for their own benefits, while sending the country to never ending wars...... well some of them does something... tiptoe dances in the airport men's restrooms.... to get some stress relieve... hahahahahhahahahahha
* Republican's have been pure obstructionists, but President Obama has succeeded over their prostrated bodies. What a bunch of losers most congressional republicans are. They spend $17 million for a Benghazi investigation that concludes nothing, but say nothing about them refusing Hillary Clinton's request for money for military security details for Libya diplomats, the Tripoli Enbassy and the Benghazi Consulate prior to Benghazi happening. Yet, Republican's feverish base continue to believe that they have solutions.
...................................................................................................................................................................
ANALYSIS: Poll Shows Deep Hole for Donald Trump, With Room for More Digging
By Rick Klein, June 27, 2016
A new ABC News/Washington Post poll captured a candidate in apparent freefall.
The poll, conducted June 20 to 23, showed Donald Trump down 12 points against Hillary Clinton — a 14-point swing from where he stood barely a month ago, about when he locked up the Republican presidential nomination.
The poll suggests that Trump’s divisive campaign could easily further alienate voters. He could fall quite a bit more, particularly as the nation looks more favorably on President Barack Obama, against whom Trump has cast himself.
But there are glimmers of opportunity for Trump, as reflected in concerns about Clinton’s candidacy and broader societal forces at play this year.
First, the downside: The way voters viewed Trump makes it look as though he’s lucky to be down only 12 points. Two-thirds of voters thought he’s biased against women, minorities and Muslims. A similar number of voters believed his comments about a federal judge of Mexican heritage were racist.
Sixty-four percent of Americans saw Trump as unqualified for the presidency, meaning he got at least some support now from people who thought he can’t do the job. Only 77 percent of Republicans supported him in a head-to-head matchup against Clinton, down from 85 percent when the divisive GOP primary fight essentially ended.
In the new poll Clinton led among all age groups. She was tied among male voters and was up 23 points among women.
Helping Trump, potentially, are Clinton’s well-known weaknesses as a candidate. Half those polled said they were anxious about the idea of her as president, and her handling of her emails when she was at the State Department continues to spur doubts.
A strong majority of voters said they were looking for a “new direction” from the next president. Trump was ahead 10 points among white voters. Plus his appeal is tied to economic and cultural frustrations that are similar to those that drove last week’s shocking vote in the U.K. to exit the European Union.
That parallel hasn’t been lost on Trump. He used a fundraising email to call on his supporters to “re-declare our independence” in part by taking “back our country from the corrupt career politicians.”
While the climate might favor Trump, the forecast clearly doesn’t. Built into Trump’s campaign is a calculation that a strong majority of voters will want to reject the Obama years.
Trump may or may not make America great again, but he is making Obama look pretty good again. The new poll put Obama’s approval rating at 56 percent, its highest level since November 2009, when his presidency was less than a year old.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Republicans have stated many times in the past 8 years they want the country to fail. The Republicans have brought us to the point we are at now, just think about it, you know it's true.
* Thanks to the do nothing republican congress. You do know budgets and approval for this type of projects come from congress then the president signs them into law. Separation of power. Republicans blame him for their inaction.
* "Nothing of substance was done" You forget the Affordable Care Act, which republicans refused to read and participate in--the first in a long line of obstructionist B.S. they perpetrated and they had gall to say that the President "did nothing." On the contrary he did some incredible things in spite of the hypocritical, anti-American insanity that are the republicans. The first two years in Congress, Democrats passed ACA, and could have done much, much more. The People are responding to this and Donald Trump, just like you, will not be able to ignore it.
* GOPers have not submitted a jobs bill, an immigration bill, a healthcare bill, a bill to authorize action in the middle east. WHAT DO THEY DO?
* Nothing... stealing lots of money for their own benefits, while sending the country to never ending wars...... well some of them does something... tiptoe dances in the airport men's restrooms.... to get some stress relieve... hahahahahhahahahahha
* Republican's have been pure obstructionists, but President Obama has succeeded over their prostrated bodies. What a bunch of losers most congressional republicans are. They spend $17 million for a Benghazi investigation that concludes nothing, but say nothing about them refusing Hillary Clinton's request for money for military security details for Libya diplomats, the Tripoli Enbassy and the Benghazi Consulate prior to Benghazi happening. Yet, Republican's feverish base continue to believe that they have solutions.
...................................................................................................................................................................
ANALYSIS: Poll Shows Deep Hole for Donald Trump, With Room for More Digging
By Rick Klein, June 27, 2016
A new ABC News/Washington Post poll captured a candidate in apparent freefall.
The poll, conducted June 20 to 23, showed Donald Trump down 12 points against Hillary Clinton — a 14-point swing from where he stood barely a month ago, about when he locked up the Republican presidential nomination.
The poll suggests that Trump’s divisive campaign could easily further alienate voters. He could fall quite a bit more, particularly as the nation looks more favorably on President Barack Obama, against whom Trump has cast himself.
But there are glimmers of opportunity for Trump, as reflected in concerns about Clinton’s candidacy and broader societal forces at play this year.
First, the downside: The way voters viewed Trump makes it look as though he’s lucky to be down only 12 points. Two-thirds of voters thought he’s biased against women, minorities and Muslims. A similar number of voters believed his comments about a federal judge of Mexican heritage were racist.
Sixty-four percent of Americans saw Trump as unqualified for the presidency, meaning he got at least some support now from people who thought he can’t do the job. Only 77 percent of Republicans supported him in a head-to-head matchup against Clinton, down from 85 percent when the divisive GOP primary fight essentially ended.
In the new poll Clinton led among all age groups. She was tied among male voters and was up 23 points among women.
Helping Trump, potentially, are Clinton’s well-known weaknesses as a candidate. Half those polled said they were anxious about the idea of her as president, and her handling of her emails when she was at the State Department continues to spur doubts.
A strong majority of voters said they were looking for a “new direction” from the next president. Trump was ahead 10 points among white voters. Plus his appeal is tied to economic and cultural frustrations that are similar to those that drove last week’s shocking vote in the U.K. to exit the European Union.
That parallel hasn’t been lost on Trump. He used a fundraising email to call on his supporters to “re-declare our independence” in part by taking “back our country from the corrupt career politicians.”
While the climate might favor Trump, the forecast clearly doesn’t. Built into Trump’s campaign is a calculation that a strong majority of voters will want to reject the Obama years.
Trump may or may not make America great again, but he is making Obama look pretty good again. The new poll put Obama’s approval rating at 56 percent, its highest level since November 2009, when his presidency was less than a year old.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'... Mr. Trump’s proposals would massively increase the debt.'" He doesn't care because he plans to declare bankruptcy. [snort]
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* 1. Trump's fans do not care about his fiscal acumen - the only thing they care about is that Trump CONTINUES to hate the same people THEY hate and he passes laws to PUNISH them. 2. Trump's fans want him to be richer - because they think they will be rich too 3. If Trump's budget fails they can always blame Obama
* An updated Electoral College projection from Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball predicts that Hillary Clinton will demolish Donald Trump in the general election this fall. The website, which is run by University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, has the presumptive Democratic nominee beating Trump by a 347-191 electoral vote margin. What’s more telling is that all of the normal toss-up states – Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, etc. – have been moved into the “Lean Democratic” column, leaving Trump no mathematical way to make up the difference unless there is a sizable shift in public opinion.
* Last time I checked, while Presidents can send budget requests to Congress, all actual spending bills originate in Congress, not the White House.
* Congress controls the taxes and the spending the President can only suggest a budget.
* You're making their brains hurt now, John! If these GOP voting morons could comprehend that, then they couldn't spend their selfish lives, blaming the President, and minority party! Where would their propagandists, and FauxNews be?
* SURE Trump is for the little guy--he's going to cut taxes for the rich by 1/3, lower large corporations' taxes by 20%, and more than double the deficit for the rest of us. But per Trump, he thinks debt is good, so he probably thinks he'll just declare bankruptcy for the whole country and get rid of the debt, like he did for his casinos. Except this time we're the ones who get left holding the bag.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Study: Trump budget, tax plans add at least $10T to debt
By AP. June 27, 2016
A new Washington study says Donald Trump’s tax and budget plans would make the national debt skyrocket by $10 trillion or more over the coming decade, mostly because of his ambitious and expensive tax cuts.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Democrat Hillary Clinton’s agenda — which relies on tax increases to pay for proposals such as making the Affordable Care Act more generous — would increase the debt by about $250 billion over 10 years.
Trump’s measure is considered important, because if the debt gets too large it would cause higher interest rates, be a severe drag on national investment and growth, and potentially lead to a fiscal crisis. Interest costs would also squeeze out other priorities such as defense, education and infrastructure investment.
Trump’s tax plans, which include lowering the top income tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 25 percent and the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, would add $9 trillion-plus to cumulative deficits over a decade. Clinton would increase taxes by $1.25 trillion over the same period, chiefly through a 4 percent surtax on top earners and a limit on deductions taken by the wealthy.
All told, Trump’s policies would result in the $19.3 trillion national debt spiking to 127 percent of the size of the U.S. economy by 2026. Clinton’s plans would closely track current law, in which the debt would equal 86 percent of the economy.
By contrast, a tax proposal released last week by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., promises no net loss of tax revenue and is therefore only able to lower the top individual tax rate to 33 percent and the top corporate rate to 20 percent.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget advocates for smaller deficits, and, like the Congressional Budget Office and other nonpartisan groups, warns that the government’s projected deficits and debt will become unsustainable before too long. It receives backing from a foundation funded by deficit hawk Peter G. Peterson, the Pew Charitable Trusts and other foundations.
“Encouragingly, both of the major parties’ presumptive presidential nominees have highlighted the need for fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail,” said the group’s report. “Unfortunately, to date neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor businessman Donald Trump has put forward a plan to address the national debt, and Mr. Trump’s proposals would massively increase the debt.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* 1. Trump's fans do not care about his fiscal acumen - the only thing they care about is that Trump CONTINUES to hate the same people THEY hate and he passes laws to PUNISH them. 2. Trump's fans want him to be richer - because they think they will be rich too 3. If Trump's budget fails they can always blame Obama
* An updated Electoral College projection from Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball predicts that Hillary Clinton will demolish Donald Trump in the general election this fall. The website, which is run by University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, has the presumptive Democratic nominee beating Trump by a 347-191 electoral vote margin. What’s more telling is that all of the normal toss-up states – Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, etc. – have been moved into the “Lean Democratic” column, leaving Trump no mathematical way to make up the difference unless there is a sizable shift in public opinion.
* Last time I checked, while Presidents can send budget requests to Congress, all actual spending bills originate in Congress, not the White House.
* Congress controls the taxes and the spending the President can only suggest a budget.
* You're making their brains hurt now, John! If these GOP voting morons could comprehend that, then they couldn't spend their selfish lives, blaming the President, and minority party! Where would their propagandists, and FauxNews be?
* SURE Trump is for the little guy--he's going to cut taxes for the rich by 1/3, lower large corporations' taxes by 20%, and more than double the deficit for the rest of us. But per Trump, he thinks debt is good, so he probably thinks he'll just declare bankruptcy for the whole country and get rid of the debt, like he did for his casinos. Except this time we're the ones who get left holding the bag.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Study: Trump budget, tax plans add at least $10T to debt
By AP. June 27, 2016
A new Washington study says Donald Trump’s tax and budget plans would make the national debt skyrocket by $10 trillion or more over the coming decade, mostly because of his ambitious and expensive tax cuts.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Democrat Hillary Clinton’s agenda — which relies on tax increases to pay for proposals such as making the Affordable Care Act more generous — would increase the debt by about $250 billion over 10 years.
Trump’s measure is considered important, because if the debt gets too large it would cause higher interest rates, be a severe drag on national investment and growth, and potentially lead to a fiscal crisis. Interest costs would also squeeze out other priorities such as defense, education and infrastructure investment.
Trump’s tax plans, which include lowering the top income tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 25 percent and the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, would add $9 trillion-plus to cumulative deficits over a decade. Clinton would increase taxes by $1.25 trillion over the same period, chiefly through a 4 percent surtax on top earners and a limit on deductions taken by the wealthy.
All told, Trump’s policies would result in the $19.3 trillion national debt spiking to 127 percent of the size of the U.S. economy by 2026. Clinton’s plans would closely track current law, in which the debt would equal 86 percent of the economy.
By contrast, a tax proposal released last week by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., promises no net loss of tax revenue and is therefore only able to lower the top individual tax rate to 33 percent and the top corporate rate to 20 percent.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget advocates for smaller deficits, and, like the Congressional Budget Office and other nonpartisan groups, warns that the government’s projected deficits and debt will become unsustainable before too long. It receives backing from a foundation funded by deficit hawk Peter G. Peterson, the Pew Charitable Trusts and other foundations.
“Encouragingly, both of the major parties’ presumptive presidential nominees have highlighted the need for fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail,” said the group’s report. “Unfortunately, to date neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor businessman Donald Trump has put forward a plan to address the national debt, and Mr. Trump’s proposals would massively increase the debt.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Not a difficult guess at all.
..................................................................................
Monday, June 27, 2016
"'Decades in the future, historians will look back on this [Republican] investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation ...'"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats release Benghazi report
By Stephen Collinson and Ted Barrett, June 27. 2016
Democrats on Monday pre-empted the upcoming release of a Republican-led House Select Committee report on Benghazi by issuing their own version of a probe into the 2012 terror attack that killed four Americans on Hillary Clinton's watch as secretary of state.
The move by Democrats on the panel was designed to debunk the conclusions of the committee's majority report that is expected to be highly critical of Clinton.
Read the full Democratic report
"We have been hampered in our work by the ongoing Republican obsession with conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality," said the Democratic report, which underscored the fierce political divisions between Republicans and Democrats over the attack on a U.S. consular post and a CIA annex in the Libyan port city. "Rather than reject these conspiracy theories in the absence of evidence -- or in the face of hard facts -- Select Committee Republicans embraced them and turned them into a political crusade."
"We hope our report will put to rest the conspiracy theories about Benghazi once and for all and return the focus to where it belongs—on the goal of improving the security of Americans serving abroad," the report continued.
The Democratic report was released as the general election heats up. It argues that the Pentagon could not have done anything on the night of the attacks in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, that would have saved the lives of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of failing to deploy military assets to rescue the Americans.
The report concludes that State Department security measures in Benghazi were "woefully inadequate" but that Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi. It denies the intelligence community was influenced by politics in its response to the attacks and that its evolving explanations on its causes were the result of evolving information in fast changing circumstances, not meddling by administration officials.
The Democratic report was simultaneously an indictment of the work and structure of the committee, set up by former House Speaker John Boehner in 2014, as much as a look into the events in Benghazi. All along, Democrats have branded the probe as nothing more than a partisan witch hunt targeting Clinton rather than another attempt to establish the facts about Benghazi.
"Decades in the future, historians will look back on this investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation," the Democratic members wrote. "They will showcase the proliferation of Republican abuses as a chief example of what happens when politicians are allowed to use unlimited taxpayer dollars -- and the formidable power of Congress -- to attack their political foes."
The Democratic report includes 12 recommendations, that include suggestion for improving State Department security at U.S. posts overseas but also take aim at Republicans on the committee who it accuses of politicizing the Benghazi tragedy.
"Congress should not establish or use future investigative select committees or panels for political purposes including to impact elections or to raise campaign funds," the report said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats release Benghazi report
By Stephen Collinson and Ted Barrett, June 27. 2016
Democrats on Monday pre-empted the upcoming release of a Republican-led House Select Committee report on Benghazi by issuing their own version of a probe into the 2012 terror attack that killed four Americans on Hillary Clinton's watch as secretary of state.
The move by Democrats on the panel was designed to debunk the conclusions of the committee's majority report that is expected to be highly critical of Clinton.
Read the full Democratic report
"We have been hampered in our work by the ongoing Republican obsession with conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality," said the Democratic report, which underscored the fierce political divisions between Republicans and Democrats over the attack on a U.S. consular post and a CIA annex in the Libyan port city. "Rather than reject these conspiracy theories in the absence of evidence -- or in the face of hard facts -- Select Committee Republicans embraced them and turned them into a political crusade."
"We hope our report will put to rest the conspiracy theories about Benghazi once and for all and return the focus to where it belongs—on the goal of improving the security of Americans serving abroad," the report continued.
The Democratic report was released as the general election heats up. It argues that the Pentagon could not have done anything on the night of the attacks in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, that would have saved the lives of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of failing to deploy military assets to rescue the Americans.
The report concludes that State Department security measures in Benghazi were "woefully inadequate" but that Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi. It denies the intelligence community was influenced by politics in its response to the attacks and that its evolving explanations on its causes were the result of evolving information in fast changing circumstances, not meddling by administration officials.
The Democratic report was simultaneously an indictment of the work and structure of the committee, set up by former House Speaker John Boehner in 2014, as much as a look into the events in Benghazi. All along, Democrats have branded the probe as nothing more than a partisan witch hunt targeting Clinton rather than another attempt to establish the facts about Benghazi.
"Decades in the future, historians will look back on this investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation," the Democratic members wrote. "They will showcase the proliferation of Republican abuses as a chief example of what happens when politicians are allowed to use unlimited taxpayer dollars -- and the formidable power of Congress -- to attack their political foes."
The Democratic report includes 12 recommendations, that include suggestion for improving State Department security at U.S. posts overseas but also take aim at Republicans on the committee who it accuses of politicizing the Benghazi tragedy.
"Congress should not establish or use future investigative select committees or panels for political purposes including to impact elections or to raise campaign funds," the report said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Like Trump, Gingrich also has a precarious relationship with the truth." Just what we need: #Lyin'Newt AND #Lyin'Donald.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Democrats are not the party repeatedly stating they and only they have morals/family values/G_D is on our side like the Republicans.
* Anyone associated with a Trump ticket will be committing political suicide.
* Now thats a catchy headline.....and quite accurate too!!! GREAT ONE!
* It might be beneficial, before we talk about "making America great again" to ask exactly what America in 2016 is really about besides money. Everything we hear concerns campaign funding, candidates' "war chests" and possible sources of income for those who want to run. Where is the discussion of what's good for the average American? All I seem to hear about is what's good for huge corporations and billionaires. For whom are we hoping to make America great?
* thats all the rich ever think about...money
* Trump/Gingrich family values summed up: Have as many as you can...In Trump's case, import them, American women are so...willful.
* Democrats aren't interested in your maritial affairs. That's your business. But when a party places that as a big part of their platform to try and make everyone else live according to their values, them pick someone like Trump, what do you expect.Such insecure people in the GOP. They can dish it out but they sure can't take it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump And Gingrich: Two Men. Six Wives. Family Values.
By Peter Dreier, june 26, 2016
Assuming he isn’t ousted as the GOP’s presidential nominee at the party’s Cleveland convention next month, who will be Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate? The field keeps narrowing, as more and more Republicans - including Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — distance themselves from Trump. As the pickings get slimmer and slimmer, Trump will have to figure out who can best help him climb out of the quicksand he’s jumped into with his big mouth, excessive ego, and lack of impulse control.
In handicapping the VP sweepstakes, many pundits think former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the most likely choice. If Trump picks Newt, they could adopt the slogan: “Two men. Six wives. Family values.” Or, as UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff suggested, they could call themselves the “Henry VIII ticket” in honor of their multiple marriages during their (combined) 143 years. Their campaign film could be called the “Six Wives Club.”
We all know about Trump’s misogynyst attitudes toward women, his obsession about the size of his penis, his boasts about his sexual conquests, and his three marriages. When he was deposed in the 1991 divorce proceedings with his first wife, Ivana, he invoked the Fifth Amendment 97 times, mostly in response to questions about “other women.” During the divorce contest, Ivana accused Trump of having raped her. (Would anyone be surprised if we start hearing more women accusing Trump of being a sexual predator?).
So perhaps, in Trump’s eyes, it would help “balance” the GOP ticket by adding another three-marriage adulterer.
Gingrich cheated on his first wife, Jackie, while she was recovering from treatment for cancer in 1980 and asked her for a divorce. Then he cheated on his second wife, Marianne, while having a six-year affair with a staffer, Callista Bisek (23 years his junior), who is now his third wife. In 2012, Marianne Gingrich told ABC News that her husband had asked her for an “open marriage.” “And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,’” she revealed. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”
Gingrich’s other ethical problems also won’t help Trump clean up his act. Gingrich violated campaign finance laws while in Congress. His House colleagues fined him $300,000 for his breach of ethics standards. The entire House passed the ethics report by 395 to 28 vote, including by a 196-26 margin among Republicans. He was the first Speaker in American history to be sanctioned in this way.
Like Trump, Gingrich also has a precarious relationship with the truth. Politifact and FactCheck has consistently found that many of Gingrich statements are misleading or outright lies. When he was running for president in 2012, for example, he repeatedly claimed that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He was wrong. More people were added under George W. Bush than under Obama. Over the years, Gingrich has been a bottomless pit of wacky ideas. During his presidential campaign he proposed doing away with child labor laws, which he called “truly stupid.” He suggested that children should be allowed to work as janitors at their schools.
After he left Congress, Gingrich made a fortune as a corporate lobbyist and influence peddler. In 2003, for example, Gingrich met with two dozen Republican House members, trying to persuade them to to support a Medicare prescription drug benefit at the same time that he was soliciting funds from drug companies for his consulting firm.
On a practical side, it isn’t clear that Gingrich helps Trump win any states. And although Gingrich is a right-wing extremist, he’s much more articulate than Trump, which makes him look smarter - something that Trump might not be able to handle.
How do Newt’s leading rivals for the VP slot compare?
Chris Christie. Like Gingrich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie desperately wants the VP job. He’s certainly been willing to humiliate himself to be seen with Trump over the past few months, serving as Donald’s errand boy. (Trump even had Christie fetch him a Big Mac). The combination of Trump’s Trump University controversy and Christie’s George Washington Bridge-gate crisis would make it easy for the media to portray a Trump-Christie ticket as the “Scandal Twins.” Plus, Christie wouldn’t help Trump win key states. He won’t even help Trump win New Jersey because the governor is so unpopular in his home state. Seven New Jersey newspapers, including the Star-Ledger, the state’s largest daily, have called on Christie to resign.
Ted Cruz. The Democrats would love to replay the videos of Trump and Cruz attacking and insulting each other during the GOP primaries. Cruz called Trump a “serial philanderer,” a “pathological liar” and a “narcissist.” Trump accused Cruz’s father - a right-wing evangelical extremist - of playing a role in the Kennedy assassination. Plus, Cruz is so unpopular with his GOP Senate colleagues that it will not bring any reluctant Senators on board the Trump train.
Susana Martinez. Absolutely the best person to help Trump would have been New Mexico’s Republican Governor. She might have muted (somewhat) Trump’s attacks on women and Latino/as. But Trump blew that chance with his nasty comments about Martinez when she wouldn’t endorse him. He might have been able to cultivate her, but no longer.
Carly Fiorina. It might be awkward for the fired Hewlett Packard CEO and failed Senate and presidential candidate to serve as Trump’s VP running mate. During the primaries, Trump indulged in his instinct for insult when, referring to Fiorina, then his rival candidate for the GOP nomination, he said: “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” Trump might be tempted to ask another corporate CEO — or retired CEO - to join him on the ticket. But that would mean that the GOP would have two candidates from the business sector, both without any political experience (unless he picks former CEO’s Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfield). That won’t fly.
So who’s left? It boils down to the following list:
Richard Burr. The Senator from North Carolina is not well-known outside his home state, where he now faces a tough re-election campaign. Polls show that he currently leads his Democratic rival, former NC state Rep. Deborah Ross, by a narrow margin, but with Trump at the top of the ticket, Burr will have an even harder time getting re-elected in that swing state. So he might want to get out of that race while the getting’s good. (He can’t run for his Senate seat and VP simultaneously.) Burr is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which could help Trump by picking someone with foreign policy experience, but he might balk at having a VP candidate with intelligence.
Brian Sandoval. The Nevada governor might be Trump’s best bet - a Latino Republican in a swing state who has already endorsed The Donald. (He initially endorsed Kasich but switched to Trump after Kasich dropped out). But given the likelihood that Trump will lose to Clinton in a crushing landslide, accepting the VP nomination might end Sandoval’s political career. (He might want to wait four years and be Paul Ryan’s VP pick, if Susana Martinez doesn’t get it). A former federal judge, Sandoval is quite conservative, but within the GOP he’s considered a “moderate.”
Mary Fallin. The Oklahoma governor, whom some have called “America’s worst governor,” is an extreme right-winger, which could appeal to some Tea Party voters who somehow think Trump isn’t conservative enough. Tea Partiers will have an easy time remembering her name, because it sort of rhymes with Palin. It is hard to imagine that anything could help Trump gain support among women, but putting a woman on the ticket might get him a few more female votes. Given Trump’s deeply-ingrained misogyny, however, he’s likely to insult Fallin during the campaign.
Jeff Sessions. The Senator from Alabama is as racist and as fierce an opponent of immigration as Trump. In 1986, Reagan nominated Sessions to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The Senate Judiciary Committee killed Sessions’ nomination, partly after hearing witnesses report on some of his racist views. He was only the second nominee in 50 years to be rejected by the Senate judiciary committee. If Trump can’t win Alabama on his own, he’s in huge trouble. But Sessions has the advantage of being a veteran Senator with political experience, offsetting Trump’s inexperience. An upside for Republicans of picking Sessions is that if he loses, he can return to the Senate, since he’s not up for re-election until 2020. And if, by some chance, Trump and Sessions win, Alabama’s Republican governor Robert Bentley will pick his successor, assuming that Bentley hasn’t already been impeached as a result his current sex scandal.
Bob Corker. The Senator from Tennessee has endorsed Trump and was reportedly high on the VP list, he’s recently criticized Trump for some of his more outlandish comments, such as Trump’s racist attacks on a federal judge presiding over the case against Trump University . Corker is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which would help Trump, whose bombastic shoot-from-the-hip remarks don’t give people confidence in his diplomatic skills. But Corker also comes with some serious negatives. It’s hard to believe that America is ready for a ticket comprised of two men who made millions in the real estate business. And, like Trump, he’s got his own tax scandals. Corker failed to disclose $2 million dollars worth of hedge fund profits and millions more of income from his commercial real estate business.
A retired general. Many ex-military brass and a bipartisan group of national security heavyweights think Trump is a reckless lunatic. Both camps have issued statements questioning Trump’s qualifications to conduct military and foreign policy. But if Trump can find a former military leader who also has some foreign policy experience, and would be willing to serve as his VP, it might help him gain some credibility and offset some of the crazy ideas he has been promoting, like cozying up to Putin and endorsing the spread of nuclear weapons. He’d have to be careful to vet the retired general to make sure that he hasn’t made a fortune as a lobbyist for a military contractor or called for a nuclear attack on Iraq. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn ... — a retired soldier who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.— is rumored to be on Trump’s short list. In 2012 he was named director of the Defense Intelligence Agency but was forced out in 2014. He is working as an adviser to Trump and has been very critical of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He has a book coming out next month, “The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies,” that sounds right up Trump’s alley. But Flynn has made a number of controversial statements that could backfire during the campaign.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Democrats are not the party repeatedly stating they and only they have morals/family values/G_D is on our side like the Republicans.
* Anyone associated with a Trump ticket will be committing political suicide.
* Now thats a catchy headline.....and quite accurate too!!! GREAT ONE!
* It might be beneficial, before we talk about "making America great again" to ask exactly what America in 2016 is really about besides money. Everything we hear concerns campaign funding, candidates' "war chests" and possible sources of income for those who want to run. Where is the discussion of what's good for the average American? All I seem to hear about is what's good for huge corporations and billionaires. For whom are we hoping to make America great?
* thats all the rich ever think about...money
* Trump/Gingrich family values summed up: Have as many as you can...In Trump's case, import them, American women are so...willful.
* Democrats aren't interested in your maritial affairs. That's your business. But when a party places that as a big part of their platform to try and make everyone else live according to their values, them pick someone like Trump, what do you expect.Such insecure people in the GOP. They can dish it out but they sure can't take it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump And Gingrich: Two Men. Six Wives. Family Values.
By Peter Dreier, june 26, 2016
Assuming he isn’t ousted as the GOP’s presidential nominee at the party’s Cleveland convention next month, who will be Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate? The field keeps narrowing, as more and more Republicans - including Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — distance themselves from Trump. As the pickings get slimmer and slimmer, Trump will have to figure out who can best help him climb out of the quicksand he’s jumped into with his big mouth, excessive ego, and lack of impulse control.
In handicapping the VP sweepstakes, many pundits think former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the most likely choice. If Trump picks Newt, they could adopt the slogan: “Two men. Six wives. Family values.” Or, as UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff suggested, they could call themselves the “Henry VIII ticket” in honor of their multiple marriages during their (combined) 143 years. Their campaign film could be called the “Six Wives Club.”
We all know about Trump’s misogynyst attitudes toward women, his obsession about the size of his penis, his boasts about his sexual conquests, and his three marriages. When he was deposed in the 1991 divorce proceedings with his first wife, Ivana, he invoked the Fifth Amendment 97 times, mostly in response to questions about “other women.” During the divorce contest, Ivana accused Trump of having raped her. (Would anyone be surprised if we start hearing more women accusing Trump of being a sexual predator?).
So perhaps, in Trump’s eyes, it would help “balance” the GOP ticket by adding another three-marriage adulterer.
Gingrich cheated on his first wife, Jackie, while she was recovering from treatment for cancer in 1980 and asked her for a divorce. Then he cheated on his second wife, Marianne, while having a six-year affair with a staffer, Callista Bisek (23 years his junior), who is now his third wife. In 2012, Marianne Gingrich told ABC News that her husband had asked her for an “open marriage.” “And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,’” she revealed. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”
Gingrich’s other ethical problems also won’t help Trump clean up his act. Gingrich violated campaign finance laws while in Congress. His House colleagues fined him $300,000 for his breach of ethics standards. The entire House passed the ethics report by 395 to 28 vote, including by a 196-26 margin among Republicans. He was the first Speaker in American history to be sanctioned in this way.
Like Trump, Gingrich also has a precarious relationship with the truth. Politifact and FactCheck has consistently found that many of Gingrich statements are misleading or outright lies. When he was running for president in 2012, for example, he repeatedly claimed that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He was wrong. More people were added under George W. Bush than under Obama. Over the years, Gingrich has been a bottomless pit of wacky ideas. During his presidential campaign he proposed doing away with child labor laws, which he called “truly stupid.” He suggested that children should be allowed to work as janitors at their schools.
After he left Congress, Gingrich made a fortune as a corporate lobbyist and influence peddler. In 2003, for example, Gingrich met with two dozen Republican House members, trying to persuade them to to support a Medicare prescription drug benefit at the same time that he was soliciting funds from drug companies for his consulting firm.
On a practical side, it isn’t clear that Gingrich helps Trump win any states. And although Gingrich is a right-wing extremist, he’s much more articulate than Trump, which makes him look smarter - something that Trump might not be able to handle.
How do Newt’s leading rivals for the VP slot compare?
Chris Christie. Like Gingrich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie desperately wants the VP job. He’s certainly been willing to humiliate himself to be seen with Trump over the past few months, serving as Donald’s errand boy. (Trump even had Christie fetch him a Big Mac). The combination of Trump’s Trump University controversy and Christie’s George Washington Bridge-gate crisis would make it easy for the media to portray a Trump-Christie ticket as the “Scandal Twins.” Plus, Christie wouldn’t help Trump win key states. He won’t even help Trump win New Jersey because the governor is so unpopular in his home state. Seven New Jersey newspapers, including the Star-Ledger, the state’s largest daily, have called on Christie to resign.
Ted Cruz. The Democrats would love to replay the videos of Trump and Cruz attacking and insulting each other during the GOP primaries. Cruz called Trump a “serial philanderer,” a “pathological liar” and a “narcissist.” Trump accused Cruz’s father - a right-wing evangelical extremist - of playing a role in the Kennedy assassination. Plus, Cruz is so unpopular with his GOP Senate colleagues that it will not bring any reluctant Senators on board the Trump train.
Susana Martinez. Absolutely the best person to help Trump would have been New Mexico’s Republican Governor. She might have muted (somewhat) Trump’s attacks on women and Latino/as. But Trump blew that chance with his nasty comments about Martinez when she wouldn’t endorse him. He might have been able to cultivate her, but no longer.
Carly Fiorina. It might be awkward for the fired Hewlett Packard CEO and failed Senate and presidential candidate to serve as Trump’s VP running mate. During the primaries, Trump indulged in his instinct for insult when, referring to Fiorina, then his rival candidate for the GOP nomination, he said: “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” Trump might be tempted to ask another corporate CEO — or retired CEO - to join him on the ticket. But that would mean that the GOP would have two candidates from the business sector, both without any political experience (unless he picks former CEO’s Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfield). That won’t fly.
So who’s left? It boils down to the following list:
Richard Burr. The Senator from North Carolina is not well-known outside his home state, where he now faces a tough re-election campaign. Polls show that he currently leads his Democratic rival, former NC state Rep. Deborah Ross, by a narrow margin, but with Trump at the top of the ticket, Burr will have an even harder time getting re-elected in that swing state. So he might want to get out of that race while the getting’s good. (He can’t run for his Senate seat and VP simultaneously.) Burr is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which could help Trump by picking someone with foreign policy experience, but he might balk at having a VP candidate with intelligence.
Brian Sandoval. The Nevada governor might be Trump’s best bet - a Latino Republican in a swing state who has already endorsed The Donald. (He initially endorsed Kasich but switched to Trump after Kasich dropped out). But given the likelihood that Trump will lose to Clinton in a crushing landslide, accepting the VP nomination might end Sandoval’s political career. (He might want to wait four years and be Paul Ryan’s VP pick, if Susana Martinez doesn’t get it). A former federal judge, Sandoval is quite conservative, but within the GOP he’s considered a “moderate.”
Mary Fallin. The Oklahoma governor, whom some have called “America’s worst governor,” is an extreme right-winger, which could appeal to some Tea Party voters who somehow think Trump isn’t conservative enough. Tea Partiers will have an easy time remembering her name, because it sort of rhymes with Palin. It is hard to imagine that anything could help Trump gain support among women, but putting a woman on the ticket might get him a few more female votes. Given Trump’s deeply-ingrained misogyny, however, he’s likely to insult Fallin during the campaign.
Jeff Sessions. The Senator from Alabama is as racist and as fierce an opponent of immigration as Trump. In 1986, Reagan nominated Sessions to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The Senate Judiciary Committee killed Sessions’ nomination, partly after hearing witnesses report on some of his racist views. He was only the second nominee in 50 years to be rejected by the Senate judiciary committee. If Trump can’t win Alabama on his own, he’s in huge trouble. But Sessions has the advantage of being a veteran Senator with political experience, offsetting Trump’s inexperience. An upside for Republicans of picking Sessions is that if he loses, he can return to the Senate, since he’s not up for re-election until 2020. And if, by some chance, Trump and Sessions win, Alabama’s Republican governor Robert Bentley will pick his successor, assuming that Bentley hasn’t already been impeached as a result his current sex scandal.
Bob Corker. The Senator from Tennessee has endorsed Trump and was reportedly high on the VP list, he’s recently criticized Trump for some of his more outlandish comments, such as Trump’s racist attacks on a federal judge presiding over the case against Trump University . Corker is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which would help Trump, whose bombastic shoot-from-the-hip remarks don’t give people confidence in his diplomatic skills. But Corker also comes with some serious negatives. It’s hard to believe that America is ready for a ticket comprised of two men who made millions in the real estate business. And, like Trump, he’s got his own tax scandals. Corker failed to disclose $2 million dollars worth of hedge fund profits and millions more of income from his commercial real estate business.
A retired general. Many ex-military brass and a bipartisan group of national security heavyweights think Trump is a reckless lunatic. Both camps have issued statements questioning Trump’s qualifications to conduct military and foreign policy. But if Trump can find a former military leader who also has some foreign policy experience, and would be willing to serve as his VP, it might help him gain some credibility and offset some of the crazy ideas he has been promoting, like cozying up to Putin and endorsing the spread of nuclear weapons. He’d have to be careful to vet the retired general to make sure that he hasn’t made a fortune as a lobbyist for a military contractor or called for a nuclear attack on Iraq. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn ... — a retired soldier who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.— is rumored to be on Trump’s short list. In 2012 he was named director of the Defense Intelligence Agency but was forced out in 2014. He is working as an adviser to Trump and has been very critical of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He has a book coming out next month, “The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies,” that sounds right up Trump’s alley. But Flynn has made a number of controversial statements that could backfire during the campaign.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... there’s an easier way to crack down on pay-for-play politicking: Pass and enforce strict rules on what kind of presents would-be influencers are allowed to give to lawmakers." Time for some nit-picking on values of "presents".
...................................................................................................................................................................
McDonnell SCOTUS Decision Could Open Up a New Golden Age of Political Pay-to-Play
“Every official (is) going to be waving this decision around like a flag.”
By Betsy Woodruff, June 27, 2016
The Supreme Court just threw a lifeline to politicians looking to play and get paid—and perhaps even to some big fish in New York who have already been caught and convicted for doing just that.
In 2014, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was found guilty on several counts of public corruption for doing favors for the producer of a very questionable nutrition supplement who gave him and his wife loans and lavish gifts. That was all legal under Virginia’s exceptionally lax rules for elected officials and, in the absence of a clear favor done specifically in exchange for those gifts, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to overturn his conviction—finding that the instructions the judge gave jurors regarding federal bribery law were “boundless.”
While the court’s 8-0 ruling was narrowly tailored, one powerful New York politician taken down earlier this year on federal corruption charges celebrated the decision.
“The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision today in the McDonnell case makes clear that federal government has gone too far in prosecuting state officials for conduct that is part of the everyday functioning of those in elected office,” said Steven Molo and Joel Cohen, the lawyers for Sheldon Silver—who until he was convicted on seven corruption-related counts earlier this year and sentenced to 12 years, was the powerful New York state Assembly speaker. “The McDonnell decision will be central to Mr. Silver’s appeal.”
Silver’s counterpart in the state Senate, Dean Skelos, was sentenced earlier this year to 5 years. Both were prosecuted by Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, who’s made fighting political corruption in New York a signature issue.
But those sentences were suspended until SCOTUS ruled on McDonnell’s case. And since it ruled in the Virginia governor’s favor, New York’s twin icons of dirty politics are taking heart.
Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause New York, said their newfound optimism is understandable—and disturbing.
“There is no question in my mind that every official—including two recently convicted here in New York [Silver and Skelos]—are going to be waving this decision around like a flag,” she said.
She noted it isn’t clear yet whether or not SCOTUS will get them off the hook. She added that in their cases, there was a much clearer connection between the gifts they received and the favors they provided in return. So the ruling may not be as helpful as their attorneys hope. Still, she said, the high court didn’t do any favors to anti-corruption crusaders.
“It emboldens legislators who have a bad sense of where right and wrong fall, to convince themselves that their conduct is just the way politics is done,” she said.
“My concern is that the way it may be covered and the way the public perceives it translates to legislators saying, ‘It’s fine for me to prefer having meetings with my large campaign contributors because that’s just business as usual according to the Supreme Court,’” she added. “That flies in the face of everyday people’s understanding of what’s corrupt.”
Others concurred.
“It’s disappointing, because it will certainly make reaching a bribery conviction more difficult,” said Tara Malloy, the deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “And it’s disappointing because it’s letting McDonnell off the hook, at least for the time being.”
Another leading ethics watchdog, who spoke anonymously to avoid speculating on the record about current cases, said the McDonnell ruling could also be a boon for U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat facing upwards of a dozen bribery and corruption charges because of allegations that he traded political favors for fancy trips and campaign contributions.
But others see the ruling as a win. Stephen Klein, an attorney at the firm Pillar of Law, which specializes in free speech issues, said the ruling makes federal bribery laws clearer—not weaker.
“The McDonnell ruling simply requires prosecutors to establish the corruption part of corruption cases, nothing more, nothing less,” he said. “Allowing McDonnell to be convicted for simply setting up meetings or hosting a party in exchange for gifts that were legal under Virginia law would have allowed a ‘no duh’ approach to corruption cases; he would be guilty simply because Uncle Sam said so.”
And, he added, there’s an easier way to crack down on pay-for-play politicking: Pass and enforce strict rules on what kind of presents would-be influencers are allowed to give to lawmakers.
“There’s a very easy way to make sure McDonnell never happens again: Put strict limits on gifts that officeholders can accept from non-family members,” he said. “Federal law and most states already provide for just that.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
McDonnell SCOTUS Decision Could Open Up a New Golden Age of Political Pay-to-Play
“Every official (is) going to be waving this decision around like a flag.”
By Betsy Woodruff, June 27, 2016
The Supreme Court just threw a lifeline to politicians looking to play and get paid—and perhaps even to some big fish in New York who have already been caught and convicted for doing just that.
In 2014, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was found guilty on several counts of public corruption for doing favors for the producer of a very questionable nutrition supplement who gave him and his wife loans and lavish gifts. That was all legal under Virginia’s exceptionally lax rules for elected officials and, in the absence of a clear favor done specifically in exchange for those gifts, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to overturn his conviction—finding that the instructions the judge gave jurors regarding federal bribery law were “boundless.”
While the court’s 8-0 ruling was narrowly tailored, one powerful New York politician taken down earlier this year on federal corruption charges celebrated the decision.
“The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision today in the McDonnell case makes clear that federal government has gone too far in prosecuting state officials for conduct that is part of the everyday functioning of those in elected office,” said Steven Molo and Joel Cohen, the lawyers for Sheldon Silver—who until he was convicted on seven corruption-related counts earlier this year and sentenced to 12 years, was the powerful New York state Assembly speaker. “The McDonnell decision will be central to Mr. Silver’s appeal.”
Silver’s counterpart in the state Senate, Dean Skelos, was sentenced earlier this year to 5 years. Both were prosecuted by Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, who’s made fighting political corruption in New York a signature issue.
But those sentences were suspended until SCOTUS ruled on McDonnell’s case. And since it ruled in the Virginia governor’s favor, New York’s twin icons of dirty politics are taking heart.
Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause New York, said their newfound optimism is understandable—and disturbing.
“There is no question in my mind that every official—including two recently convicted here in New York [Silver and Skelos]—are going to be waving this decision around like a flag,” she said.
She noted it isn’t clear yet whether or not SCOTUS will get them off the hook. She added that in their cases, there was a much clearer connection between the gifts they received and the favors they provided in return. So the ruling may not be as helpful as their attorneys hope. Still, she said, the high court didn’t do any favors to anti-corruption crusaders.
“It emboldens legislators who have a bad sense of where right and wrong fall, to convince themselves that their conduct is just the way politics is done,” she said.
“My concern is that the way it may be covered and the way the public perceives it translates to legislators saying, ‘It’s fine for me to prefer having meetings with my large campaign contributors because that’s just business as usual according to the Supreme Court,’” she added. “That flies in the face of everyday people’s understanding of what’s corrupt.”
Others concurred.
“It’s disappointing, because it will certainly make reaching a bribery conviction more difficult,” said Tara Malloy, the deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “And it’s disappointing because it’s letting McDonnell off the hook, at least for the time being.”
Another leading ethics watchdog, who spoke anonymously to avoid speculating on the record about current cases, said the McDonnell ruling could also be a boon for U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat facing upwards of a dozen bribery and corruption charges because of allegations that he traded political favors for fancy trips and campaign contributions.
But others see the ruling as a win. Stephen Klein, an attorney at the firm Pillar of Law, which specializes in free speech issues, said the ruling makes federal bribery laws clearer—not weaker.
“The McDonnell ruling simply requires prosecutors to establish the corruption part of corruption cases, nothing more, nothing less,” he said. “Allowing McDonnell to be convicted for simply setting up meetings or hosting a party in exchange for gifts that were legal under Virginia law would have allowed a ‘no duh’ approach to corruption cases; he would be guilty simply because Uncle Sam said so.”
And, he added, there’s an easier way to crack down on pay-for-play politicking: Pass and enforce strict rules on what kind of presents would-be influencers are allowed to give to lawmakers.
“There’s a very easy way to make sure McDonnell never happens again: Put strict limits on gifts that officeholders can accept from non-family members,” he said. “Federal law and most states already provide for just that.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'It’s very possible I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money off of it.' And that’s obviously the goal. ... it is now, has been and always shall be, all about the Benjamins." Yep, it's a classic SCAMPAIGN.
...................................................................................................................................................................
DONALD TRUMP, THE NIGERIAN PRINCE OF POLITICS
By Will Durst, June 27, 2016
Donald Trump likes to brag he’s not a politician. And he’s not; he’s a hustler, a scam artist, a grifter, a modern day P.T. Barnum who deserves congratulations for running the ultimate con on the American people. He’s a carnie with a glob of inedible cotton candy on his head.
Financial reports filed with the Federal Election Commission reveal someone focused on the best interests of Trump Inc. rather than the country. To him, we are the designated losers in this year’s rigged edition of “Presidential Apprentice.”
In 2000 Trump told Fortune Magazine, “It’s very possible I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money off of it.” And that’s obviously the goal. He’s got four and a half months to make as much money as possible and is full speed ahead pursuing his windfall like a kid on Halloween a half hour before curfew.
For the New York businessman, it is now, has been and always shall be, all about the Benjamins. His wife and kids are on the payroll. So is an ex- wife and a couple of contestants from “The Apprentice.” And probably John Miller, the name he used when masquerading as his own publicist.
Almost a fifth of the money he spent in the month of May went to his companies, subsidiaries and properties. He billed his campaign over $400,000 for an event at the Florida resort, Mar-A-Lago, where Trump lives. He undoubtedly did that thing hospitals do by charging a hundred bucks for each ply of toilet paper. Trump branded toilet paper of course. Got to get me some of that.
Another half million went to Trump Tower, the other place he lives. He’s charging himself to sleep in his own bed. Wonder if Melania charges as well. Trump even paid himself $3,000. Which works out to $750 a week. An attempt to find out how the other 99 percent lives? Not likely.
Trump paid out $4.5 million to TAG Air for private jets. And guess who the CEO of TAG Air is? That’s right. Don the Con. Some other products the campaign purchased are Trump Wine, Trump Steaks, Trump Water and we shouldn’t be surprised to discover an itemized expense for Trump luggage to carry around the Trump ego.
All that talk about self-funding was just more snake oil sold to us rubes. Another bogus plea from the Nigerian Prince of politics. He didn’t give money to his campaign, he lent it $37 million and expects to be paid back by the Republican National Committee. The man is the Florence of malfeasance.
He loans money to the Trump Campaign which spends money on his properties, then solicits contributions from wealthy donors to pay himself back the money he loaned his campaign to buy stuff from himself.
This has to be straight out of a course at Trump University. Double Dipping 101. His scampaign is nothing but a shell game with the GOP as the mark. Paul Ryan has a big old X on his back that can only be seen under infrared light.
It’s the classic vulture capitalist scenario. Swoop in, grab the money, then leave everyone else to clean up the mess. A Presidential Ponzi Scheme. Or in this case… a Donzi Scheme. Bernie Madoff would be proud.
...................................................................................................................................................................
DONALD TRUMP, THE NIGERIAN PRINCE OF POLITICS
By Will Durst, June 27, 2016
Donald Trump likes to brag he’s not a politician. And he’s not; he’s a hustler, a scam artist, a grifter, a modern day P.T. Barnum who deserves congratulations for running the ultimate con on the American people. He’s a carnie with a glob of inedible cotton candy on his head.
Financial reports filed with the Federal Election Commission reveal someone focused on the best interests of Trump Inc. rather than the country. To him, we are the designated losers in this year’s rigged edition of “Presidential Apprentice.”
In 2000 Trump told Fortune Magazine, “It’s very possible I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money off of it.” And that’s obviously the goal. He’s got four and a half months to make as much money as possible and is full speed ahead pursuing his windfall like a kid on Halloween a half hour before curfew.
For the New York businessman, it is now, has been and always shall be, all about the Benjamins. His wife and kids are on the payroll. So is an ex- wife and a couple of contestants from “The Apprentice.” And probably John Miller, the name he used when masquerading as his own publicist.
Almost a fifth of the money he spent in the month of May went to his companies, subsidiaries and properties. He billed his campaign over $400,000 for an event at the Florida resort, Mar-A-Lago, where Trump lives. He undoubtedly did that thing hospitals do by charging a hundred bucks for each ply of toilet paper. Trump branded toilet paper of course. Got to get me some of that.
Another half million went to Trump Tower, the other place he lives. He’s charging himself to sleep in his own bed. Wonder if Melania charges as well. Trump even paid himself $3,000. Which works out to $750 a week. An attempt to find out how the other 99 percent lives? Not likely.
Trump paid out $4.5 million to TAG Air for private jets. And guess who the CEO of TAG Air is? That’s right. Don the Con. Some other products the campaign purchased are Trump Wine, Trump Steaks, Trump Water and we shouldn’t be surprised to discover an itemized expense for Trump luggage to carry around the Trump ego.
All that talk about self-funding was just more snake oil sold to us rubes. Another bogus plea from the Nigerian Prince of politics. He didn’t give money to his campaign, he lent it $37 million and expects to be paid back by the Republican National Committee. The man is the Florence of malfeasance.
He loans money to the Trump Campaign which spends money on his properties, then solicits contributions from wealthy donors to pay himself back the money he loaned his campaign to buy stuff from himself.
This has to be straight out of a course at Trump University. Double Dipping 101. His scampaign is nothing but a shell game with the GOP as the mark. Paul Ryan has a big old X on his back that can only be seen under infrared light.
It’s the classic vulture capitalist scenario. Swoop in, grab the money, then leave everyone else to clean up the mess. A Presidential Ponzi Scheme. Or in this case… a Donzi Scheme. Bernie Madoff would be proud.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, June 26, 2016
"... this is the result of Republicans having spent years sitting around campfires telling stories to each other about the Clintons, seeing who can spin the most scary yarn. She has come to embody the Blair Witch, a succubus and every frightening villain that Republicans can conjure."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I voted for her and so did a lot of other people. That's called a democracy. You got outvoted. Don't look for monsters.
* It is not very complicated. Over the years, republicans have spread so many lies about the Clintons and Hillary herself, that even they don't know which of the lies are the cause of the hatred. It is very similar to the lies republicans have spread about the federal government and caused them to distrust and even hate it. For instance, the story that Hillary corrupt has really nothing to back it - she is no more corrupt than most politicians. She tells far fewer lies than republican politicians, especially Trump. She is more qualified and more experienced than just about anybody in primaries. And she is no far left person. There is no reason to hate her, but there is no reason to particularly like her as well.
* The platform of the GOP is based on punishment, negative reinforcement, and "if you are poor, then it is your fault." They cannot see beyond their own narrow worldview of the possibility of creating a better world. Thus, anything or anyone who might want to lay a foundation for general prosperity is immediately labeled as "liberal" or "communist." It is nice to see that the world can still move forward in spite of and regardless of them. I personally enjoy hearing their dying whimpers of irrelevance.
* ... when you get your information exclusively from partisan web sites, and then conclude that anyone who doesn't see things your way, doesn't love America the way that you. Let's see if you have the courage of your convictions. Why don't you go to ANY credible FACT CHECKING web site, like Snopes, Politifact or Fact Checker, and compare what they say about the truthfulness of Clinton and Trump, using actual facts rather than claims by barking dogs and talking heads with an obvious axe to grind. Let's see how "singularly" honest you are when challenging your own misinformed prejudices.
* The Republican hatred of Hillary has to do with their conditioning by the conservative media, especially conservative radio. I've heard the radio hosts slamming Hillary since her husband left office. It was bound to have an influence on people that listen to the conservative voices.
* While she is certainly not "pure" she is no more "corrupt" than any other politician. The GOP hates her because she is an extremly strong woman with strong beliefs and she's not afraid to say so. Conservatives have always despised women who speak up, especially when those women are disagreeing with conservative ideology.
...................................................................................................................................................................
WHY DO REPUBLICANS HATE HILLARY CLINTON?
By Neil Buchanan, June 26, 2016
What is it about Hillary Clinton that bothers Republicans so much?
Even more than her husband or President Obama—indeed, more than any politician within anyone's memory—Clinton evokes a seething, blind hatred from those on the opposite side of the aisle.
This is especially difficult to understand in light of Clinton's notably successful efforts at bipartisanship while she was in the Senate, as well as her history of center-right policy views that positioned her very much on the right end of Bill Clinton's triangulating administration.
That she has more recently adopted some center-left views is, I am sure, an unpleasant development from the standpoint of Republicans, but their hatred of Hillary Clinton long predates any of that.
Last week, I wrote about Clinton's "high negatives" in polls with voters and how those poll results are erroneously likened to people's much more negative views of Donald Trump. It has become an established trope of in-the-know political commentary that the two presumptive nominees are both widely reviled.
As I pointed out, however, people can use words like dislike, untrustworthy, and similar negative terms in quite different ways: "People can say that they 'hate' getting food poisoning at a restaurant, and they can also say that they 'hate' when the chef uses too much cumin in the curried potatoes." Both statements are honest, but they are also not at all comparable.
Still, many Republicans will tell you that Hillary Clinton is like food poisoning, not merely an unpalatably spiced dish. To a large degree, this is the result of Republicans having spent years sitting around campfires telling stories to each other about the Clintons, seeing who can spin the most scary yarn. She has come to embody the Blair Witch, a succubus and every frightening villain that Republicans can conjure.
Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally in Cleveland on June 13. Neil Buchanan writes that Republicans have spent years sitting around campfires telling stories to each other about the Clintons, seeing who can spin the most scary yarn. AARON JOSEFCZYK/REUTERS
I understand, therefore, that Clinton hatred is somehow both precognitive and post-cognitive, but because I am always most interested in issues, I am fascinated by the mismatch between Clinton's actual not-at-all-extreme policy views and Republicans' visceral revulsion toward her.
One of the ways that Republican elected officials have tried to deflect attention away from the outrages of Donald Trump is by painting Clinton as an unthinkable alternative. For example, an unknown Republican backbencher in the House recently said of Trump's series of outrageous statements: "Am I offended sometimes at the comments? Yes I am. However, what offends me more are Hillary Clinton’s actions."
In a way, trying to analyze that statement is pointless. After all, many members of Congress have dreams of leadership positions, Cabinet posts, and so on. (Is there anything that indicts political careerism more completely than the idea that some politicians with no interest in, say, labor issues would surely crawl through broken glass to become Trump's secretary of labor?)
But watching political animals in their natural environment can be very revealing, and it is notable that this particular congressman thinks that it is somehow meaningful to distinguish Trump's mere words from Clinton's supposed actions.
Unless this guy actually thinks that Clinton killed Vince Foster, what "actions" could he possibly be talking about? Trump has been telling us in no uncertain terms what actions he will take if he becomes president, and Clinton has been doing the same. Clinton's policy views are different from most (but not all) Republicans', but Trump is raising serious doubts about whether electing him would be the turning point toward a post-constitutional autocracy in the United States.
It is one thing for the increasingly ridiculous Paul Ryan to say that "the last thing we want is a Democrat in the White House like Hillary Clinton." (Seriously? The "last thing"? She is really worse than a person whom even Ryan describes as obviously racist? Electing her would be worse than a political coup? Worse than a presidency that would destroy Ryan's political party?)
Ryan is in over his head on both policy and politics, a career politician trying to figure out how to pretend to be a serious adult, and he cannot stop himself from reverting to over-the-top partisanship.
On June 21, The New York Times Magazine published a fascinating long-form article by Mark Leibovich, in which he discusses the various forms of denial currently at work in the Republican Party.
Discussing the sad post-primary life of Marco Rubio, Leibovich writes: "Rubio also holds the astonishing position of saying he’ll vote for someone he has previously declared unfit to hold the American nuclear codes. You envision him under a mushroom cloud, assuring his kids that it could be even worse—at least he didn’t vote for Clinton."
This level of anti-Clinton derangement has certainly trickled down to the party's grassroots. Leibovich describes the never-Trump senator from Nebraska, Ben Sasse, who told Leibovich that people in his state "say: 'I’m distraught. I’m opposed to everything Hillary Clinton stands for, and yet I think I have to vote for her. How do you make sense of this? What should I do?' These are young evangelical women, teary sometimes. They say, 'I can never tell my kids I voted for that man.'"
Even allowing for rhetorical excess, can it really be true that a young woman in Nebraska is opposed to everything that Clinton stands for? Other than abortion, which is obviously a high-salience issue for many such voters, what has Clinton ever said or done that would make it possible to say that she is on the bad side of every (or nearly every) issue?
Thankfully, some Republicans are willing to admit that this has gotten out of hand. Leibovich offered two insightful comments from Republican insiders. Ed Rogers, a Reagan/Bush 41 alum who now is a Republican lobbyist, said: "The Clintons have never been the demons ideologically that we’ve made them out to be. From a character standpoint, they’re pretty bad, but Hillary isn’t the frightening offensive character that Trump is."
Whether one thinks that her character is "pretty bad" depends on how willing one is to ignore the fact that all of the investigations of the Clintons have turned up nothing but a lot of innuendos and unsubstantiated suspicions. Hillary Clinton has a tendency to become insular when attacked, but I cannot imagine anyone enduring the lifelong character assassination that Clinton has faced without becoming highly defensive.
Perhaps the "character" point was best summed up by John McCain's chief of staff Mark Salter, who told Leibovich that Trump is "just unfit for office," whereas, "I mean, the worst thing you can say about her is, she’s kind of a hack."
And that is exactly right. About the worst thing that you can say about Hillary Clinton is that she has sometimes been kind of a hack. The negative things that I have written about Clinton over the years, in fact, have been based on the idea that she sometimes tends toward hackishness, such that one could reasonably suspect that she will allow short-term political calculations to color her views of, say, a financial regulation bill or a question of military strategy.
That is hardly comforting, but how does that make her different from Mitch McConnell, or Ryan, or McCain, or holier-than-Trump Mitt Romney? How does it make her the second coming of the Wicked Witch of the East?
By contrast, the best things that you can say about Clinton are that she is extremely well informed on issues, that she has actually done a lot of good things both inside and outside of public office in working for change (especially in fighting for the rights of women and girls in the U.S. and around the world), that she is incredibly tough, and that she actually takes into account new evidence and logic to adjust her views. There are good reasons for a 1990s center-right Democrat to have seen the light and moved to the center-left, after all, and she has been willing to learn and change.
If all the Republicans can do now is continue to hope that saying "Hillary Clinton!!" enough times will scare people, then that tells us more about their lack of anything useful to say than it does about Clinton or the Democrats.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I voted for her and so did a lot of other people. That's called a democracy. You got outvoted. Don't look for monsters.
* It is not very complicated. Over the years, republicans have spread so many lies about the Clintons and Hillary herself, that even they don't know which of the lies are the cause of the hatred. It is very similar to the lies republicans have spread about the federal government and caused them to distrust and even hate it. For instance, the story that Hillary corrupt has really nothing to back it - she is no more corrupt than most politicians. She tells far fewer lies than republican politicians, especially Trump. She is more qualified and more experienced than just about anybody in primaries. And she is no far left person. There is no reason to hate her, but there is no reason to particularly like her as well.
* The platform of the GOP is based on punishment, negative reinforcement, and "if you are poor, then it is your fault." They cannot see beyond their own narrow worldview of the possibility of creating a better world. Thus, anything or anyone who might want to lay a foundation for general prosperity is immediately labeled as "liberal" or "communist." It is nice to see that the world can still move forward in spite of and regardless of them. I personally enjoy hearing their dying whimpers of irrelevance.
* ... when you get your information exclusively from partisan web sites, and then conclude that anyone who doesn't see things your way, doesn't love America the way that you. Let's see if you have the courage of your convictions. Why don't you go to ANY credible FACT CHECKING web site, like Snopes, Politifact or Fact Checker, and compare what they say about the truthfulness of Clinton and Trump, using actual facts rather than claims by barking dogs and talking heads with an obvious axe to grind. Let's see how "singularly" honest you are when challenging your own misinformed prejudices.
* The Republican hatred of Hillary has to do with their conditioning by the conservative media, especially conservative radio. I've heard the radio hosts slamming Hillary since her husband left office. It was bound to have an influence on people that listen to the conservative voices.
* While she is certainly not "pure" she is no more "corrupt" than any other politician. The GOP hates her because she is an extremly strong woman with strong beliefs and she's not afraid to say so. Conservatives have always despised women who speak up, especially when those women are disagreeing with conservative ideology.
...................................................................................................................................................................
WHY DO REPUBLICANS HATE HILLARY CLINTON?
By Neil Buchanan, June 26, 2016
What is it about Hillary Clinton that bothers Republicans so much?
Even more than her husband or President Obama—indeed, more than any politician within anyone's memory—Clinton evokes a seething, blind hatred from those on the opposite side of the aisle.
This is especially difficult to understand in light of Clinton's notably successful efforts at bipartisanship while she was in the Senate, as well as her history of center-right policy views that positioned her very much on the right end of Bill Clinton's triangulating administration.
That she has more recently adopted some center-left views is, I am sure, an unpleasant development from the standpoint of Republicans, but their hatred of Hillary Clinton long predates any of that.
Last week, I wrote about Clinton's "high negatives" in polls with voters and how those poll results are erroneously likened to people's much more negative views of Donald Trump. It has become an established trope of in-the-know political commentary that the two presumptive nominees are both widely reviled.
As I pointed out, however, people can use words like dislike, untrustworthy, and similar negative terms in quite different ways: "People can say that they 'hate' getting food poisoning at a restaurant, and they can also say that they 'hate' when the chef uses too much cumin in the curried potatoes." Both statements are honest, but they are also not at all comparable.
Still, many Republicans will tell you that Hillary Clinton is like food poisoning, not merely an unpalatably spiced dish. To a large degree, this is the result of Republicans having spent years sitting around campfires telling stories to each other about the Clintons, seeing who can spin the most scary yarn. She has come to embody the Blair Witch, a succubus and every frightening villain that Republicans can conjure.
Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally in Cleveland on June 13. Neil Buchanan writes that Republicans have spent years sitting around campfires telling stories to each other about the Clintons, seeing who can spin the most scary yarn. AARON JOSEFCZYK/REUTERS
I understand, therefore, that Clinton hatred is somehow both precognitive and post-cognitive, but because I am always most interested in issues, I am fascinated by the mismatch between Clinton's actual not-at-all-extreme policy views and Republicans' visceral revulsion toward her.
One of the ways that Republican elected officials have tried to deflect attention away from the outrages of Donald Trump is by painting Clinton as an unthinkable alternative. For example, an unknown Republican backbencher in the House recently said of Trump's series of outrageous statements: "Am I offended sometimes at the comments? Yes I am. However, what offends me more are Hillary Clinton’s actions."
In a way, trying to analyze that statement is pointless. After all, many members of Congress have dreams of leadership positions, Cabinet posts, and so on. (Is there anything that indicts political careerism more completely than the idea that some politicians with no interest in, say, labor issues would surely crawl through broken glass to become Trump's secretary of labor?)
But watching political animals in their natural environment can be very revealing, and it is notable that this particular congressman thinks that it is somehow meaningful to distinguish Trump's mere words from Clinton's supposed actions.
Unless this guy actually thinks that Clinton killed Vince Foster, what "actions" could he possibly be talking about? Trump has been telling us in no uncertain terms what actions he will take if he becomes president, and Clinton has been doing the same. Clinton's policy views are different from most (but not all) Republicans', but Trump is raising serious doubts about whether electing him would be the turning point toward a post-constitutional autocracy in the United States.
It is one thing for the increasingly ridiculous Paul Ryan to say that "the last thing we want is a Democrat in the White House like Hillary Clinton." (Seriously? The "last thing"? She is really worse than a person whom even Ryan describes as obviously racist? Electing her would be worse than a political coup? Worse than a presidency that would destroy Ryan's political party?)
Ryan is in over his head on both policy and politics, a career politician trying to figure out how to pretend to be a serious adult, and he cannot stop himself from reverting to over-the-top partisanship.
On June 21, The New York Times Magazine published a fascinating long-form article by Mark Leibovich, in which he discusses the various forms of denial currently at work in the Republican Party.
Discussing the sad post-primary life of Marco Rubio, Leibovich writes: "Rubio also holds the astonishing position of saying he’ll vote for someone he has previously declared unfit to hold the American nuclear codes. You envision him under a mushroom cloud, assuring his kids that it could be even worse—at least he didn’t vote for Clinton."
This level of anti-Clinton derangement has certainly trickled down to the party's grassroots. Leibovich describes the never-Trump senator from Nebraska, Ben Sasse, who told Leibovich that people in his state "say: 'I’m distraught. I’m opposed to everything Hillary Clinton stands for, and yet I think I have to vote for her. How do you make sense of this? What should I do?' These are young evangelical women, teary sometimes. They say, 'I can never tell my kids I voted for that man.'"
Even allowing for rhetorical excess, can it really be true that a young woman in Nebraska is opposed to everything that Clinton stands for? Other than abortion, which is obviously a high-salience issue for many such voters, what has Clinton ever said or done that would make it possible to say that she is on the bad side of every (or nearly every) issue?
Thankfully, some Republicans are willing to admit that this has gotten out of hand. Leibovich offered two insightful comments from Republican insiders. Ed Rogers, a Reagan/Bush 41 alum who now is a Republican lobbyist, said: "The Clintons have never been the demons ideologically that we’ve made them out to be. From a character standpoint, they’re pretty bad, but Hillary isn’t the frightening offensive character that Trump is."
Whether one thinks that her character is "pretty bad" depends on how willing one is to ignore the fact that all of the investigations of the Clintons have turned up nothing but a lot of innuendos and unsubstantiated suspicions. Hillary Clinton has a tendency to become insular when attacked, but I cannot imagine anyone enduring the lifelong character assassination that Clinton has faced without becoming highly defensive.
Perhaps the "character" point was best summed up by John McCain's chief of staff Mark Salter, who told Leibovich that Trump is "just unfit for office," whereas, "I mean, the worst thing you can say about her is, she’s kind of a hack."
And that is exactly right. About the worst thing that you can say about Hillary Clinton is that she has sometimes been kind of a hack. The negative things that I have written about Clinton over the years, in fact, have been based on the idea that she sometimes tends toward hackishness, such that one could reasonably suspect that she will allow short-term political calculations to color her views of, say, a financial regulation bill or a question of military strategy.
That is hardly comforting, but how does that make her different from Mitch McConnell, or Ryan, or McCain, or holier-than-Trump Mitt Romney? How does it make her the second coming of the Wicked Witch of the East?
By contrast, the best things that you can say about Clinton are that she is extremely well informed on issues, that she has actually done a lot of good things both inside and outside of public office in working for change (especially in fighting for the rights of women and girls in the U.S. and around the world), that she is incredibly tough, and that she actually takes into account new evidence and logic to adjust her views. There are good reasons for a 1990s center-right Democrat to have seen the light and moved to the center-left, after all, and she has been willing to learn and change.
If all the Republicans can do now is continue to hope that saying "Hillary Clinton!!" enough times will scare people, then that tells us more about their lack of anything useful to say than it does about Clinton or the Democrats.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)