...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I'm a registered Republican, but I think Bernie is the best candidate.
* Welcome, David, to the Democratic big tent. You are not alone. There are MANY lifelong registered Republicans who recognize that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate. You're feeling the Bern!
* I'm an Independent for Bernie. There are 4 yard signs for Bernie Sanders on my block. 1 from a Dem household, 2 from Repubs and myself. We(non-dems) are the reason Bernie Sanders out polls Hillary Clinton in head to head match ups against Republicans. My wish for Dems is they think long and hard about who they chose for the nomination. The GOP may be, as some say, the party of crazy. However, crazies vote too and they very much dislike the Clintons.
* Republicans offer no candidate equal to Bernie Sanders. Bernie is a man for all Americans. He is not a corporate puppet like Republicans except for Trump who is himself a plutocrat.
* Exactly, I'm an Independent for Bernie Sanders. I have two moderate Republican neighbors with Bernie yard signs. We like Bernie because he is not influenced by Democratic or Republican Party ideas. Bernie Sanders is influenced by we the people ideas!!
* Funny how the Republicans indicated they were for the ideas Bernie Sanders has expoused...bringing back middle class, protecting social security, medicare, helping out familes etc, but we all know in every instance they will always vote for legislation that supports no one but the largest corporations and the top 1 percent. It's the same thing as when GW Bush promoted his "No child left behind," movement, then opposed funding it. They are liars, and none of them hold a candle to Sanders.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How Bernie Sanders Won the Third Republican Debate Without Even Participating
By Brian Hanley, October 28, 2015
The Republican candidates are finally talking about Bernie Sanders. They aren't exactly speaking highly of him, but they're acknowledging his existence nonetheless.
The first Democratic debate was clearly a breakout moment for Bernie. He went mainstream, and in the process, taught us all a little something about decency.
During that debate, the Senator from Vermont proved once and for all that he doesn't want to win the White House if it means losing his integrity. He's even willing to protect his political rival if it's in the name of justice.
The third Republican debate, by contrast, was a glorified Jerry Springer episode. Filled with antagonism and vicious personal attacks, it appeared to be just as much a contest of who could be the biggest bully as a debate about the economy.
The candidates attacked the moderators, Hillary Clinton, socialism and of course, government. Still, they made ample time to take jabs at one another.
Mudslinging is no new phenomenon in modern presidential elections. But for the first time ever, it's juxtaposed with a new style of campaigning: Bernie Sanders' style.
For better or worse, Bernie has upheld his commitment to running a clean campaign. The question remains, though: can a nice guy like Bernie win in a general election, or does the democratic socialist have something to learn from Donald Trump's rancor?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, October 29, 2015
"Unfortunately the conservative media continues to leave their viewers less informed by constantly misrepresenting the legal definition of this right."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* No surprises here. Ms. Kelly has shown herself to be on the "far right" or "Christian Conservatives" when it comes to the GOP and religion. She has also shown that she never hesitates to let her mouth overload her actual abilities. Her prejudices are definitely showing. She fits right in with Fox News. Owned and operated by the GOP Tea Party.
* Fox News has spent years spinning stories for their own gain.
* ..and all those years claiming to be "fair and balanced" . Makes one wonder what else they lie about.
* To Christian Conservatives freedom of religion = the freedom to shove it down everybodys throat
* Let's make it clear: They are repub Christians.
* I'll start. When you went to Church this past Sunday (or Saturday, whenever you go) did anyone from the US Governement try to prevent you from attending the service? Did anyone from the government try to change the service or the readings? Did someone come into your home or on your property and try to get you to take down any item(s) that expresses your religious beliefs? Can you go out and buy a Bible? Do you see where I am going? Those are examples of religious freedom that you are experiencing? Someone wishing you a "Happy Holiday" is not persecuting you or denying your ability to practice your religion.
COMMENTS:
* No surprises here. Ms. Kelly has shown herself to be on the "far right" or "Christian Conservatives" when it comes to the GOP and religion. She has also shown that she never hesitates to let her mouth overload her actual abilities. Her prejudices are definitely showing. She fits right in with Fox News. Owned and operated by the GOP Tea Party.
* Fox News has spent years spinning stories for their own gain.
* ..and all those years claiming to be "fair and balanced" . Makes one wonder what else they lie about.
* To Christian Conservatives freedom of religion = the freedom to shove it down everybodys throat
* Let's make it clear: They are repub Christians.
* I'll start. When you went to Church this past Sunday (or Saturday, whenever you go) did anyone from the US Governement try to prevent you from attending the service? Did anyone from the government try to change the service or the readings? Did someone come into your home or on your property and try to get you to take down any item(s) that expresses your religious beliefs? Can you go out and buy a Bible? Do you see where I am going? Those are examples of religious freedom that you are experiencing? Someone wishing you a "Happy Holiday" is not persecuting you or denying your ability to practice your religion.
* One of their biggest failures is recogonizing freedom from religion! Christians cannot seem to understand how atheist do not believe as they do!
* But to inflict one's religion on another is certainly bad etiquette and in terrible taste.
* Again. This is just more proof that people who look to Fox, and other right wing counterfeit news sources for news and information, are the most ill informed people in America.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Christians Still Fail to Understand Religious Freedom
By Dale Hansen, October 29, 2015
The conservative media is always looking for a reason to be outraged. Unfortunately, the origin of the outrage is often a lack of information. For example, Megyn Kelly of Fox News took to the air earlier this week to discuss a court case that she feels proves President Obama and liberals are waging a war on Christianity.
"A jury has awarded a big pay out to a pair of Muslim truck drivers who were fired after refusing to deliver alcoholic beverages; citing their religious convictions. The Obama administration actually represented the two Muslims in this case, but has sometimes taken a very different position in the case of Christians."
The conversation that follows between Kelly and Judge Andrew Napolitano would have you believe that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was going out of its way to help establish religious freedom for Muslims while ignoring or actively fighting against these same freedoms for those of Christian faith.
A quick look at the cases at the EEOC exposes just how uninformed Kelly is since their press releases show the EEOC has been involved in a number of cases defending Christians.
On 7-17-15 the EEOC won $22,000 for a Seventh-Day Adventist who was refused a job because his religious belief did not allow him to work on the Sabbath.
On 8-27-15 the EEOC won a $586,860 award for an Evangelical Christian who refused to use a bio-metric time clock due to his religious beliefs.
On 8-21-15 the EEOC sued the National Federation of the Blind for terminating a Hebrew Pentecostal employee who refused to work on the Sabbath.
On 8-20-14 the EEOC sued for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired because his religious beliefs required him to attend church on Thursday and Sunday evenings.
On 12-23-13 the EEOC won a $40,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was fired for refusing to wear pants since it was against her religious beliefs.
On 11-4-13 the EEOC won a $70,000 settlement for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired shortly after requesting a schedule change to attend an annual religious service.
On 1-23-13 the EEOC won a $25,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was refused a job because her religious beliefs call for her to wear a dress instead of the pants required by the company dress code.
Demonizing the president and liberals is par for the course when it comes to conservative media, but the idea that the EEOC has some anti-Christian agenda is insulting and ignorant.
Of course, rather than cite any of these cases and rationally discuss what the law does and does not allow for when it comes to religious freedom, zealots like Kelly errantly compare the religious freedom of these Muslim drivers to the Colorado cake baker who was found in violation of the law for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
While it may look like these cases are similar, the reality is they are quite different in one important aspect -- discrimination. The job of the cake baker is to bake cakes. When he refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple he is not doing so because his religious beliefs say he can't bake a cake -- he would likely have no issues baking this exact same cake for a heterosexual wedding. He is doing so because his religious beliefs suggest there is something wrong with this couple. In the end, he is not refusing to bake a cake, he is refusing service to someone based on who they are. That is discrimination.
The job of the Muslim truck driver is to drive a truck. Neither operator refused to drive a truck that day. What they refused to do was transport alcohol, since doing so was against their religious beliefs. If conservatives want to compare this decision to the Colorado cake baker the apt comparison would be that the cake baker has the right to refuse to include words on a cake that are against his beliefs. The baker could also refuse to provide a cake on Sunday or use alcohol in a cake based on his religious freedom. They are free to object to the specifics of the service if it falls outside of their religious convictions. They are not allowed to discriminate against a person for who they are.
Clearly this is a topic that the general public needs more information on as religious freedom is one of the most important rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately the conservative media continues to leave their viewers less informed by constantly misrepresenting the legal definition of this right.
...................................................................................................................................................................
By Dale Hansen, October 29, 2015
The conservative media is always looking for a reason to be outraged. Unfortunately, the origin of the outrage is often a lack of information. For example, Megyn Kelly of Fox News took to the air earlier this week to discuss a court case that she feels proves President Obama and liberals are waging a war on Christianity.
"A jury has awarded a big pay out to a pair of Muslim truck drivers who were fired after refusing to deliver alcoholic beverages; citing their religious convictions. The Obama administration actually represented the two Muslims in this case, but has sometimes taken a very different position in the case of Christians."
The conversation that follows between Kelly and Judge Andrew Napolitano would have you believe that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was going out of its way to help establish religious freedom for Muslims while ignoring or actively fighting against these same freedoms for those of Christian faith.
A quick look at the cases at the EEOC exposes just how uninformed Kelly is since their press releases show the EEOC has been involved in a number of cases defending Christians.
On 7-17-15 the EEOC won $22,000 for a Seventh-Day Adventist who was refused a job because his religious belief did not allow him to work on the Sabbath.
On 8-27-15 the EEOC won a $586,860 award for an Evangelical Christian who refused to use a bio-metric time clock due to his religious beliefs.
On 8-21-15 the EEOC sued the National Federation of the Blind for terminating a Hebrew Pentecostal employee who refused to work on the Sabbath.
On 8-20-14 the EEOC sued for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired because his religious beliefs required him to attend church on Thursday and Sunday evenings.
On 12-23-13 the EEOC won a $40,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was fired for refusing to wear pants since it was against her religious beliefs.
On 11-4-13 the EEOC won a $70,000 settlement for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired shortly after requesting a schedule change to attend an annual religious service.
On 1-23-13 the EEOC won a $25,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was refused a job because her religious beliefs call for her to wear a dress instead of the pants required by the company dress code.
Demonizing the president and liberals is par for the course when it comes to conservative media, but the idea that the EEOC has some anti-Christian agenda is insulting and ignorant.
Of course, rather than cite any of these cases and rationally discuss what the law does and does not allow for when it comes to religious freedom, zealots like Kelly errantly compare the religious freedom of these Muslim drivers to the Colorado cake baker who was found in violation of the law for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
While it may look like these cases are similar, the reality is they are quite different in one important aspect -- discrimination. The job of the cake baker is to bake cakes. When he refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple he is not doing so because his religious beliefs say he can't bake a cake -- he would likely have no issues baking this exact same cake for a heterosexual wedding. He is doing so because his religious beliefs suggest there is something wrong with this couple. In the end, he is not refusing to bake a cake, he is refusing service to someone based on who they are. That is discrimination.
The job of the Muslim truck driver is to drive a truck. Neither operator refused to drive a truck that day. What they refused to do was transport alcohol, since doing so was against their religious beliefs. If conservatives want to compare this decision to the Colorado cake baker the apt comparison would be that the cake baker has the right to refuse to include words on a cake that are against his beliefs. The baker could also refuse to provide a cake on Sunday or use alcohol in a cake based on his religious freedom. They are free to object to the specifics of the service if it falls outside of their religious convictions. They are not allowed to discriminate against a person for who they are.
Clearly this is a topic that the general public needs more information on as religious freedom is one of the most important rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately the conservative media continues to leave their viewers less informed by constantly misrepresenting the legal definition of this right.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Fiorina needs to investigate her so-called "facts" more carefully before gleefully tossing them out.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Carly Fiorina's wildly misleading "92 percent" claim about women and jobs
By Emily Crockett, October 28, 2015
Carly Fiorina made an incredible-sounding claim about Barack Obama's presidency at the CNBC debate Wednesday night: that nearly all jobs lost during his first term belonged to women.
Answering a question about equal pay, Fiorina claimed, "Ninety-two percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama's first term belonged to women."
If that seems hard to believe, it's because it's not true. Fiorina repeated a claim Mitt Romney made during his 2012 presidential run, which PolitiFact rated "mostly false." Romney's campaign objected to the rating at the time, but PolitiFact stood by its original piece.
What's more, the Romney figure is also badly out of date, and doesn't capture what actually happened to women in Obama's first term at all.
The 92 percent figure is badly cherry-picked
The 92 percent figure first surfaced in April 2012, when a Romney spokesperson tweeted that Obama was "clueless" because he "touts policies for women," yet women accounted for 92.3 percent of the jobs lost in his administration. Romney's website also hosted the claim. And the 92 percent figure was true at the time; between January 2009 and March 2012 (the time Obama had been in office), women really did account for the vast majority of jobs lost.
PolitiFact, however, argued that this was a hugely misleading read of job numbers. It blamed Obama's policies for job losses that started before Obama even took office. And it completely ignores the massive job losses that men suffered in the recession before Obama took office.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4209099/women%20recession.jpg)
Institute for Women's Policy Research
It also ignores the jobs that both genders gained in Obama's second term, of course.
Economists told PolitiFact that this is a typical pattern for recessions: Men often lose their jobs first and hardest, because they're in more vulnerable industries like manufacturing and construction.
If you look at the numbers from the beginning of the recession in 2007 through March 2012 (when Romney's original analysis cut off), women only lost 39.7 percent of the jobs.
"The numbers are accurate but quite misleading," PolitiFact said at the time. "First, Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office, just as he could not be given credit if times had been booming. Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men."
The bigger problem with the 92 percent figure: It's not even accurate anymore
This is the danger of citing statistics that are more than three years out of date.
The 92 percent figure that Fiorina reused was calculated before the end of Obama's first term. And that makes sense, given that it hadn't ended yet.
Now, in 2015, we can look at the entirety of Obama's first term in office. When you do that, you actually see a net job gain for women of about 400,000 jobs.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Carly Fiorina's wildly misleading "92 percent" claim about women and jobs
By Emily Crockett, October 28, 2015
Carly Fiorina made an incredible-sounding claim about Barack Obama's presidency at the CNBC debate Wednesday night: that nearly all jobs lost during his first term belonged to women.
Answering a question about equal pay, Fiorina claimed, "Ninety-two percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama's first term belonged to women."
If that seems hard to believe, it's because it's not true. Fiorina repeated a claim Mitt Romney made during his 2012 presidential run, which PolitiFact rated "mostly false." Romney's campaign objected to the rating at the time, but PolitiFact stood by its original piece.
What's more, the Romney figure is also badly out of date, and doesn't capture what actually happened to women in Obama's first term at all.
The 92 percent figure is badly cherry-picked
The 92 percent figure first surfaced in April 2012, when a Romney spokesperson tweeted that Obama was "clueless" because he "touts policies for women," yet women accounted for 92.3 percent of the jobs lost in his administration. Romney's website also hosted the claim. And the 92 percent figure was true at the time; between January 2009 and March 2012 (the time Obama had been in office), women really did account for the vast majority of jobs lost.
PolitiFact, however, argued that this was a hugely misleading read of job numbers. It blamed Obama's policies for job losses that started before Obama even took office. And it completely ignores the massive job losses that men suffered in the recession before Obama took office.
Institute for Women's Policy Research
It also ignores the jobs that both genders gained in Obama's second term, of course.
Economists told PolitiFact that this is a typical pattern for recessions: Men often lose their jobs first and hardest, because they're in more vulnerable industries like manufacturing and construction.
If you look at the numbers from the beginning of the recession in 2007 through March 2012 (when Romney's original analysis cut off), women only lost 39.7 percent of the jobs.
"The numbers are accurate but quite misleading," PolitiFact said at the time. "First, Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office, just as he could not be given credit if times had been booming. Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men."
The bigger problem with the 92 percent figure: It's not even accurate anymore
This is the danger of citing statistics that are more than three years out of date.
The 92 percent figure that Fiorina reused was calculated before the end of Obama's first term. And that makes sense, given that it hadn't ended yet.
Now, in 2015, we can look at the entirety of Obama's first term in office. When you do that, you actually see a net job gain for women of about 400,000 jobs.
Mike Konczal @rortybombBottom line: It's disingenuous to attack Hillary Clinton based on the unique economic circumstances and policies of Obama's first term. It's even more disingenuous to say that Obama's policies were bad for women based on this one misleading statistic, which ignores forces that were set in motion before Obama became president and doesn't even paint a complete picture of his first term.
Yes. https://twitter.com/DougHenwood/status/659539709417431041 …
6:23 PM - 28 Oct 2015
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sorry, Ted, it WAS a cage match-- with each of the "candidates" wearing a championship belt!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz scored massive cheers with his attack on the debate moderators
By German Lopez, October 28, 2015
Ted Cruz has built a career decrying what he sees as a liberal establishment, whether it's the media or the "Washington cartel."
That's exactly the Cruz we saw on the debate stage today — in what may be his strongest campaign moment yet. "The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media," Cruz said. "This is not a cage match. You look at the questions — Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues?"
He added, "The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and wise? … The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense than every participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. And nobody watching at home believes that the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary. The questions that are being asked shouldn't be trying to get people to tear into each other. It should be, 'What are your substantive solutions?'"
Still, many of the debate questions actually were substantial — focusing especially on the candidates' tax plans. But when a candidate on the stage is Donald Trump, it's not surprising that the debate is going to occasionally veer into silly territory.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz scored massive cheers with his attack on the debate moderators
By German Lopez, October 28, 2015
Ted Cruz has built a career decrying what he sees as a liberal establishment, whether it's the media or the "Washington cartel."
That's exactly the Cruz we saw on the debate stage today — in what may be his strongest campaign moment yet. "The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media," Cruz said. "This is not a cage match. You look at the questions — Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues?"
He added, "The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and wise? … The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense than every participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. And nobody watching at home believes that the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary. The questions that are being asked shouldn't be trying to get people to tear into each other. It should be, 'What are your substantive solutions?'"
Still, many of the debate questions actually were substantial — focusing especially on the candidates' tax plans. But when a candidate on the stage is Donald Trump, it's not surprising that the debate is going to occasionally veer into silly territory.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The conversation between the moderators and debaters became chaotic at times." Of course it was chaotic-- the GOP candidates were involved.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Great, then ask DIsney Channel or Nicklelodeon to host the next debates.
* They should use Disney. Then Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Pluto could ask these clowns the questions.
* What is shameful is the slate of Republican candidates running for President.
* The republican wanna bees look bad on TV. Because sombody asked them the wrong questions. Amazing. I get the feeling this whole crew just arrived on a short yellow bus.
* You can't make a circus into an opera.
* The "candidates" did not want to answer questions. Each wanted to be in the Spotlight, attack each other, attack the Democrats, attack the awful Media, and use their " stump speech". Most did not wisely use the time they were given. They wanted a Zinger that will be quoted for a few days/weeks. They all were "Blah, blah, blah".
* The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves, but then they would have to face reality, and they are unable to do that.
* Without Fox News to prop up the Republicans, any real news network is going to be a problem for them. Welcome to reality, Prince Rebus.
* Every time the candidates do not answer the question there should be a big GONG hit to shut them up...I am so sick of hearing their talking points......
...................................................................................................................................................................
Reince Priebus: CNBC 'Should Be Ashamed' Of GOP Debate
Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, slammed CNBC immediately after a GOP debate hosted by the network ended Wednesday night.
Priebus said in a statement he found the debate "extremely disappointing":
NPR pointed out that Bush did have the least amount of speaking time, getting less than seven minutes while rivals Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina had over 10 minutes each.
A CNBC spokesman told The Huffington Post: "People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions."
The conversation between the moderators and debaters became chaotic at times. While questioning Donald Trump on his criticism of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, CNBC's Becky Quick struggled to recall where she'd read Trump's comments and was unable to cite a source when the candidate denied being critical. It turns out the slam against Zuckerberg is listed on Trump's own website.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Great, then ask DIsney Channel or Nicklelodeon to host the next debates.
* They should use Disney. Then Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Pluto could ask these clowns the questions.
* What is shameful is the slate of Republican candidates running for President.
* The republican wanna bees look bad on TV. Because sombody asked them the wrong questions. Amazing. I get the feeling this whole crew just arrived on a short yellow bus.
* You can't make a circus into an opera.
* The "candidates" did not want to answer questions. Each wanted to be in the Spotlight, attack each other, attack the Democrats, attack the awful Media, and use their " stump speech". Most did not wisely use the time they were given. They wanted a Zinger that will be quoted for a few days/weeks. They all were "Blah, blah, blah".
* The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves, but then they would have to face reality, and they are unable to do that.
* Without Fox News to prop up the Republicans, any real news network is going to be a problem for them. Welcome to reality, Prince Rebus.
* Every time the candidates do not answer the question there should be a big GONG hit to shut them up...I am so sick of hearing their talking points......
...................................................................................................................................................................
Reince Priebus: CNBC 'Should Be Ashamed' Of GOP Debate
Ouch.
By Paige Lavender, October 28, 2015Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, slammed CNBC immediately after a GOP debate hosted by the network ended Wednesday night.
Priebus said in a statement he found the debate "extremely disappointing":
"While I was proud of our candidates and the way they handled tonight’s debate, the performance by the CNBC moderators was extremely disappointing and did a disservice to their network, our candidates, and voters. Our diverse field of talented and exceptionally qualified candidates did their best to share ideas for how to reinvigorate the economy and put Americans back to work despite deeply unfortunate questioning from CNBC," said Chairman Priebus.The RNC chairman also tweeted his thoughts on the debate:
"One of the great things about our party is that we are able to have a dynamic exchange about which solutions will secure a prosperous future, and I will fight to ensure future debates allow for a more robust exchange. CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled.”
Reince Priebus ✔ @ReincePriebus wasn't alone in his criticism. The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe reports that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's campaign manager expressed concerns to CNBC about the amount of time the candidate was given to speak during the event.
CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled. #GOPDebate
7:30 PM - 28 Oct 2015
Reince Priebus ✔ @Reince
I will fight to ensure future debates allow for a more robust exchange. #GOPDebate
7:30 PM - 28 Oct 2015
NPR pointed out that Bush did have the least amount of speaking time, getting less than seven minutes while rivals Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina had over 10 minutes each.
A CNBC spokesman told The Huffington Post: "People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions."
The conversation between the moderators and debaters became chaotic at times. While questioning Donald Trump on his criticism of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, CNBC's Becky Quick struggled to recall where she'd read Trump's comments and was unable to cite a source when the candidate denied being critical. It turns out the slam against Zuckerberg is listed on Trump's own website.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"This will go down as the debate that unified the Republican field… in their common contempt for the CNBC moderators."
...................................................................................................................................................................
CNBC's Republican Debate Was One Big Squawk Box
By Ken Tucker, October 28, 2015
It’s never a good idea for the party host to hog all the hors d’oeuvres and monopolize the conversation, but that’s what CNBC did in its lip-smacking, crumb-spillingly self-satisfied Republican debate on Wednesday night. The network’s debate started late — the better to have its anchor team jabber over each other — and then proceeded to ask so many questions phrased to provoke squabbling that the first big hand of the night went to Ted Cruz for castigating the moderators for “trying to get people to tear into each other.” Talk about a squawk box.
A business network, CNBC had branded its debate “Your Money, Your Vote,” but the moderators’ very first question was small-change, softball stuff: “What is your biggest weakness?” The debate went out of control at regular intervals, with a question directed at one candidate was met with shouted answers from three, four, or five candidates at once. At one point, Rand Paul asked beseechingly, “What are the rules about follow-ups?” About seven people started murmuring answers until CNBC’s Becky Quick said tersely, “It was at the moderator’s discretion,” which prompted laughs and boos from the Boulder, Colorado audience.
Going into this debate, the media was trumpeting Ben Carson’s new lead over Donald Trump in some polls, and suggesting a few of the low-polling candidates would have to make a bold move this night. Bellowing from one far end of the stage, John Kasich had read those reports; right out of the gate, you could not get him to stop as he yelled that the country is “on the verge of putting someone [in the Presidency] who cannot do this job.” His barely-concealed attacks on Trump and Carson were some of the rare personal insults this night, joined primarily by Trump, who said of Kasich, “His poll numbers tanked, so he got nasty… You can have him.”
Fiorina, also slipping in the polls, tried to re-position herself not as running against her Republican challengers, but against Hillary Clinton. She seemed awfully pleased with her closing-statement one-liner as she said plaintively to America: “I may not be your dream candidate yet, but I am Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare.”
But the real stories this night were the Republicans’ persistent attacks on the media (Marco Rubio said, “The Democrats have the ultimate super-PAC: the American mainstream media”) and the chaos of this cable broadcast. Candidates answered questions that weren’t asked of them (Chris Christie: “Here’s the difference between me and Hillary Clinton…”), galloped off unpredictably onto personal hobbyhorses (Carson: “The P.C. culture is destroying this country”), and launched into freshman-college lectures (Fiorina: “You see, folks, this is how socialism starts…“).
This will go down as the debate that unified the Republican field… in their common contempt for the CNBC moderators. The night started with cheers from the audience when Cruz tried to shame moderator John Harwood for asking Trump if he was conducting “a comic-book version of a Presidential campaign” (I say, sir, that’s a slur against comic books!); it ended with Christie asking if CNBC was serious in asking questions about fantasy football “instead of ISIS,” chiding Harwood not to interrupt his answer to Harwood’s own question and saying, “Even in New Jersey, what you’re doing is called rude.”
The winners of the debate? That could be calculated only in the mathematics of who provoked more applause for criticizing CNBC’s debate tactics. (I will say that Rubio’s “I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother” sounds like a campaign-trail crowd-pleaser to me going forward.) Yessiree, when you add in the likelihood that Game 2 of the World Series probably cut into the debate’s ratings, they must be popping champagne corks and beer cans over at previous debate hosts CNN and Fox News.
...................................................................................................................................................................
CNBC's Republican Debate Was One Big Squawk Box
By Ken Tucker, October 28, 2015
It’s never a good idea for the party host to hog all the hors d’oeuvres and monopolize the conversation, but that’s what CNBC did in its lip-smacking, crumb-spillingly self-satisfied Republican debate on Wednesday night. The network’s debate started late — the better to have its anchor team jabber over each other — and then proceeded to ask so many questions phrased to provoke squabbling that the first big hand of the night went to Ted Cruz for castigating the moderators for “trying to get people to tear into each other.” Talk about a squawk box.
A business network, CNBC had branded its debate “Your Money, Your Vote,” but the moderators’ very first question was small-change, softball stuff: “What is your biggest weakness?” The debate went out of control at regular intervals, with a question directed at one candidate was met with shouted answers from three, four, or five candidates at once. At one point, Rand Paul asked beseechingly, “What are the rules about follow-ups?” About seven people started murmuring answers until CNBC’s Becky Quick said tersely, “It was at the moderator’s discretion,” which prompted laughs and boos from the Boulder, Colorado audience.
Going into this debate, the media was trumpeting Ben Carson’s new lead over Donald Trump in some polls, and suggesting a few of the low-polling candidates would have to make a bold move this night. Bellowing from one far end of the stage, John Kasich had read those reports; right out of the gate, you could not get him to stop as he yelled that the country is “on the verge of putting someone [in the Presidency] who cannot do this job.” His barely-concealed attacks on Trump and Carson were some of the rare personal insults this night, joined primarily by Trump, who said of Kasich, “His poll numbers tanked, so he got nasty… You can have him.”
Fiorina, also slipping in the polls, tried to re-position herself not as running against her Republican challengers, but against Hillary Clinton. She seemed awfully pleased with her closing-statement one-liner as she said plaintively to America: “I may not be your dream candidate yet, but I am Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare.”
But the real stories this night were the Republicans’ persistent attacks on the media (Marco Rubio said, “The Democrats have the ultimate super-PAC: the American mainstream media”) and the chaos of this cable broadcast. Candidates answered questions that weren’t asked of them (Chris Christie: “Here’s the difference between me and Hillary Clinton…”), galloped off unpredictably onto personal hobbyhorses (Carson: “The P.C. culture is destroying this country”), and launched into freshman-college lectures (Fiorina: “You see, folks, this is how socialism starts…“).
This will go down as the debate that unified the Republican field… in their common contempt for the CNBC moderators. The night started with cheers from the audience when Cruz tried to shame moderator John Harwood for asking Trump if he was conducting “a comic-book version of a Presidential campaign” (I say, sir, that’s a slur against comic books!); it ended with Christie asking if CNBC was serious in asking questions about fantasy football “instead of ISIS,” chiding Harwood not to interrupt his answer to Harwood’s own question and saying, “Even in New Jersey, what you’re doing is called rude.”
The winners of the debate? That could be calculated only in the mathematics of who provoked more applause for criticizing CNBC’s debate tactics. (I will say that Rubio’s “I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother” sounds like a campaign-trail crowd-pleaser to me going forward.) Yessiree, when you add in the likelihood that Game 2 of the World Series probably cut into the debate’s ratings, they must be popping champagne corks and beer cans over at previous debate hosts CNN and Fox News.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Pataki and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham are the only two Republican presidential candidates who do not deny climate science."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republican Presidential Candidate Shames Party For Rejecting ‘Science That Everyone Accepts’
By Kira Lerner, October 28, 2015
During the undercard GOP debate Wednesday, former New York Gov. George Pataki questioned the other Republican presidential candidates’ rejection of science, calling it “ridiculous” that members of his party reject climate science and question vaccines.
“One of the things that troubles me about the Republican Party is too often we question science that everyone accepts,” he said during the CNBC economic policy debate.
“It’s ridiculous that in the 21st century, we’re questioning whether or not vaccines are the appropriate way to go,” he continued. “Of course they are. And it’s also not appropriate to think that human activity — putting CO2 into the atmosphere — doesn’t make the earth warmer.”
Watch it:
Pataki and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham are the only two Republican presidential candidates who do not deny climate science. During Wednesday’s debate, Graham also defended climate science, saying believing that climate change is real does not make him a Democrat.
During the GOP debate last month, Donald Trump repeated the widely discredited claim that vaccines cause autism, and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson refused to correct him.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republican Presidential Candidate Shames Party For Rejecting ‘Science That Everyone Accepts’
By Kira Lerner, October 28, 2015
During the undercard GOP debate Wednesday, former New York Gov. George Pataki questioned the other Republican presidential candidates’ rejection of science, calling it “ridiculous” that members of his party reject climate science and question vaccines.
“One of the things that troubles me about the Republican Party is too often we question science that everyone accepts,” he said during the CNBC economic policy debate.
“It’s ridiculous that in the 21st century, we’re questioning whether or not vaccines are the appropriate way to go,” he continued. “Of course they are. And it’s also not appropriate to think that human activity — putting CO2 into the atmosphere — doesn’t make the earth warmer.”
Watch it:
Pataki and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham are the only two Republican presidential candidates who do not deny climate science. During Wednesday’s debate, Graham also defended climate science, saying believing that climate change is real does not make him a Democrat.
During the GOP debate last month, Donald Trump repeated the widely discredited claim that vaccines cause autism, and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson refused to correct him.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rubio wants to eat the cake and still have it, too.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The more I hear about Mr. Rubio the less I like him.
* A man with no soul, no independant thoughts, just hubris, ego and submission to his "sugar daddy's". What a crock.
* Republicans say that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it. A person whose sole purpose has been to disrupt government for the last 6 years has no business applying to preside over it.
* Take it from a Floridian--he's the sleasiest politician I've ever seen, and, in case nobody noticed, he didn't answer a single question asked of him tonight--simply kept reiterating his stump speech. Nothing but a dangerous loser.
* Rubio's I was for the nominee before I was against the nominee is getting tiring. He has done that for several nominees and again it occurs. Reminds me of he was for HIS immigration bill before he voted against it. How do we really know where he stands on anything? What he is for today, he is against tomorrow.
* It's simple, if he gives his OK, then Obama will credit for being open-minded about the Republican's nominations. And that is something he will avoid at any cost.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Marco Rubio Is Blocking His Own Judicial Nominee
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) keeps taking heat for skipping out on his Senate duties while he's out on the presidential campaign trail. But he's still effective at one thing in the upper chamber: blocking his own judicial nominee.
Rubio is withholding his so-called "blue slip" from the Judiciary Committee to prevent Florida district judge nominee Mary Flores from advancing. The committee won't let any nominee move forward until it has blue slips -- they're literally blue pieces of paper that reflect a senator's support -- from both of a nominee's home-state senators. Florida's other senator, Democrat Bill Nelson, turned in his blue slip eight months ago. But nothing from Rubio.
The weird part is that Rubio supports Flores. He and Nelson recommended her to President Barack Obama, and the president formally nominated her to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in February. She's now been waiting for a hearing for 242 days, but can't move without Rubio's sign-off. She would fill a seat that's been empty for 532 days, and that court is so overloaded with work that it's considered a judicial emergency.
Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos said the senator "takes very seriously" his role in confirming judges to the federal bench.
"The Senate Judiciary Committee is still conducting a full review of the nominee’s background and record," Burgos said. "After that review is complete, Senator Rubio will make his own determination based on the committee’s review and his own further review."
It's a curious argument given that Rubio himself recommended Flores. It's also a self-defeating one: Turning in a blue slip has no effect on a committee's review of a nominee. A spokeswoman for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, said Flores' nomination isn't moving because of Rubio's outstanding blue slip and because a committee review is underway.
Republicans have been slow-walking Obama's judicial picks all year, and prolonged "committee reviews" is one way they can keep doing it. The GOP calculation is that Obama will be gone after 2016, at which point a Republican could be in the White House. If they can hold out until then, they can give GOP-picked judges lifetime jobs on the federal bench.
But delayed confirmations mean court cases are getting backed up for years, and federal judges are burning out as vacancies go unfilled. Some courts don't have any active judges on them; they're being staffed by volunteer, semi-retired judges while they wait on the Senate.
Rubio has some experience in blocking his nominees. In September 2013, the Florida senator pulled his support for William Thomas, a gay black judge from Miami, after recommending him to the White House for a seat on the same court as Flores. It was a puzzling turn of events, and the president ultimately decided against resubmitting Thomas' nomination to the Senate in 2014.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday that Republicans are on track to block several of their own nominees this year. So far, the GOP-led Senate has confirmed nine judges. By contrast, in 2007, when Democrats led the Senate and President George W. Bush was in his seventh year in office, 34 judicial nominees had been confirmed by this point in the year.
"If Republican obstruction continues, and if home state Senators cannot persuade the Majority Leader to schedule a vote for their nominees soon, then it is unlikely that even highly qualified nominees with Republican support will be confirmed by the end of the year," Leahy said. "These are nominees that members of the Majority Leader’s own party want confirmed."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The more I hear about Mr. Rubio the less I like him.
* A man with no soul, no independant thoughts, just hubris, ego and submission to his "sugar daddy's". What a crock.
* Republicans say that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it. A person whose sole purpose has been to disrupt government for the last 6 years has no business applying to preside over it.
* Take it from a Floridian--he's the sleasiest politician I've ever seen, and, in case nobody noticed, he didn't answer a single question asked of him tonight--simply kept reiterating his stump speech. Nothing but a dangerous loser.
* Rubio's I was for the nominee before I was against the nominee is getting tiring. He has done that for several nominees and again it occurs. Reminds me of he was for HIS immigration bill before he voted against it. How do we really know where he stands on anything? What he is for today, he is against tomorrow.
* It's simple, if he gives his OK, then Obama will credit for being open-minded about the Republican's nominations. And that is something he will avoid at any cost.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Marco Rubio Is Blocking His Own Judicial Nominee
Who says he's not doing anything in the Senate?
By Jennifer Bendery, October 28, 2015Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) keeps taking heat for skipping out on his Senate duties while he's out on the presidential campaign trail. But he's still effective at one thing in the upper chamber: blocking his own judicial nominee.
Rubio is withholding his so-called "blue slip" from the Judiciary Committee to prevent Florida district judge nominee Mary Flores from advancing. The committee won't let any nominee move forward until it has blue slips -- they're literally blue pieces of paper that reflect a senator's support -- from both of a nominee's home-state senators. Florida's other senator, Democrat Bill Nelson, turned in his blue slip eight months ago. But nothing from Rubio.
The weird part is that Rubio supports Flores. He and Nelson recommended her to President Barack Obama, and the president formally nominated her to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in February. She's now been waiting for a hearing for 242 days, but can't move without Rubio's sign-off. She would fill a seat that's been empty for 532 days, and that court is so overloaded with work that it's considered a judicial emergency.
Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos said the senator "takes very seriously" his role in confirming judges to the federal bench.
"The Senate Judiciary Committee is still conducting a full review of the nominee’s background and record," Burgos said. "After that review is complete, Senator Rubio will make his own determination based on the committee’s review and his own further review."
It's a curious argument given that Rubio himself recommended Flores. It's also a self-defeating one: Turning in a blue slip has no effect on a committee's review of a nominee. A spokeswoman for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, said Flores' nomination isn't moving because of Rubio's outstanding blue slip and because a committee review is underway.
Republicans have been slow-walking Obama's judicial picks all year, and prolonged "committee reviews" is one way they can keep doing it. The GOP calculation is that Obama will be gone after 2016, at which point a Republican could be in the White House. If they can hold out until then, they can give GOP-picked judges lifetime jobs on the federal bench.
But delayed confirmations mean court cases are getting backed up for years, and federal judges are burning out as vacancies go unfilled. Some courts don't have any active judges on them; they're being staffed by volunteer, semi-retired judges while they wait on the Senate.
Rubio has some experience in blocking his nominees. In September 2013, the Florida senator pulled his support for William Thomas, a gay black judge from Miami, after recommending him to the White House for a seat on the same court as Flores. It was a puzzling turn of events, and the president ultimately decided against resubmitting Thomas' nomination to the Senate in 2014.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday that Republicans are on track to block several of their own nominees this year. So far, the GOP-led Senate has confirmed nine judges. By contrast, in 2007, when Democrats led the Senate and President George W. Bush was in his seventh year in office, 34 judicial nominees had been confirmed by this point in the year.
"If Republican obstruction continues, and if home state Senators cannot persuade the Majority Leader to schedule a vote for their nominees soon, then it is unlikely that even highly qualified nominees with Republican support will be confirmed by the end of the year," Leahy said. "These are nominees that members of the Majority Leader’s own party want confirmed."
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The House acted with rare bipartisanship ... to approve legislation that would reopen the federal Export-Import Bank ..." Wow, some grown-ups surfaced!
...................................................................................................................................................................
House ignores GOP leaders, AFP at the same time
By Steve Benen, October 28, 2015
Following up on a report from several weeks ago, one of the many advantages to being in the congressional majority leadership is near-total control over the agenda. In practical terms, House leaders can veto every bill, whether it enjoys majority support or not, simply by refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote.
In just about every instance, the will of the House majority is secondary to the will of the House majority leadership.
But about once in a generation, there’s an exception to the rule.
The result was a surprisingly one-sided defeat, not only for the House GOP leadership, but also for the Koch brothers’ political operation.
To briefly recap, if a majority of the House wants to pass a bill that the majority leadership refuses to consider, the majority can get together, circumvent chamber leaders, and force a bill onto the floor by signing a discharge petition. If they get 218 signatures, their legislation heads to the floor for a vote whether the House leadership likes it or not.
But this almost never happens. How rare is it? According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, in the last 84 years, literally only two bills have become law by way of discharge petitions. There’s routine talk about the idea, but the efforts nearly always fizzle – party leaders have made it clear to members that signing a discharge petition is seen as an ugly act of betrayal that the leadership will not appreciate, so the tool is very rarely used.
But in the case of Ex-Im Bank, members did it anyway. Indeed, it wasn’t close: yesterday’s vote was 313 to 118, with most Republicans and most Democrats voting to restore the agency that loans money to foreign entities to buy American-made products.
And while it may not seem too surprising that House GOP leaders were ignored, the chamber also thumbed its nose at the Kochs’ political operation. Less than a month ago, when the discharge-petition process began, Americans for Prosperity CEO Luke Hilgemann declared, “We don’t take this casually. We’ll be watching how members vote on this, and there absolutely will be consequences.”
Oddly enough, as of yesterday, most House Republicans are willing to take the risk.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where it meets an uncertain fate. The New York Times reported, “While the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, opposes the bank bill, the bipartisan House vote is expected to strengthen the hand of the bank’s proponents in negotiations over the transportation bill’s provisions.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
House ignores GOP leaders, AFP at the same time
By Steve Benen, October 28, 2015
Following up on a report from several weeks ago, one of the many advantages to being in the congressional majority leadership is near-total control over the agenda. In practical terms, House leaders can veto every bill, whether it enjoys majority support or not, simply by refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote.
In just about every instance, the will of the House majority is secondary to the will of the House majority leadership.
But about once in a generation, there’s an exception to the rule.
The House acted with rare bipartisanship on Tuesday to approve legislation that would reopen the federal Export-Import Bank, after a debate that underscored the split between the party’s traditional pro-business members and ascendant free-market conservatives who are suspicious of big corporations.House GOP leaders strongly opposed the Export-Import Bank – sometimes called the “Ex-Im” – and refused to allow lawmakers to even consider the idea of keeping the institution in place, but rank-and-file Republicans joined with Democrats on something called a “discharge petition.”
The result was a surprisingly one-sided defeat, not only for the House GOP leadership, but also for the Koch brothers’ political operation.
To briefly recap, if a majority of the House wants to pass a bill that the majority leadership refuses to consider, the majority can get together, circumvent chamber leaders, and force a bill onto the floor by signing a discharge petition. If they get 218 signatures, their legislation heads to the floor for a vote whether the House leadership likes it or not.
But this almost never happens. How rare is it? According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, in the last 84 years, literally only two bills have become law by way of discharge petitions. There’s routine talk about the idea, but the efforts nearly always fizzle – party leaders have made it clear to members that signing a discharge petition is seen as an ugly act of betrayal that the leadership will not appreciate, so the tool is very rarely used.
But in the case of Ex-Im Bank, members did it anyway. Indeed, it wasn’t close: yesterday’s vote was 313 to 118, with most Republicans and most Democrats voting to restore the agency that loans money to foreign entities to buy American-made products.
And while it may not seem too surprising that House GOP leaders were ignored, the chamber also thumbed its nose at the Kochs’ political operation. Less than a month ago, when the discharge-petition process began, Americans for Prosperity CEO Luke Hilgemann declared, “We don’t take this casually. We’ll be watching how members vote on this, and there absolutely will be consequences.”
Oddly enough, as of yesterday, most House Republicans are willing to take the risk.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where it meets an uncertain fate. The New York Times reported, “While the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, opposes the bank bill, the bipartisan House vote is expected to strengthen the hand of the bank’s proponents in negotiations over the transportation bill’s provisions.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
"Impatience had been a hallmark of Rubio’s career ..." Well, isn't that just too bad, Marco.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Wow, a double gift from Rubio. He won't be President and he won't be a Senator anymore. Thanks!
* Give me a break, he was elected to do a job and he has chosen to do it less than 50% of the time. If any of the workers; private or public, that he continually berates did this they would be seeking unemployment, and if they happen to live in one of a number of red states they have to pee in a cup first before they could receive a check. A check that they have been paying unemployment insurance into.
* I think this just about wraps up Rubio's run for the White House. As a Florida resident I am "frustrated" that Marco Rubio doesn't represent his constituents. Why doesn't he leave now so the State can get proper representation in the Senate? I think it's time for the RNC to open a "Failed Executive Republican Crying Room" it can be filled with the likes of Rubio, Boehner, Bush, Cheney, Caribou Barbie ...
* Awww....he doesn't like the rules. Doesn't like the fact that you have to play nice if you want to play. Doesn't like that he isn't getting his way. Aw. No one will miss the man child.
* Rubio’s Senate bill to make it easier to remove poor-performing employees shows that he doesn’t understand how complex organizations work. It is common for politicians and simple-minded people to focus on the performance of individual workers as a reason why an agency is dysfunctional. Blame the teachers, blame the federal workers, blame the polices; but never, ever address the real problems. The problems are often the leadership, but more usually more structural things like inadequate resources to effect the mission. Also high on the list are out-dated or onerous policies and procedures, administrative policies, and internal and external politics. Employees are just the easiest to blame, and they often become to victims of politicians that want to make a point, rather that fix a problem. In Republican politics, they are where any discussion of reforms tend to start and finish.
* My goodness, if Rubio is frustrated as Senator, just what does he expect if he was President? Hasn't he noticed how frustrating that job is? Like Jeb! said, " Dude, you're getting paid for being Senator. Do your job!" Or like I would say: "Dude, I had to go into work at a job that was frustrating for thirty years, but I got paid well for it, not like you as Senator, but, hey, not bad. If you don't like being a Senator, go back to Miami and work in a hotel. You'll find the Senator gig is pretty good after all. And dude, you're not fit to be Prez if you can't handle the Senate."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rubio gives up on Senate: ‘He hates it’
By David A. Fahrenthold, October 25, 2015
Marco Rubio is a U.S. senator. And he just can’t stand it anymore.
“I don’t know that ‘hate’ is the right word,” Rubio said in an interview. “I’m frustrated.”
This year, as Rubio runs for president, he has cast the Senate — the very place that cemented him as a national politician — as a place he’s given up on, after less than one term. It’s too slow. Too rule-bound. So Rubio, 44, has decided not to run for his seat again. It’s the White House or bust.
“That’s why I’m missing votes. Because I am leaving the Senate. I am not running for reelection,” Rubio said in the last Republican debate, after Donald Trump had mocked him for his unusual number of absences during Senate votes.
Five years ago, Rubio arrived with a potential that thrilled Republicans. He was young, ambitious, charismatic, fluent in English and Spanish, and beloved by the establishment and the tea party.
But Rubio had arrived at one of the least ambitious moments in Senate history and saw many of his ideas fizzle. Democrats killed his debt-cutting plans. Republicans killed his immigration reform. The two parties actually came together to kill his AGREE Act, a small-bore, hands-across-the-aisle bill that Rubio had designed just to get a win on something.
Now, he’s done. “He hates it,” a longtime friend from Florida said, speaking anonymously to say what Rubio would not.
Which makes for an odd campaign message.
Rubio must convince voters that his decision to leave the Senate — giving up the power he already has — is actually a mark of character, a sign that he is too dedicated to public service to stay.
Rubio is not a quitter, the argument goes.
In fact, that’s precisely why he’s quitting this place.
“He wouldn’t be doing what he’s doing now if he were a quitter,” said Norman Braman, a Florida auto dealer and one of Rubio’s longtime donors.
Last week was — by Rubio’s standards — a very busy week in the Senate.
On Tuesday, he cast a vote, his first in 26 days. He gave a floor speech, his first in 41 days. In the speech, he asked the Senate to pass a bill that would give Department of Veterans Affairs leaders more power to remove poor-performing employees. But it didn’t happen. To pass something so suddenly, Senate rules required that every single senator agree. A Democrat, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), objected that Rubio’s bill did not allow workers due process.
“Unfortunately, we will not be able to move forward on this today, it appears,” Rubio said, as his gambit failed. With that, he was done for the week, missing the next three votes.
Impatience had been a hallmark of Rubio’s career, for good and ill. Even in his first elected office, as a young city commissioner in West Miami, Rubio had been exasperated by how slowly his colleagues worked.
In this case, his decision to give up his Senate seat in 2016 was, in some ways, forced upon him.
The state’s election filing deadlines might have allowed him to test the presidential waters and then — if he failed — drop out and run for reelection as a backup plan. But even that Plan B was far from a sure thing. Rubio would be facing an expensive campaign in a competitive state, having already made clear that the Senate race was his second choice.
On the campaign trail, Rubio comes under attack from rivals who say he’s become an absentee federal employee. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, in a less-than-subtle knock on his former homestate ally, has said senators who miss work should have their pay docked.
“It’s just, kind of, like, dude, you know, either drop out or do something,” Bush’s son, Jeb Bush Jr., told New York University College Republicans earlier this month, in comments first reported by Politico Florida. The junior Bush, a Floridian, cast himself as an aggrieved constituent. “We’re paying you to do something, it ain’t run for president.”
Rubio waves off the criticism, saying his rejection of the Senate is all about finding a better way to serve all Americans.
“I’m not missing votes because I’m on vacation,” he told CNN on Sunday. “I’m running for president so that the votes they take in the Senate are actually meaningful again.”
Asked about his absences recently by Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today” Show, Rubio said: “My ambitions aren’t for me. My ambitions are for the country, and Florida.” If he is elected to the White House, he added, “we can begin to fix some of these issues that I’ve been so frustrated we’ve been unable to address during my time in the Senate.”
In an interview with The Post, Rubio was asked to go further. What if he didn’t see an opportunity for himself in the presidential race? Would he run for reelection, if the Senate was all he had?
“I don’t know,” Rubio said.
To understand how Rubio got to this point, The Post interviewed him, his friends and his staffers, and examined his nearly five-year-old Senate record — votes, speeches, legislation and committee hearings.
It is clear that Rubio’s frustration started early.
“Do we just stand around and do nothing?” Rubio said on the Senate floor in November 2011. “Or do we actually begin to act?”
That was 10 months in.
Rubio had arrived in January, after a stunning defeat of Charlie Crist, Florida’s sitting governor. Rubio had previously held the job of Florida House speaker, which had put him in the middle of one legislative fight after another.
He was used to action.
But in Washington at that point, action was not an option. The House had been taken by Republicans. Democrats still had the Senate. And those Democrats — who’d previously passed huge bills on Wall Street reform, health care and financial stimulus — saw little upside to crafting new, complicated bills. That might force vulnerable Democrats to take votes that could be used against them. And, if they did, the House would probably kill the bills anyway.
So the Senate fell into a bitter somnolence, interrupted by moments of panic.
It mainly took action when Congress’s gridlock threatened to shut down the government or cause a national default. In Rubio’s first two years, the Senate held just 486 recorded votes. That was the fewest in 20 years, according to the publication Vital Statistics on Congress.
Rubio had proposed an ambitious freshman agenda: cutting spending, rolling back EPA rules in Florida, even a clever legislative trolling effort to cut the money for signs that said this-and-such project was bankrolled by President Obama’s stimulus bill.
All failed. Rubio’s only successful bill that year was one to name September as National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Month.
So, 10 months in, Rubio and Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) unveiled an idea for a fail-proof bill. They assembled 10 job-growth ideas that were effectively pre-chewed: They were known to be bipartisan and uncontroversial. The AGREE Act.
“It went nowhere,” said one former Rubio staffer.
Rubio’s staff blamed its failure on the Republicans and Democrats on the Finance Committee, which had jurisdiction over the bill but ignored it.
In December of that year, a Florida reporter asked Rubio about the highlights of his first year in office.
“I can’t think of a single real high point,” Rubio said.
In his second year, Rubio had better numbers. He got four bills through the Senate. But all were symbolic resolutions, including such controversial items as “A resolution congratulating the Miami Heat for winning the National Basketball Association Championship.”
In his third year, however, it appeared that Rubio’s moment had finally come.
He joined a bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that negotiated a massive immigration-reform effort. He argued with talk-radio hosts, trying to sell conservatives on a plan that would give illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship.
Then, when the bill came to the Senate floor, Rubio gave the speech of his career. He used his own parents’ story: They emigrated from Cuba and worked as a bartender and a maid while Rubio was growing up. He talked about the American dream — and how immigrants treasure it and nurture it.
“Here in America, those who once had no hope will give their kids the chance at a life they always wanted for themselves. Here in America” — he tapped the lectern — “generations of unfulfilled dreams will finally come to pass. And that’s why I support this reform,” Rubio said.
The bill passed, giving Rubio the kind of victory that most freshman senators could only dream of.
For a moment, it also seemed to validate his strategy of working within the slow-moving Senate’s limitations. Two freshmen with presidential ambitions — Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.) — had rejected that go-along strategy and instead used marathon speeches and other tactics to stop the system in its tracks.
But soon, Rubio’s moment was over.
The House Republicans didn’t move on immigration. Rubio didn’t push them. Then, Cruz seized the spotlight, as he started a parliamentary game of chicken that ended with a government shutdown.
After that, friends and staffers started to see something different in Rubio. There was a new level of frustration and a new sense that he was looking beyond the place. In his Senate floor speeches, Rubio talked often about his family’s humble backstory. In late 2013 and 2014, he told the Senate six different times that his father had been a bartender.
His colleagues already knew, of course. But Rubio was aiming at people who didn’t know — people on the other side of a TV camera.
In the past couple of years, some of Rubio’s other policy ideas have actually become law.
His Girls Count Act, which prods developing countries to register girls’ births and give them greater property rights, became law on his second try. His idea to allow the VA administrator greater freedom to fire incompetent leaders also became law, tucked into a larger bill.
But it’s also been clear that Rubio’s ambitions were aimed elsewhere.
He began missing votes. He skipped 10 percent of them in 2014 — making him one of the most absent senators, with the 88th-best attendance record, according to statistics kept by GovTrack.us. He began missing committee work, even on the subject he most identified with. In 2014, Rubio missed 34 of 68 committee hearings and meetings in the Foreign Relations committee, according to his office’s tally.
When Rubio tells the story of his career, the moment that he gave up on the Senate does not come until later.
“For two years, we just tried to slow-dance and wait for the 2012 election,” in the hopes of winning a Republican majority, Rubio said. “And then, when that didn’t work out, we spent two years trying to position ourselves for ’14.”
Then Republicans did win a majority that year. But, Rubio said, he was still told to be patient. The majority was still too small to overcome Democratic filibusters or override presidential vetoes.
“Now it’s [2015], and the argument is, ‘We’ve gotta wait to elect the president,’ ” he said.
That meant the same frustrations, under a new boss. And that was it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Wow, a double gift from Rubio. He won't be President and he won't be a Senator anymore. Thanks!
* Give me a break, he was elected to do a job and he has chosen to do it less than 50% of the time. If any of the workers; private or public, that he continually berates did this they would be seeking unemployment, and if they happen to live in one of a number of red states they have to pee in a cup first before they could receive a check. A check that they have been paying unemployment insurance into.
* I think this just about wraps up Rubio's run for the White House. As a Florida resident I am "frustrated" that Marco Rubio doesn't represent his constituents. Why doesn't he leave now so the State can get proper representation in the Senate? I think it's time for the RNC to open a "Failed Executive Republican Crying Room" it can be filled with the likes of Rubio, Boehner, Bush, Cheney, Caribou Barbie ...
* Awww....he doesn't like the rules. Doesn't like the fact that you have to play nice if you want to play. Doesn't like that he isn't getting his way. Aw. No one will miss the man child.
* Rubio’s Senate bill to make it easier to remove poor-performing employees shows that he doesn’t understand how complex organizations work. It is common for politicians and simple-minded people to focus on the performance of individual workers as a reason why an agency is dysfunctional. Blame the teachers, blame the federal workers, blame the polices; but never, ever address the real problems. The problems are often the leadership, but more usually more structural things like inadequate resources to effect the mission. Also high on the list are out-dated or onerous policies and procedures, administrative policies, and internal and external politics. Employees are just the easiest to blame, and they often become to victims of politicians that want to make a point, rather that fix a problem. In Republican politics, they are where any discussion of reforms tend to start and finish.
* My goodness, if Rubio is frustrated as Senator, just what does he expect if he was President? Hasn't he noticed how frustrating that job is? Like Jeb! said, " Dude, you're getting paid for being Senator. Do your job!" Or like I would say: "Dude, I had to go into work at a job that was frustrating for thirty years, but I got paid well for it, not like you as Senator, but, hey, not bad. If you don't like being a Senator, go back to Miami and work in a hotel. You'll find the Senator gig is pretty good after all. And dude, you're not fit to be Prez if you can't handle the Senate."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rubio gives up on Senate: ‘He hates it’
By David A. Fahrenthold, October 25, 2015
Marco Rubio is a U.S. senator. And he just can’t stand it anymore.
“I don’t know that ‘hate’ is the right word,” Rubio said in an interview. “I’m frustrated.”
This year, as Rubio runs for president, he has cast the Senate — the very place that cemented him as a national politician — as a place he’s given up on, after less than one term. It’s too slow. Too rule-bound. So Rubio, 44, has decided not to run for his seat again. It’s the White House or bust.
“That’s why I’m missing votes. Because I am leaving the Senate. I am not running for reelection,” Rubio said in the last Republican debate, after Donald Trump had mocked him for his unusual number of absences during Senate votes.
Five years ago, Rubio arrived with a potential that thrilled Republicans. He was young, ambitious, charismatic, fluent in English and Spanish, and beloved by the establishment and the tea party.
But Rubio had arrived at one of the least ambitious moments in Senate history and saw many of his ideas fizzle. Democrats killed his debt-cutting plans. Republicans killed his immigration reform. The two parties actually came together to kill his AGREE Act, a small-bore, hands-across-the-aisle bill that Rubio had designed just to get a win on something.
Now, he’s done. “He hates it,” a longtime friend from Florida said, speaking anonymously to say what Rubio would not.
Which makes for an odd campaign message.
Rubio must convince voters that his decision to leave the Senate — giving up the power he already has — is actually a mark of character, a sign that he is too dedicated to public service to stay.
Rubio is not a quitter, the argument goes.
In fact, that’s precisely why he’s quitting this place.
“He wouldn’t be doing what he’s doing now if he were a quitter,” said Norman Braman, a Florida auto dealer and one of Rubio’s longtime donors.
Last week was — by Rubio’s standards — a very busy week in the Senate.
On Tuesday, he cast a vote, his first in 26 days. He gave a floor speech, his first in 41 days. In the speech, he asked the Senate to pass a bill that would give Department of Veterans Affairs leaders more power to remove poor-performing employees. But it didn’t happen. To pass something so suddenly, Senate rules required that every single senator agree. A Democrat, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), objected that Rubio’s bill did not allow workers due process.
“Unfortunately, we will not be able to move forward on this today, it appears,” Rubio said, as his gambit failed. With that, he was done for the week, missing the next three votes.
Impatience had been a hallmark of Rubio’s career, for good and ill. Even in his first elected office, as a young city commissioner in West Miami, Rubio had been exasperated by how slowly his colleagues worked.
In this case, his decision to give up his Senate seat in 2016 was, in some ways, forced upon him.
The state’s election filing deadlines might have allowed him to test the presidential waters and then — if he failed — drop out and run for reelection as a backup plan. But even that Plan B was far from a sure thing. Rubio would be facing an expensive campaign in a competitive state, having already made clear that the Senate race was his second choice.
On the campaign trail, Rubio comes under attack from rivals who say he’s become an absentee federal employee. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, in a less-than-subtle knock on his former homestate ally, has said senators who miss work should have their pay docked.
“It’s just, kind of, like, dude, you know, either drop out or do something,” Bush’s son, Jeb Bush Jr., told New York University College Republicans earlier this month, in comments first reported by Politico Florida. The junior Bush, a Floridian, cast himself as an aggrieved constituent. “We’re paying you to do something, it ain’t run for president.”
Rubio waves off the criticism, saying his rejection of the Senate is all about finding a better way to serve all Americans.
“I’m not missing votes because I’m on vacation,” he told CNN on Sunday. “I’m running for president so that the votes they take in the Senate are actually meaningful again.”
Asked about his absences recently by Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today” Show, Rubio said: “My ambitions aren’t for me. My ambitions are for the country, and Florida.” If he is elected to the White House, he added, “we can begin to fix some of these issues that I’ve been so frustrated we’ve been unable to address during my time in the Senate.”
In an interview with The Post, Rubio was asked to go further. What if he didn’t see an opportunity for himself in the presidential race? Would he run for reelection, if the Senate was all he had?
“I don’t know,” Rubio said.
To understand how Rubio got to this point, The Post interviewed him, his friends and his staffers, and examined his nearly five-year-old Senate record — votes, speeches, legislation and committee hearings.
It is clear that Rubio’s frustration started early.
“Do we just stand around and do nothing?” Rubio said on the Senate floor in November 2011. “Or do we actually begin to act?”
That was 10 months in.
Rubio had arrived in January, after a stunning defeat of Charlie Crist, Florida’s sitting governor. Rubio had previously held the job of Florida House speaker, which had put him in the middle of one legislative fight after another.
He was used to action.
But in Washington at that point, action was not an option. The House had been taken by Republicans. Democrats still had the Senate. And those Democrats — who’d previously passed huge bills on Wall Street reform, health care and financial stimulus — saw little upside to crafting new, complicated bills. That might force vulnerable Democrats to take votes that could be used against them. And, if they did, the House would probably kill the bills anyway.
So the Senate fell into a bitter somnolence, interrupted by moments of panic.
It mainly took action when Congress’s gridlock threatened to shut down the government or cause a national default. In Rubio’s first two years, the Senate held just 486 recorded votes. That was the fewest in 20 years, according to the publication Vital Statistics on Congress.
Rubio had proposed an ambitious freshman agenda: cutting spending, rolling back EPA rules in Florida, even a clever legislative trolling effort to cut the money for signs that said this-and-such project was bankrolled by President Obama’s stimulus bill.
All failed. Rubio’s only successful bill that year was one to name September as National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Month.
So, 10 months in, Rubio and Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) unveiled an idea for a fail-proof bill. They assembled 10 job-growth ideas that were effectively pre-chewed: They were known to be bipartisan and uncontroversial. The AGREE Act.
“It went nowhere,” said one former Rubio staffer.
Rubio’s staff blamed its failure on the Republicans and Democrats on the Finance Committee, which had jurisdiction over the bill but ignored it.
In December of that year, a Florida reporter asked Rubio about the highlights of his first year in office.
“I can’t think of a single real high point,” Rubio said.
In his second year, Rubio had better numbers. He got four bills through the Senate. But all were symbolic resolutions, including such controversial items as “A resolution congratulating the Miami Heat for winning the National Basketball Association Championship.”
In his third year, however, it appeared that Rubio’s moment had finally come.
He joined a bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that negotiated a massive immigration-reform effort. He argued with talk-radio hosts, trying to sell conservatives on a plan that would give illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship.
Then, when the bill came to the Senate floor, Rubio gave the speech of his career. He used his own parents’ story: They emigrated from Cuba and worked as a bartender and a maid while Rubio was growing up. He talked about the American dream — and how immigrants treasure it and nurture it.
“Here in America, those who once had no hope will give their kids the chance at a life they always wanted for themselves. Here in America” — he tapped the lectern — “generations of unfulfilled dreams will finally come to pass. And that’s why I support this reform,” Rubio said.
The bill passed, giving Rubio the kind of victory that most freshman senators could only dream of.
For a moment, it also seemed to validate his strategy of working within the slow-moving Senate’s limitations. Two freshmen with presidential ambitions — Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.) — had rejected that go-along strategy and instead used marathon speeches and other tactics to stop the system in its tracks.
But soon, Rubio’s moment was over.
The House Republicans didn’t move on immigration. Rubio didn’t push them. Then, Cruz seized the spotlight, as he started a parliamentary game of chicken that ended with a government shutdown.
After that, friends and staffers started to see something different in Rubio. There was a new level of frustration and a new sense that he was looking beyond the place. In his Senate floor speeches, Rubio talked often about his family’s humble backstory. In late 2013 and 2014, he told the Senate six different times that his father had been a bartender.
His colleagues already knew, of course. But Rubio was aiming at people who didn’t know — people on the other side of a TV camera.
In the past couple of years, some of Rubio’s other policy ideas have actually become law.
His Girls Count Act, which prods developing countries to register girls’ births and give them greater property rights, became law on his second try. His idea to allow the VA administrator greater freedom to fire incompetent leaders also became law, tucked into a larger bill.
But it’s also been clear that Rubio’s ambitions were aimed elsewhere.
He began missing votes. He skipped 10 percent of them in 2014 — making him one of the most absent senators, with the 88th-best attendance record, according to statistics kept by GovTrack.us. He began missing committee work, even on the subject he most identified with. In 2014, Rubio missed 34 of 68 committee hearings and meetings in the Foreign Relations committee, according to his office’s tally.
When Rubio tells the story of his career, the moment that he gave up on the Senate does not come until later.
“For two years, we just tried to slow-dance and wait for the 2012 election,” in the hopes of winning a Republican majority, Rubio said. “And then, when that didn’t work out, we spent two years trying to position ourselves for ’14.”
Then Republicans did win a majority that year. But, Rubio said, he was still told to be patient. The majority was still too small to overcome Democratic filibusters or override presidential vetoes.
“Now it’s [2015], and the argument is, ‘We’ve gotta wait to elect the president,’ ” he said.
That meant the same frustrations, under a new boss. And that was it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... so long as an official remains in their office, they must enforce the law even if they disagree with it. Resignation, of course, relieves them of this obligation."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I said it long ago, she is not fit to serve the public.
* She will quit when she gets a call from FOX and is invited to be a participant of THE ROGER AILES COMEDY HOUR.
* Fox wouldn't want her. They only hire females that people actually find attractive.
* She will never resign, where else can an uneducated woman like her make $80,000 a year!
* Good for Justice Kennedy - makes me think there is some hope that all conservatives are NOT idiots.
* true,, I'm actually quite surprise. took awhile to hear this, better late than never.. this cow should resign.. but she's too damn greedy & want that paycheck,
...................................................................................................................................................................
Justice Kennedy Suggests That Kim Davis Should Resign
By Ian Millhiser, October 26, 2015
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a member of the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc who nevertheless has authored several important gay rights opinions, suggested during an event at Harvard Law School last Thursday that public officials who do not wish to follow the Court’s marriage equality decision should resign.
Kennedy’s remarks came in response to a question from a student who described himself as someone who thinks “that rational norms guide the exercise of sexual autonomy.” The student asked whether public officials who disagree with the Court’s decisions on marriage equality or abortion have “authority to act according to her own judgment” of whether the Court’s legal reasoning was sound.
The justice did acknowledge the “difficult moral questions” presented when a public official is asked to “enforce a law that they believe is morally corrupt.” He also steered away from explicitly stating that officials such as Kim Davis, who famously refused to issue marriage licenses due to her opposition to the Court’s marriage equality decision, must resign her office.
Nevertheless, the thrust of Kennedy’s remarks suggested that he believes that officials in Davis’s position should choose to either follow the law or resign. After alluding to the fact that very few judges resigned from the Nazi German government, Kennedy offered his endorsement to officials who do quit when asked to do something they find morally repugnant. “Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they view as morally wrong, in order to make a point,” Kennedy told the Harvard audience.
He qualified this remark, however, by adding that “the rule of law is that, as a public official in performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the law.” Thus, Kennedy appeared to be saying that so long as an official remains in their office, they must enforce the law even if they disagree with it. Resignation, of course, relieves them of this obligation.
Kennedy’s remarks in response to this question begin at 51:50 in a video of the event posted by Harvard Law School.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I said it long ago, she is not fit to serve the public.
* She will quit when she gets a call from FOX and is invited to be a participant of THE ROGER AILES COMEDY HOUR.
* Fox wouldn't want her. They only hire females that people actually find attractive.
* She will never resign, where else can an uneducated woman like her make $80,000 a year!
* Good for Justice Kennedy - makes me think there is some hope that all conservatives are NOT idiots.
* true,, I'm actually quite surprise. took awhile to hear this, better late than never.. this cow should resign.. but she's too damn greedy & want that paycheck,
...................................................................................................................................................................
Justice Kennedy Suggests That Kim Davis Should Resign
By Ian Millhiser, October 26, 2015
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a member of the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc who nevertheless has authored several important gay rights opinions, suggested during an event at Harvard Law School last Thursday that public officials who do not wish to follow the Court’s marriage equality decision should resign.
Kennedy’s remarks came in response to a question from a student who described himself as someone who thinks “that rational norms guide the exercise of sexual autonomy.” The student asked whether public officials who disagree with the Court’s decisions on marriage equality or abortion have “authority to act according to her own judgment” of whether the Court’s legal reasoning was sound.
The justice did acknowledge the “difficult moral questions” presented when a public official is asked to “enforce a law that they believe is morally corrupt.” He also steered away from explicitly stating that officials such as Kim Davis, who famously refused to issue marriage licenses due to her opposition to the Court’s marriage equality decision, must resign her office.
Nevertheless, the thrust of Kennedy’s remarks suggested that he believes that officials in Davis’s position should choose to either follow the law or resign. After alluding to the fact that very few judges resigned from the Nazi German government, Kennedy offered his endorsement to officials who do quit when asked to do something they find morally repugnant. “Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they view as morally wrong, in order to make a point,” Kennedy told the Harvard audience.
He qualified this remark, however, by adding that “the rule of law is that, as a public official in performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the law.” Thus, Kennedy appeared to be saying that so long as an official remains in their office, they must enforce the law even if they disagree with it. Resignation, of course, relieves them of this obligation.
Kennedy’s remarks in response to this question begin at 51:50 in a video of the event posted by Harvard Law School.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Gowdy, it will be in your best interest to release the Blumenthal transcript.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Everyone Started Yelling Right Before The Benghazi Committee Broke For Lunch. Here’s Why.
By Kira Lerner, October 22, 2015
Three hours into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi Thursday, things got heated.
Clinton remained calm and collected throughout the morning portion of the hearing, but shortly before the lunch break, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) confronted Committee Chairman Trent Gowdy (R-SC), alleging he lied this past weekend on national TV when he said that he has “zero interest” in investigating Clinton’s emails or activities of the Clinton Foundation. According to Cummings, Gowdy subpoenaed Clinton adviser Sydney Blumenthal and then both directly asked and directed his staff to ask about the Clinton Foundation and other non-Benghazi related topics during the private deposition.
“You’ve made several inaccurate statements over the past months as you’ve tried to defend against multiple Republican admissions that the select committee has been wasting millions of tax dollars to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president,” Cummings said, growing angry during his exchange with Gowdy.
“Mr. Chairman you personally attended Mr. Blumenthal’s deposition,” Cummings later continued. “You personally asked him about the Clinton Foundation. And you personally directed your staff to ask questions about Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, which they did more than 50 times. Now, these facts directly contradict the statements you made on national television.”
Cummings requested that Gowdy release the full transcript of the Blumenthal deposition, to approving nods from Clinton. “We’re not going to take that up at a hearing,” Gowdy responded.
Cummings again insisted the Committee members have a right to vote on the motion to release the transcript, but Gowdy refused to hold a vote Thursday.
Watch the exchange:
Democrats on the committee have pushed for the transcript of the Blumenthal deposition to be released to contextualize Clinton’s emails. In a letter from June, the five Democrats on the panel cited Gowdy’s own comments from March when he warned about selectively releasing information. Gowdy was speaking about Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails, which were eventually released by the State Department in May.
“Given your own words on this topic warning against the selective release of information from the Committee’s investigation, it has become impossible to understand your revolving policy on when the Select Committee will release information and when it will not,” the Democrats’ letter said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Everyone Started Yelling Right Before The Benghazi Committee Broke For Lunch. Here’s Why.
By Kira Lerner, October 22, 2015
Three hours into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi Thursday, things got heated.
Clinton remained calm and collected throughout the morning portion of the hearing, but shortly before the lunch break, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) confronted Committee Chairman Trent Gowdy (R-SC), alleging he lied this past weekend on national TV when he said that he has “zero interest” in investigating Clinton’s emails or activities of the Clinton Foundation. According to Cummings, Gowdy subpoenaed Clinton adviser Sydney Blumenthal and then both directly asked and directed his staff to ask about the Clinton Foundation and other non-Benghazi related topics during the private deposition.
“You’ve made several inaccurate statements over the past months as you’ve tried to defend against multiple Republican admissions that the select committee has been wasting millions of tax dollars to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president,” Cummings said, growing angry during his exchange with Gowdy.
“Mr. Chairman you personally attended Mr. Blumenthal’s deposition,” Cummings later continued. “You personally asked him about the Clinton Foundation. And you personally directed your staff to ask questions about Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, which they did more than 50 times. Now, these facts directly contradict the statements you made on national television.”
Cummings requested that Gowdy release the full transcript of the Blumenthal deposition, to approving nods from Clinton. “We’re not going to take that up at a hearing,” Gowdy responded.
Cummings again insisted the Committee members have a right to vote on the motion to release the transcript, but Gowdy refused to hold a vote Thursday.
Watch the exchange:
Democrats on the committee have pushed for the transcript of the Blumenthal deposition to be released to contextualize Clinton’s emails. In a letter from June, the five Democrats on the panel cited Gowdy’s own comments from March when he warned about selectively releasing information. Gowdy was speaking about Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails, which were eventually released by the State Department in May.
“Given your own words on this topic warning against the selective release of information from the Committee’s investigation, it has become impossible to understand your revolving policy on when the Select Committee will release information and when it will not,” the Democrats’ letter said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... so far in this primary race he said he is frustrated by the dearth of discussion about other issues he cares about ..." What's the matter, Charles Koch, isn't everything going your way?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Does Charles Koch realize he IS the problem?
* MarketWatch should ask Mr. Koch to publicly account for any external costs to society his private profit activities may cause that are personally borne by Americans especially taxpayers in terms of polluted air and water, drought, and global warming, especially when it comes to burning coal - that is the subsidy he should be lamenting about - his own!
* There was a Boycott The Kochs' movement, that quickly found out the Koch's have there fingers in so many industries, it is impossible to boycott them. Name one Dem handler who has that kind of octopus reach.
* Charles Koch’s Frankenstein problem: He created the Tea Party monster — and now he’s horrified with the results The Koch network gave rise to the rabid right. But now Charles Koch wails about a "lack of substance and civility"
* So the Kochs, who used their money to create the RW nut jobs like the Tea Party from what used to be an intellectual Republican Party, are now upset because they got what they wanted? Seriously? My heart bleeds for the lying b@stard
* This MF'er doesn't give a hoot about anything but being able to freely defile the environment while making sure his personal tax rate stays at historic lows. He sure as he11 doesn't give a damn about low-income Americans being able to start a business, that's code bulls**t for getting rid of any regulations on big business activity. No doubt this sc*mbag will live a very long life, using his money to buy politicians that will enforce his will upon the American people. As long as he's around we can expect more trade agreements that give ever more power to corporations at the expense of workers everywhere.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A frustrated Koch brother decides it’s time to ‘spout off’
By Patrick O'Connor, October 27, 2015
Charles Koch sounds a lot like an ordinary voter when he bemoans what he said is a lack of substance and civility in the 2016 White House race.
“It’s mainly about personalities, and ‘your mother sucked rotten eggs,’ “ he said during an interview in his office here.
Except, of course, Koch is no ordinary voter: The 79-year-old businessman and his brother preside over a network of conservative donors who plan to spend roughly $750 million influencing 2016 races.
Koch is chief executive of Koch Industries, one of the nation’s largest privately owned companies, and his calls for reduced taxes and regulations have long found a fruitful home among Republican politicians. But so far in this primary race he said he is frustrated by the dearth of discussion about other issues he cares about, from ending subsidies and tax breaks for corporations to overhauling the criminal-justice system and making it easier for low-income Americans to start businesses.
He plans to wait until year-end to determine how much he will spend on 2016 elections, including the White House contest. “How much I give to the political side will depend on to what extent the candidates out there are going to make a difference on the things I care about,” he said.
An expanded version of this story is available at WSJ.com
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Does Charles Koch realize he IS the problem?
* MarketWatch should ask Mr. Koch to publicly account for any external costs to society his private profit activities may cause that are personally borne by Americans especially taxpayers in terms of polluted air and water, drought, and global warming, especially when it comes to burning coal - that is the subsidy he should be lamenting about - his own!
* There was a Boycott The Kochs' movement, that quickly found out the Koch's have there fingers in so many industries, it is impossible to boycott them. Name one Dem handler who has that kind of octopus reach.
* Charles Koch’s Frankenstein problem: He created the Tea Party monster — and now he’s horrified with the results The Koch network gave rise to the rabid right. But now Charles Koch wails about a "lack of substance and civility"
* So the Kochs, who used their money to create the RW nut jobs like the Tea Party from what used to be an intellectual Republican Party, are now upset because they got what they wanted? Seriously? My heart bleeds for the lying b@stard
* This MF'er doesn't give a hoot about anything but being able to freely defile the environment while making sure his personal tax rate stays at historic lows. He sure as he11 doesn't give a damn about low-income Americans being able to start a business, that's code bulls**t for getting rid of any regulations on big business activity. No doubt this sc*mbag will live a very long life, using his money to buy politicians that will enforce his will upon the American people. As long as he's around we can expect more trade agreements that give ever more power to corporations at the expense of workers everywhere.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A frustrated Koch brother decides it’s time to ‘spout off’
By Patrick O'Connor, October 27, 2015
Charles Koch sounds a lot like an ordinary voter when he bemoans what he said is a lack of substance and civility in the 2016 White House race.
“It’s mainly about personalities, and ‘your mother sucked rotten eggs,’ “ he said during an interview in his office here.
Except, of course, Koch is no ordinary voter: The 79-year-old businessman and his brother preside over a network of conservative donors who plan to spend roughly $750 million influencing 2016 races.
Koch is chief executive of Koch Industries, one of the nation’s largest privately owned companies, and his calls for reduced taxes and regulations have long found a fruitful home among Republican politicians. But so far in this primary race he said he is frustrated by the dearth of discussion about other issues he cares about, from ending subsidies and tax breaks for corporations to overhauling the criminal-justice system and making it easier for low-income Americans to start businesses.
He plans to wait until year-end to determine how much he will spend on 2016 elections, including the White House contest. “How much I give to the political side will depend on to what extent the candidates out there are going to make a difference on the things I care about,” he said.
An expanded version of this story is available at WSJ.com
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, October 26, 2015
"The party is reaping the bitter fruit of a carefully sown disdain." Serves you right, but unfortunately the rest of us suffer, too.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* “It is very important for Republicans to demonstrate to the country that they can trust us with the government,” said Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Laughable. Thanks to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bushies, the GOP has proven itself untrustworthy with our federal government since Ike left office over 50 years ago. Need further proof? Just look at the GOP dominated (Crazy) House. Hillary? Bernie? Who cares! Just keep the GOP out of the WH in 2016.
* This is a serious question. When was the last time republicans have been right on anything? They are always wrong because they obstruct rather than govern.
* This would be funny if the stakes weren't so high
* Sadly, but not surprisingly, when people spend umpteen millions of dollars a year, decade after decade, promoting social Darwinism and the rejection of facts and critical thinking skills, they're successful in electing sociopaths, psychopaths, and anarchists who cover themselves with the label of "libertarians" -- people whose explicit philosophy of government is to sabotage government. It does not help that we have a supreme court that has legitimized unlimited bribery of public officials (as long as the money is laundered properly) and corporate "might makes right," eagerly abetting their fellow Banana Republicans in making our great nation another Banana Republic, safe for plutocracy. Grover Norquist and his ilk are now getting what they've been seeking, and I hope that they choke on it. With no wasteful EMS around to save them.
* We have to have one extreme or the other? Perfect illustration of what is wrong with the tea patsie led republican party.
* I predicted this years ago, though it doesn't please me to see it happen. The Republican party, though they may not know it, is in its death throes. And it deserves to be. These people sold their hearts, souls, and gonads to the Tea Party, and it will profit them absolutely nothing. Members of the Congress, in particular, should be voted out en masse. Even the Democrats have been tainted by money, but it has destroyed any credibility in the Republicans.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans reap what they sow
By Renée Loth, October 26, 2015
"Panic” may be too strong a word to describe what many establishment Republicans are feeling about the insurgency that has taken over Congress and the presidential campaign. Then again, maybe not. “We have to end this. We look absolutely crazy,” said New York Congressman Peter King after a bloc of 40 Congressional ultras tipped over the neatly-set table of succession in the US House this month. David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, called the GOP’s turmoil “more than a little frightening.” On the campaign trail, party regulars are alarmed that half the nation’s likely Republican voters — or at least, the half who talk to pollsters — prefer a president without a lick of government experience. “The usual ways voters judge a candidate — experience, governing achievements, mastery of issues — have been devalued,” lamented Peter Wehner, who served in three Republican administrations. “Reason has given way to demagogy.”
None of these worrywarts would ever be mistaken for liberal. But they are pragmatists: They want to win. And after weeks of being gobsmacked by the rise of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and the fractious Freedom Caucus, the establishment has begun to rally, prodding an uneasy consensus around Paul Ryan for house speaker and trying to slow Trump’s march as the party’s standard-bearer. “It is very important for Republicans to demonstrate to the country that they can trust us with the government,” said Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
But really, why should any of these sober-minded veterans be surprised? After 35 years of Republicans relentlessly bashing government, voters have been well taught to mistrust politicians and demean public service. They are drawn to candidates who reflect their own contempt. And if campaign rhetoric is rude, crude, and seemingly stewed, so much the better.
The party is reaping the bitter fruit of a carefully sown disdain. When Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, said that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” he may only have been promoting a fiscally conservative ideology as a corrective to Great Society spending. But after decades of Republicans demonizing people on welfare, degrading teachers and other public workers, starving the public sector enough to guarantee its inefficiency, and demeaning the office of the presidency, voters got the message that all politics is rotten. Now these over-plucked chickens are coming home to roost.
Republicans have become adept at manipulating census data to draw congressional districts that only conservatives can win. But they’ve crafted them too well, because now even powerful Republican incumbents are being tossed out by uncompromising newcomers who claim to be free of Washington’s taint.
The ironies thicken. Leading the charge to stop Trump is the political arm of the Club for Growth, which has done its best to drive moderates and other apostates out of the party. The group’s PAC spent $1 million on anti-Trump ads in Iowa last month, tarring him with their worst epithets: “very liberal” and “just another politician.” But voters are drawn to Trump because he is antiestablishment, any establishment, and the Club for Growth will have to do a lot more to contain the untethered monster they’ve created.
It’s enough to give Democrats a good case of schadenfreude. But they shouldn’t get too smug. Government dysfunction is especially hard on the people Democrats care most about: low-income families, schoolchildren, frail elders, those who depend on public support to get by.
The steady debasement of politics has hurt the entire country, not just Republicans. It turns off the rational center and polarizes the electorate. When fewer people vote, extreme positions dominate, and it becomes impossible to govern. Just ask Barack Obama.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* “It is very important for Republicans to demonstrate to the country that they can trust us with the government,” said Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Laughable. Thanks to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bushies, the GOP has proven itself untrustworthy with our federal government since Ike left office over 50 years ago. Need further proof? Just look at the GOP dominated (Crazy) House. Hillary? Bernie? Who cares! Just keep the GOP out of the WH in 2016.
* This is a serious question. When was the last time republicans have been right on anything? They are always wrong because they obstruct rather than govern.
* This would be funny if the stakes weren't so high
* Sadly, but not surprisingly, when people spend umpteen millions of dollars a year, decade after decade, promoting social Darwinism and the rejection of facts and critical thinking skills, they're successful in electing sociopaths, psychopaths, and anarchists who cover themselves with the label of "libertarians" -- people whose explicit philosophy of government is to sabotage government. It does not help that we have a supreme court that has legitimized unlimited bribery of public officials (as long as the money is laundered properly) and corporate "might makes right," eagerly abetting their fellow Banana Republicans in making our great nation another Banana Republic, safe for plutocracy. Grover Norquist and his ilk are now getting what they've been seeking, and I hope that they choke on it. With no wasteful EMS around to save them.
* We have to have one extreme or the other? Perfect illustration of what is wrong with the tea patsie led republican party.
* I predicted this years ago, though it doesn't please me to see it happen. The Republican party, though they may not know it, is in its death throes. And it deserves to be. These people sold their hearts, souls, and gonads to the Tea Party, and it will profit them absolutely nothing. Members of the Congress, in particular, should be voted out en masse. Even the Democrats have been tainted by money, but it has destroyed any credibility in the Republicans.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans reap what they sow
By Renée Loth, October 26, 2015
"Panic” may be too strong a word to describe what many establishment Republicans are feeling about the insurgency that has taken over Congress and the presidential campaign. Then again, maybe not. “We have to end this. We look absolutely crazy,” said New York Congressman Peter King after a bloc of 40 Congressional ultras tipped over the neatly-set table of succession in the US House this month. David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, called the GOP’s turmoil “more than a little frightening.” On the campaign trail, party regulars are alarmed that half the nation’s likely Republican voters — or at least, the half who talk to pollsters — prefer a president without a lick of government experience. “The usual ways voters judge a candidate — experience, governing achievements, mastery of issues — have been devalued,” lamented Peter Wehner, who served in three Republican administrations. “Reason has given way to demagogy.”
None of these worrywarts would ever be mistaken for liberal. But they are pragmatists: They want to win. And after weeks of being gobsmacked by the rise of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and the fractious Freedom Caucus, the establishment has begun to rally, prodding an uneasy consensus around Paul Ryan for house speaker and trying to slow Trump’s march as the party’s standard-bearer. “It is very important for Republicans to demonstrate to the country that they can trust us with the government,” said Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
But really, why should any of these sober-minded veterans be surprised? After 35 years of Republicans relentlessly bashing government, voters have been well taught to mistrust politicians and demean public service. They are drawn to candidates who reflect their own contempt. And if campaign rhetoric is rude, crude, and seemingly stewed, so much the better.
The party is reaping the bitter fruit of a carefully sown disdain. When Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, said that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” he may only have been promoting a fiscally conservative ideology as a corrective to Great Society spending. But after decades of Republicans demonizing people on welfare, degrading teachers and other public workers, starving the public sector enough to guarantee its inefficiency, and demeaning the office of the presidency, voters got the message that all politics is rotten. Now these over-plucked chickens are coming home to roost.
Republicans have become adept at manipulating census data to draw congressional districts that only conservatives can win. But they’ve crafted them too well, because now even powerful Republican incumbents are being tossed out by uncompromising newcomers who claim to be free of Washington’s taint.
The ironies thicken. Leading the charge to stop Trump is the political arm of the Club for Growth, which has done its best to drive moderates and other apostates out of the party. The group’s PAC spent $1 million on anti-Trump ads in Iowa last month, tarring him with their worst epithets: “very liberal” and “just another politician.” But voters are drawn to Trump because he is antiestablishment, any establishment, and the Club for Growth will have to do a lot more to contain the untethered monster they’ve created.
It’s enough to give Democrats a good case of schadenfreude. But they shouldn’t get too smug. Government dysfunction is especially hard on the people Democrats care most about: low-income families, schoolchildren, frail elders, those who depend on public support to get by.
The steady debasement of politics has hurt the entire country, not just Republicans. It turns off the rational center and polarizes the electorate. When fewer people vote, extreme positions dominate, and it becomes impossible to govern. Just ask Barack Obama.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... for a company and a family that have built their reputation on a particular set of Christian values, this investigation may hurt more than any financial penalty could." Hmmm, pride goeth before a fall?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Exclusive: Feds Investigate Hobby Lobby Boss for Illicit Artifacts
One of America’s most famously Christian businesses is amassing a vast collection of Biblical antiquities. The problem is some of them may have been looted from the Middle East.
By Candida Moss and Joel Baden, October 26, 2015
In 2011, a shipment of somewhere between 200 to 300 small clay tablets on their way to Oklahoma City from Israel was seized by U.S. Customs agents in Memphis. The tablets were inscribed in cuneiform—the script of ancient Assyria and Babylonia, present-day Iraq—and were thousands of years old. Their destination was the compound of the Hobby Lobby corporation, which became famous last year for winning a landmark Supreme Court case on religious freedom and government mandates. A senior law enforcement source with extensive knowledge of antiquities smuggling confirmed that these ancient artifacts had been purchased and were being imported by the deeply-religious owners of the crafting giant, the Green family of Oklahoma City. For the last four years, law enforcement sources tell The Daily Beast, the Greens have been under federal investigation for the illicit importation of cultural heritage from Iraq.
These tablets, like the other 40,000 or so ancient artifacts owned by the Green family, were destined for the Museum of the Bible, the giant new museum funded by the Greens, slated to open in Washington, D.C., in 2017. Both the seizure of the cuneiform tablets and the subsequent federal investigation were confirmed to us by Cary Summers, the president of the Museum of the Bible.
From its founding in 1970, the Greens’ Hobby Lobby chain has been more than simply a suite of craft stores. The Greens have used it as a model of a business run on Christian values. Stores are closed on Sundays in order to give employees time to attend church. The company employs four chaplains, and offered a free health clinic to staff at its headquarters long before free health care came into political vogue. The Greens have also used the Hobby Lobby platform to spread their Christian message far and wide: the company annually places full-page ads celebrating—in their words— “the real meaning of Christmas, Easter, and Independence Day” in newspapers across the country.
But the Greens went from evangelical players to bona fide Christian celebrities in June of 2014 when they won a Supreme Court case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. It granted them exemption from the Obamacare mandate to provide certain forms of contraception to their employees; forcing the company to do so, the Supreme Court ruled, would have violated the Greens’ deeply-held Christian beliefs.
If the investigation ends with a decision to prosecute, on either criminal or civil charges, the Greens may be forced to forfeit the tablets to the government. There may also be a fine involved. The Green family, who successfully forced the federal government to legally recognize their personal moral standards, now find themselves on the other side of the docket, under suspicion of having attempted to contravene U.S. laws.
When Summers spoke with us, he made it sound as if the ongoing federal investigation was simply the result of a logistical problem. “There was a shipment and it had improper paperwork—incomplete paperwork that was attached to it.” That innocuous phrase—“incomplete paperwork”—makes it sound as if some forms were simply missing a date or a signature. That is rarely the case with questionably-acquired ancient artifacts—and were the problem merely logistical, the chances are slim that it would take four years to resolve.
Summers suggested that the tablets were merely “held up in customs,” as if this was merely a case of bureaucratic delays. “Sometimes this stuff just sits, and nobody does anything with it.” But an individual close to the investigation told us that investigators have accumulated hundreds of hours of interviews, which doesn’t sound like bureaucratic delay—and which also suggests that there is more at stake here than merely a logistical oversight.
An attorney familiar with customs investigations explained that they often center around properly filled-out paperwork. There are two types of customs declarations: informal entry and formal entry. Informal entry is generally for shipments that have a collective monetary value of under $2,500; formal entry is for anything above that. In cases where people are trying to bring something into the country that they shouldn’t, one of the common ways to do so is to undervalue whatever the item is, often by misidentifying it, so that it goes through the expedited informal entry process rather than the more closely scrutinized formal entry.
If someone looking to bring antiquities into the U.S. knows that the artifacts should never have left their country of origin, or lack proper provenance, the only way to get them through customs is to lie: about the country of origin, about the country of export, about the value, about the identity. (This happened recently in the case of a Picasso worth $15 million, which was listed on the customs declaration as a “handicraft” worth $37.) One source familiar with the Hobby Lobby investigation told us that this is precisely what happened in this case: that the tablets were described on their FedEx shipping label as samples of “hand-crafted clay tiles.” This description may have been technically accurate, but the monetary value assigned to them—around $300, we’re told—vastly underestimates their true worth, and, just as important, obscures their identification as the cultural heritage of Iraq.
Steve Green, the CEO of Hobby Lobby, admitted that among his family’s extensive collection they might have some illegally-acquired antiquities, though he denied having ever knowingly done anything wrong. “Is it possible that we have some illicit [artifacts]? That’s possible,” he told us for a story slated to appear in a forthcoming issue of The Atlantic. It seems unlikely that this case, however, is one of simply misunderstanding the relevant laws. The paperwork misidentifying the antiquities as “tile samples” certainly suggests otherwise. What’s more, however, in the summer of 2010, Patty Gerstenblith, a well-respected law professor at DePaul University working in the area of cultural heritage, met privately with the Greens in order to explain to them precisely these issues: how to do due diligence with regard to provenance and how to watch out for legal complications with regard to antiquities sales. It cannot be said that the Greens were totally ignorant of the world they were engaging with. And a year later, the Greens imported the tablets that have now become the subject of the federal investigation.
The Greens are worth $4.5 billion or so. If they are indeed prosecuted, no fine could make a significant dent in their financial well-being. But for a company and a family that have built their reputation on a particular set of Christian values, this investigation may hurt more than any financial penalty could.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Exclusive: Feds Investigate Hobby Lobby Boss for Illicit Artifacts
One of America’s most famously Christian businesses is amassing a vast collection of Biblical antiquities. The problem is some of them may have been looted from the Middle East.
By Candida Moss and Joel Baden, October 26, 2015
In 2011, a shipment of somewhere between 200 to 300 small clay tablets on their way to Oklahoma City from Israel was seized by U.S. Customs agents in Memphis. The tablets were inscribed in cuneiform—the script of ancient Assyria and Babylonia, present-day Iraq—and were thousands of years old. Their destination was the compound of the Hobby Lobby corporation, which became famous last year for winning a landmark Supreme Court case on religious freedom and government mandates. A senior law enforcement source with extensive knowledge of antiquities smuggling confirmed that these ancient artifacts had been purchased and were being imported by the deeply-religious owners of the crafting giant, the Green family of Oklahoma City. For the last four years, law enforcement sources tell The Daily Beast, the Greens have been under federal investigation for the illicit importation of cultural heritage from Iraq.
These tablets, like the other 40,000 or so ancient artifacts owned by the Green family, were destined for the Museum of the Bible, the giant new museum funded by the Greens, slated to open in Washington, D.C., in 2017. Both the seizure of the cuneiform tablets and the subsequent federal investigation were confirmed to us by Cary Summers, the president of the Museum of the Bible.
From its founding in 1970, the Greens’ Hobby Lobby chain has been more than simply a suite of craft stores. The Greens have used it as a model of a business run on Christian values. Stores are closed on Sundays in order to give employees time to attend church. The company employs four chaplains, and offered a free health clinic to staff at its headquarters long before free health care came into political vogue. The Greens have also used the Hobby Lobby platform to spread their Christian message far and wide: the company annually places full-page ads celebrating—in their words— “the real meaning of Christmas, Easter, and Independence Day” in newspapers across the country.
But the Greens went from evangelical players to bona fide Christian celebrities in June of 2014 when they won a Supreme Court case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. It granted them exemption from the Obamacare mandate to provide certain forms of contraception to their employees; forcing the company to do so, the Supreme Court ruled, would have violated the Greens’ deeply-held Christian beliefs.
If the investigation ends with a decision to prosecute, on either criminal or civil charges, the Greens may be forced to forfeit the tablets to the government. There may also be a fine involved. The Green family, who successfully forced the federal government to legally recognize their personal moral standards, now find themselves on the other side of the docket, under suspicion of having attempted to contravene U.S. laws.
***
When Summers spoke with us, he made it sound as if the ongoing federal investigation was simply the result of a logistical problem. “There was a shipment and it had improper paperwork—incomplete paperwork that was attached to it.” That innocuous phrase—“incomplete paperwork”—makes it sound as if some forms were simply missing a date or a signature. That is rarely the case with questionably-acquired ancient artifacts—and were the problem merely logistical, the chances are slim that it would take four years to resolve.
Summers suggested that the tablets were merely “held up in customs,” as if this was merely a case of bureaucratic delays. “Sometimes this stuff just sits, and nobody does anything with it.” But an individual close to the investigation told us that investigators have accumulated hundreds of hours of interviews, which doesn’t sound like bureaucratic delay—and which also suggests that there is more at stake here than merely a logistical oversight.
An attorney familiar with customs investigations explained that they often center around properly filled-out paperwork. There are two types of customs declarations: informal entry and formal entry. Informal entry is generally for shipments that have a collective monetary value of under $2,500; formal entry is for anything above that. In cases where people are trying to bring something into the country that they shouldn’t, one of the common ways to do so is to undervalue whatever the item is, often by misidentifying it, so that it goes through the expedited informal entry process rather than the more closely scrutinized formal entry.
If someone looking to bring antiquities into the U.S. knows that the artifacts should never have left their country of origin, or lack proper provenance, the only way to get them through customs is to lie: about the country of origin, about the country of export, about the value, about the identity. (This happened recently in the case of a Picasso worth $15 million, which was listed on the customs declaration as a “handicraft” worth $37.) One source familiar with the Hobby Lobby investigation told us that this is precisely what happened in this case: that the tablets were described on their FedEx shipping label as samples of “hand-crafted clay tiles.” This description may have been technically accurate, but the monetary value assigned to them—around $300, we’re told—vastly underestimates their true worth, and, just as important, obscures their identification as the cultural heritage of Iraq.
***
Steve Green, the CEO of Hobby Lobby, admitted that among his family’s extensive collection they might have some illegally-acquired antiquities, though he denied having ever knowingly done anything wrong. “Is it possible that we have some illicit [artifacts]? That’s possible,” he told us for a story slated to appear in a forthcoming issue of The Atlantic. It seems unlikely that this case, however, is one of simply misunderstanding the relevant laws. The paperwork misidentifying the antiquities as “tile samples” certainly suggests otherwise. What’s more, however, in the summer of 2010, Patty Gerstenblith, a well-respected law professor at DePaul University working in the area of cultural heritage, met privately with the Greens in order to explain to them precisely these issues: how to do due diligence with regard to provenance and how to watch out for legal complications with regard to antiquities sales. It cannot be said that the Greens were totally ignorant of the world they were engaging with. And a year later, the Greens imported the tablets that have now become the subject of the federal investigation.
The Greens are worth $4.5 billion or so. If they are indeed prosecuted, no fine could make a significant dent in their financial well-being. But for a company and a family that have built their reputation on a particular set of Christian values, this investigation may hurt more than any financial penalty could.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Carson "went on to blame the media for igniting the Nazi controversies." Hey! They wouldn't have anything to ignite if you didn't say it in the first place!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* It's the mark of a lazy, shallow thinker. That's Uncle Ben
* Carson and the Republican party has some strange obsession with #$%$ Germany.
* this idiot is a perfect example of someone who has a lot of education, but ABSOLUTELY no common sense. dumbA((S(S republicturd voters have the attention span of a 5yr old and jump at every little shimy thing they see. remember herman cain, michelle bachman and who could forget the standard bearer for the republicturds - palin
* Why does Carson evoke Nazis so often? Easy. It's a quick way to pander to dimwitted GOP voters.
* Because republicans constantly practice politics of the apocalypse. Everything is "a disaster that will destroy America" and "just like Hitler." The GOP has to play to these horrible extremes because they're catering to their extremest right. wing.
* he keeps talking about #$%$s because #$%$s have been part of the right wing teabagger narrative ever since Obama was elected president in 2008. Never mind that it makes absolutely zero sense to categorize Obama as a #$%$, but teabaggers aren't famous for making reasonable arguments that make any sense.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Chuck Todd confronts Ben Carson: Why do you keep talking about Nazis?
By Colin Campbell, October 26, 2015
NBC anchor Chuck Todd pressed Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson about his relatively frequent Nazi references during Sunday's "Meet the Press."
"Why do you so easily go to Nazi metaphors?" Todd asked. "A lot of times, the minute you talk about the Nazis, the minute you talk about the Holocaust, people stop listening."
Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and popular author, has repeatedly stirred controversy by invoking Nazi Germany and the Holocaust on the campaign trail.
He's compared forced political correctness in the US to the Nazi regime and, most recently, argued that Hitler and other dictators' gun-confiscation programs demonstrated the importance of gun rights.
Carson responded to Todd's question by defending his comments about guns and Nazi Germany.
"Although interestingly enough, in the last several weeks, I've heard from many people in the Jewish community, including rabbis, who said, 'You're spot on. You are exactly right,'" Carson told Todd.
He went on to blame the media for igniting the Nazi controversies.
"Some of the people in your business, quite frankly ... like to try to stir things up and try to make this into a big, horrible thing," he said. "If I say something about something that we don't want to become and we never even want to get close to it, then I'm comparing it and I'm saying we're there. That's what they do."
As The New York Times reported last week, Carson's campaign has apparently been buoyed by his controversial remarks, including his opposition to a potential Muslim president. He is typically in the No. 2 spot in national and state-based Republican-primary polls, even surging to first place in a pair of Iowa surveys last week.
Carson cited his poll numbers during his "Meet the Press" interview and argued that voters are seeing through the noise surrounding his Nazi remarks.
"For people who aren't really thinking deeply, that resonates," Carson said of the media coverage. "But the fortunate thing is a lot of people really do think for themselves, as you can see, from the poll numbers here."
Watch ...
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* It's the mark of a lazy, shallow thinker. That's Uncle Ben
* Carson and the Republican party has some strange obsession with #$%$ Germany.
* this idiot is a perfect example of someone who has a lot of education, but ABSOLUTELY no common sense. dumbA((S(S republicturd voters have the attention span of a 5yr old and jump at every little shimy thing they see. remember herman cain, michelle bachman and who could forget the standard bearer for the republicturds - palin
* Why does Carson evoke Nazis so often? Easy. It's a quick way to pander to dimwitted GOP voters.
* Because republicans constantly practice politics of the apocalypse. Everything is "a disaster that will destroy America" and "just like Hitler." The GOP has to play to these horrible extremes because they're catering to their extremest right. wing.
* he keeps talking about #$%$s because #$%$s have been part of the right wing teabagger narrative ever since Obama was elected president in 2008. Never mind that it makes absolutely zero sense to categorize Obama as a #$%$, but teabaggers aren't famous for making reasonable arguments that make any sense.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Chuck Todd confronts Ben Carson: Why do you keep talking about Nazis?
By Colin Campbell, October 26, 2015
NBC anchor Chuck Todd pressed Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson about his relatively frequent Nazi references during Sunday's "Meet the Press."
"Why do you so easily go to Nazi metaphors?" Todd asked. "A lot of times, the minute you talk about the Nazis, the minute you talk about the Holocaust, people stop listening."
Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and popular author, has repeatedly stirred controversy by invoking Nazi Germany and the Holocaust on the campaign trail.
He's compared forced political correctness in the US to the Nazi regime and, most recently, argued that Hitler and other dictators' gun-confiscation programs demonstrated the importance of gun rights.
Carson responded to Todd's question by defending his comments about guns and Nazi Germany.
"Although interestingly enough, in the last several weeks, I've heard from many people in the Jewish community, including rabbis, who said, 'You're spot on. You are exactly right,'" Carson told Todd.
He went on to blame the media for igniting the Nazi controversies.
"Some of the people in your business, quite frankly ... like to try to stir things up and try to make this into a big, horrible thing," he said. "If I say something about something that we don't want to become and we never even want to get close to it, then I'm comparing it and I'm saying we're there. That's what they do."
As The New York Times reported last week, Carson's campaign has apparently been buoyed by his controversial remarks, including his opposition to a potential Muslim president. He is typically in the No. 2 spot in national and state-based Republican-primary polls, even surging to first place in a pair of Iowa surveys last week.
Carson cited his poll numbers during his "Meet the Press" interview and argued that voters are seeing through the noise surrounding his Nazi remarks.
"For people who aren't really thinking deeply, that resonates," Carson said of the media coverage. "But the fortunate thing is a lot of people really do think for themselves, as you can see, from the poll numbers here."
Watch ...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)