...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Cruz has a personality disorder - this is not rocket science.
* Ted Cruz does not represent my values of the values of 75% of the population. The best service he can do for the nation this election is to win the nomination and then go down in flames in the general election, thus disproving the notion that the Tea Party represents America.
* Doesn't have ties to the Washington establishment? He's a freaking senator! He worked in the Bush administration and for a law firm that represented huge corporations. He is the Washington establishment!
* The modern GOP is built on one thing; Endless hatred of President Obama, no matter what. Cruz and Trump represent the party's best expediters of that hatred. That's why they have risen to the top of the party. Unfortunately, guys who can muster that much hate also have baggage that goes with it...i.e. possessing rotten, corrupt souls. But, that's what the GOP and Rubin have wanted during the past 8 years. And that's what they got...good and hard.
* "The modern GOP is built on one thing; Endless hatred of President Obama, no matter what." And they're gearing up to do the same thing with Madame President Clinton.
* Cruz needs more than an intervention, he needs an exorcism. Trump and Rubio could also use one.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz needs an intervention
By Jennifer Rubin, February 8, 2016
It is no disgrace to lose a presidential primary. Many distinguished people have run for president, and the vast majority of them have lost, many of them badly. Howard Baker, Jack Kemp, George H.W. Bush (1980) and Ronald Reagan (1976) all lost a run for the presidency; some never made it. Sometimes a candidate is not ready, and sometimes the electorate is not ready to hear the message (e.g., Reagan in ’76). But it is quite another thing to lose because you, throughout your life, have been hated if not uniformly, then widely and passionately.
Other than Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), we are hard-pressed to recall a presidential candidate who so utterly failed to develop trust, respect and friendships in his adult life. Richard Nixon was hated by Democrats but had developed ties and certainly gained the respect of Republicans from his time in the House, the Senate and the vice presidency. Certainly no presidential candidate before Cruz reveled in the message “Everyone hates me!”
If Cruz does not make it to the presidency, he will no doubt blame the “establishment.” But whether he recognizes it or not, his wife and political advisers surely understand that alumni, roommates, law clerks, former staffers in the George W. Bush campaign and White House (and the president himself), members of Congress and others who have known Cruz — lots and lots of people — consider him socially awkward, nasty, dishonest, a blatant apple-polisher and all-around creepy guy. You can write off a few of these critics as jealous of his success, or liberal antagonists, but all of them? There is something badly amiss here. Cruz, who so obviously lacks emotional intelligence, cannot recognize it, but those closest to him surely must see that something is awry.
The shame of all this is that Cruz is smart and articulate, albeit not persuasive outside his core base. From all accounts, he was an effective lawyer. But “smart” does not amount to “successful.” It’s a waste of a sharp mind when someone becomes their own worst enemy, an impediment to their own success. Perhaps Cruz’s family and closest advisers should consider an intervention of sorts to remind him that politics is a team sport.
Politics is about building alliances and trust, having your team’s back and refusing to grandstand to your side’s detriment. It’s also an additive exercise. Drawing bold lines is fine, but you lose unless you can bring people over to your side. Simply inveighing against others will not do it, nor will playing the persecuted victim.
And finally, a few words about ambition are in order. All politicians are ambitious, or they would not go into a highly competitive endeavor that brings with it power, popularity and sometimes (after one decamps to K Street) wealth. That said, if all you have is ambition, the burning desire to climb over others, it becomes evident to voters and colleagues alike. You know the type — the guy always looking over your shoulder to scan for a more important person in the room to engage; the fellow convinced whatever job he has is not big enough for him; and the person so intellectually dishonest, he is willing to rewrite history, deny his own statements and look you in the eye to say “Black is white” and “Up is down.” (Even when apologizing to Dr. Ben Carson for his team spreading a rumor on caucus night that Carson was dropping out, Cruz felt compelled to lie, claiming CNN initially reported Carson was dropping out. CNN blasted back: “What Senator Cruz said tonight in the debate is categorically false. CNN never corrected its reporting because CNN never had anything to correct. The Cruz campaign’s actions the night of the Iowa caucuses had nothing to do with CNN’s reporting. The fact that Senator Cruz continues to knowingly mislead the voters about this is astonishing.”) These behaviors do not sit well with people, who soon catch on that you are using them for selfish ends. Superiors see you are an annoying kiss-up, and other see you as desperate or phony.
Cruz’s shortcomings make it hard to build a winning coalition — or to function in the Senate. The great irony is his ambition may be the biggest barrier to obtain what he thirsts for and has schemed so long to obtain.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, February 8, 2016
"Republicans often complain that they can’t get administration witnesses they want to testify. They might hear about the budget snub the next time they are pressing for an administration official to turn up." That's for sure.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Congress Declines to Hear Obama’s Budget Proposal in Person
By Carl Hulse, February 8, 2016
The president’s budget is traditionally declared dead on arrival on Capitol Hill. This year, President Obama’s final budget proposal is just dead.
In a harsh partisan snub, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House budget committees — Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming and Representative Tom Price of Georgia — have chosen not to invite Shaun Donovan, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, to testify about the administration’s plan, set to be released on Tuesday as part of the traditional budget week festivities.
“Rather than spend time on a proposal that, if anything like this administration’s previous budgets, will double down on the same failed policies that have led to the worst economic recovery in modern times, Congress should continue our work on building a budget that balances and that will foster a healthy economy,” Mr. Price said in a statement.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, called the decision an insult and said it was representative of the “corrosive radicalism that has gripped congressional Republicans.” White House officials said it raised doubts about the frequent Republican leadership claims to restore “regular order” in Congress.
Mr. Obama’s budget proposal is of course not likely to please congressional Republicans, and it was never going to be adopted by the Republicans in the House and Senate. They have already expressed outrage at its proposed $10 a barrel tax on oil. But to refuse to hear from Mr. Donovan seems an extreme break with the usual conventions of Capitol Hill and it denies the Republicans a chance to try to pummel him and the budget at a televised hearing. They typically enjoy that.
Republicans often complain that they can’t get administration witnesses they want to testify. They might hear about the budget snub the next time they are pressing for an administration official to turn up.
Aides to Speaker Paul D. Ryan, a former Budget Committee chairman, said the decision had been made at the discretion of the budget chairman.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Congress Declines to Hear Obama’s Budget Proposal in Person
By Carl Hulse, February 8, 2016
The president’s budget is traditionally declared dead on arrival on Capitol Hill. This year, President Obama’s final budget proposal is just dead.
In a harsh partisan snub, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House budget committees — Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming and Representative Tom Price of Georgia — have chosen not to invite Shaun Donovan, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, to testify about the administration’s plan, set to be released on Tuesday as part of the traditional budget week festivities.
“Rather than spend time on a proposal that, if anything like this administration’s previous budgets, will double down on the same failed policies that have led to the worst economic recovery in modern times, Congress should continue our work on building a budget that balances and that will foster a healthy economy,” Mr. Price said in a statement.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, called the decision an insult and said it was representative of the “corrosive radicalism that has gripped congressional Republicans.” White House officials said it raised doubts about the frequent Republican leadership claims to restore “regular order” in Congress.
Mr. Obama’s budget proposal is of course not likely to please congressional Republicans, and it was never going to be adopted by the Republicans in the House and Senate. They have already expressed outrage at its proposed $10 a barrel tax on oil. But to refuse to hear from Mr. Donovan seems an extreme break with the usual conventions of Capitol Hill and it denies the Republicans a chance to try to pummel him and the budget at a televised hearing. They typically enjoy that.
Republicans often complain that they can’t get administration witnesses they want to testify. They might hear about the budget snub the next time they are pressing for an administration official to turn up.
Aides to Speaker Paul D. Ryan, a former Budget Committee chairman, said the decision had been made at the discretion of the budget chairman.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... If you want more bombing, more killing, more war, more torture, more police, more walls and lower taxes on corporations ..., vote Republican in November."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Don't confuse a Republican with facts. They are bad enough as it is and I am convinced they are unteachable. I think there is something in the water and not just in Flint.
* My fervent hope is that the intense hatred of Obama and tthe incredible crap espoused about what he has actually done will not blind people to what these guys are actually saying. They are all a hell of a lot more dangerous than Obama ever thought about being.
* Obama's Term (not reign) as president could have been much more productive if the GOP had not decided to obstruct anything he wanted to do - even if they had previously shared his position because he is a black man... Shame on you. Old gray haired WHITE men are findig it hard to accept that they are now in the minority.
* What do you mean the GOP has not been in office for the last 8 years? What do you call the GOP controlled Congress?
* Remember when it was in vogue for them to be a 'compassionate conservative"? I sure don't hear anything like that now.
* I found the "debate" terrifying. None of them sound like true Americans. None of them sounded intelligent and there was no debate. The lies they spread about Democrats and each other were like manure in a cattle field full to capacity with livestock. Not one of them showed they had any real knowledge or experience to actually accomplish much more than murder, torture and increasing the deficit.
* Fear mongering doesn't work on me anymore, thank God. No republican is getting my vote ever again.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Republicans Are Scaring Me Again
By William Astore, February 7, 2016
I watched last night's Republican Presidential Debate from New Hampshire. And then I slept poorly. John Kasich and a subdued Ben Carson excepted, all of the candidates were determined to frighten me and mine. As they shouted and gesticulated, I wrote down some of their words and some of the thoughts and feelings they generated. It went something like this:
My wife's impression? She said the candidates reminded her of low-blow fighters, or teenage boys in high school.
It's simple, really: If you want more bombing, more killing, more war, more torture, more police, more walls and lower taxes on corporations (yes -- that came up too), vote Republican in November.
My nightmare scenario: this is exactly the vision Marco Rubio had in mind when he repeatedly called America "the single greatest nation in the history of the world."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Don't confuse a Republican with facts. They are bad enough as it is and I am convinced they are unteachable. I think there is something in the water and not just in Flint.
* My fervent hope is that the intense hatred of Obama and tthe incredible crap espoused about what he has actually done will not blind people to what these guys are actually saying. They are all a hell of a lot more dangerous than Obama ever thought about being.
* Obama's Term (not reign) as president could have been much more productive if the GOP had not decided to obstruct anything he wanted to do - even if they had previously shared his position because he is a black man... Shame on you. Old gray haired WHITE men are findig it hard to accept that they are now in the minority.
* What do you mean the GOP has not been in office for the last 8 years? What do you call the GOP controlled Congress?
* Remember when it was in vogue for them to be a 'compassionate conservative"? I sure don't hear anything like that now.
* I found the "debate" terrifying. None of them sound like true Americans. None of them sounded intelligent and there was no debate. The lies they spread about Democrats and each other were like manure in a cattle field full to capacity with livestock. Not one of them showed they had any real knowledge or experience to actually accomplish much more than murder, torture and increasing the deficit.
* Fear mongering doesn't work on me anymore, thank God. No republican is getting my vote ever again.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Republicans Are Scaring Me Again
By William Astore, February 7, 2016
I watched last night's Republican Presidential Debate from New Hampshire. And then I slept poorly. John Kasich and a subdued Ben Carson excepted, all of the candidates were determined to frighten me and mine. As they shouted and gesticulated, I wrote down some of their words and some of the thoughts and feelings they generated. It went something like this:
We're in danger! Obama's gutting our military! Muslims are shouting "death to America"! China! America is weak! We must build a HUGE WALL to keep out illegals! Abortion is murder! Take their oil! Chopping heads! Dying in the street! Waterboarding isn't torture, which doesn't matter, because we need more torture! Respect the police! People need to fear us again! We don't win -- we need to win again! Iranian and North Korean nukes! America must get back in the game and be strong! Tough! Win!Well, you get the picture. The prize for most obscene statement of the night (among a wealth of obscene statements) was Ted Cruz's claim that America's possession of overwhelming airpower -- its ability to carpet bomb enemies into oblivion -- is a blessing. A blessing -- I'm assuming he meant from God, not the Dark One, but who knows?
My wife's impression? She said the candidates reminded her of low-blow fighters, or teenage boys in high school.
It's simple, really: If you want more bombing, more killing, more war, more torture, more police, more walls and lower taxes on corporations (yes -- that came up too), vote Republican in November.
My nightmare scenario: this is exactly the vision Marco Rubio had in mind when he repeatedly called America "the single greatest nation in the history of the world."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, February 7, 2016
"... 35 years of tax cuts and the Republicans at every level [are] making it impossible to raise taxes to pay for things that save lives."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Many people attempt to focus on vaccines and try to create connections with autism or seizures... Why don't more focus on where our most important and valuable commodity comes from, water? I'm in no way, shape, or form a conspiracy theorist, but we're doing shit to much of our water and food that is unthinkable...
* It's f**ked up the christian right still supports them, you know, using that bible of theirs and whatnot. They have this divine authority to real-estate, it's a recipe for disaster, that's what it is...
* She's right, politics and fucking greed account for the majority of the nations problems.
* It is sad people like Erin have to go to comedy shows to get an important message out. A message that should be on every news channel. But we know better than that.
* hell why worry about climate change when the water will kill ya a lot sooner...oh and as far as those so called pro life Christians out there..don't ya know the lead and other heavy metals and chemicals will hurt really bad those non-babies ya wanna save so bad..but it may cost ya a few bucks so maybe they will over look the damage it will do to those same non-babies....
* Its also happening because of 35 years of tax cuts and the Republicans at every level making it impossible to raise taxes to pay for things that save lives.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Erin Brockovich and Bill Maher unleash a righteous attack on ‘corrupt politics and f*cking greed’
By Tom Boggioni, February 5, 206
Appearing on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, environmental activist Erin Brockovich launched into a scathing attack on “corrupt politics” and the “fucking greed” that is leading to the poisoning U.S. citizens like the residents of Flint, Michigan.
Asked about the water crisis in Flint, Brockovich said it’s not the only one and that there are so many cities facing the same issues that, “I can’t keep up.”
Explaining how municipal water systems draw water for the public, Brockovich noted that chlorine must be added to deal with organic matter in the case of surface water. This can lead the to the creation of total trihalomethanes — which are carcinogenic.
“You have today one thousand cities today in violation of total trihalomethanes in their water,” she explained. “They are not following regulations and they found a way to cheat the system. And here is where we are having a national crisis. They’ve decided when they exceeded total trihalomethanes, not to do what’s regulated. And that’s to put on a carbon-regulated filtration system.”
“It’s expensive!” she exclaimed. “They don’t want to pay for it! So they’ve gone the cheap route and now they throw ammonia in the water system, and the ammonia has a chemical reaction and it eliminates the chlorine!”
Brockovich then noted that this is leading to outbreaks of Legionnaires disease across the country — including Flint — as well as brain-eating amoebas.
She then listed multiple states where “Flints are happening” before arriving at her point.
“But you know what pisses me off?” she asked Maher. “All of this is happening because of corrupt politics and f*cking greed, and it has to stop!”
Watch the video uploaded to YouTube:
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Many people attempt to focus on vaccines and try to create connections with autism or seizures... Why don't more focus on where our most important and valuable commodity comes from, water? I'm in no way, shape, or form a conspiracy theorist, but we're doing shit to much of our water and food that is unthinkable...
* It's f**ked up the christian right still supports them, you know, using that bible of theirs and whatnot. They have this divine authority to real-estate, it's a recipe for disaster, that's what it is...
* She's right, politics and fucking greed account for the majority of the nations problems.
* It is sad people like Erin have to go to comedy shows to get an important message out. A message that should be on every news channel. But we know better than that.
* hell why worry about climate change when the water will kill ya a lot sooner...oh and as far as those so called pro life Christians out there..don't ya know the lead and other heavy metals and chemicals will hurt really bad those non-babies ya wanna save so bad..but it may cost ya a few bucks so maybe they will over look the damage it will do to those same non-babies....
* Its also happening because of 35 years of tax cuts and the Republicans at every level making it impossible to raise taxes to pay for things that save lives.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Erin Brockovich and Bill Maher unleash a righteous attack on ‘corrupt politics and f*cking greed’
By Tom Boggioni, February 5, 206
Appearing on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, environmental activist Erin Brockovich launched into a scathing attack on “corrupt politics” and the “fucking greed” that is leading to the poisoning U.S. citizens like the residents of Flint, Michigan.
Asked about the water crisis in Flint, Brockovich said it’s not the only one and that there are so many cities facing the same issues that, “I can’t keep up.”
Explaining how municipal water systems draw water for the public, Brockovich noted that chlorine must be added to deal with organic matter in the case of surface water. This can lead the to the creation of total trihalomethanes — which are carcinogenic.
“You have today one thousand cities today in violation of total trihalomethanes in their water,” she explained. “They are not following regulations and they found a way to cheat the system. And here is where we are having a national crisis. They’ve decided when they exceeded total trihalomethanes, not to do what’s regulated. And that’s to put on a carbon-regulated filtration system.”
“It’s expensive!” she exclaimed. “They don’t want to pay for it! So they’ve gone the cheap route and now they throw ammonia in the water system, and the ammonia has a chemical reaction and it eliminates the chlorine!”
Brockovich then noted that this is leading to outbreaks of Legionnaires disease across the country — including Flint — as well as brain-eating amoebas.
She then listed multiple states where “Flints are happening” before arriving at her point.
“But you know what pisses me off?” she asked Maher. “All of this is happening because of corrupt politics and f*cking greed, and it has to stop!”
Watch the video uploaded to YouTube:
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... by beating the drum that the political system is corrupt and rigged, Sanders is unwittingly reinforcing the beliefs of Trump’s core supporters."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Pulling Back the Curtain on New Hampshire Politics
Bernie Sanders’ Anger Is Smart Politics, Dangerous for the Country
By Judy Readon, January 18, 2016
The angry, leftwing populism of Bernie Sanders is smart politics in a contest for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, but is it good for the country’s future?
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are benefitting politically from the frustration and fear millions of Americans have about growing income inequality and persistent wage stagnation.
Seeking the Republican nomination, Trump’s basic message is Mexican immigrants and Muslims and weak and corrupt office holders are at fault for the country’s problems. His message is perfectly encapsulated in his first campaign TV ad, in which a male narrator tells us: “The politicians can pretend it’s something else, but Donald Trump calls it radical Islamic terrorism. That’s why he’s calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we can figure out what’s going on….And he’ll stop illegal immigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for.”
Seeking the Democratic nomination, Sanders’ basic message is Wall Street and billionaires and weak and corrupt office holders are at fault for the country’s problems. His message is perfectly encapsulated in a campaign ad that aired recently, in which Sanders himself tells us: “It’s called a rigged economy, and this is how it works. Most new wealth flows to the top 1 percent. It’s a system held in place by corrupt politics where Wall Street banks and billionaires buy elections.”
Both are practicing a politics of anger with an us-versus-them theme.
Of course few tears need be shed for the billionaires and Wall Streeters who are Sanders’ targets. They can take care of themselves.
It is, however, worth looking at who the 536 American billionaires are (note: Communist China actually has 60 more billionaires than the United States). In a list compiled by Forbes of Americans worth at least $1.7 billion in 2015, there is a sprinkling of hedge funders and other Wall Street types, but the vast majority of billionaires derived their fortunes from manufacturing, including chewing gum and beer, and other industries, such as software, the internet, media, retailing and real estate. Interestingly, no one from New Hampshire made the list, and only one person from Iowa.
The top 10 billionaires are Bill Gates (Microsoft), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Charles and David Koch (oil, coal), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Michael Bloomberg (financial data and media); Jim Walton (Wal-Mart), and Larry Page (Google). None of these men are Wall Streeters and only two – the Koch brothers – invest heavily in elections. Most appear to have earned their wealth fair and square, but, again, all of these folks can take care of themselves.
Where Sanders and Trump do overlap is in their targeting of what they describe as a corrupt political system, and this is where the danger of Sanders’ campaign lies.
As he does in his TV ad, on the campaign trail Sanders constantly refers to a rigged economy and corrupt political system. Sometimes he calls the political system both rigged and corrupt. Rigged. Corrupt. Rigged. Corrupt. Rigged. Corrupt.
While there is little worry that Sanders’ supporters will transfer their allegiance to Trump, by beating the drum that the political system is corrupt and rigged, Sanders is unwittingly reinforcing the beliefs of Trump’s core supporters. Sanders rhetoric assures them their anger is not only justified, but righteous.
If Trump fails to win the Republican nomination, won’t Trump supporters simply consider it further evidence that Trump and Sanders are correct that the political system is corrupt and rigged? If the political system is corrupt and rigged, why participate in it? And if in the future a charismatic rightwing populist calls for arms not votes, will they heed that call? At a time when some people take up guns to turn away federal agents seeking to collect grazing fees, is that out of the question?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Pulling Back the Curtain on New Hampshire Politics
Bernie Sanders’ Anger Is Smart Politics, Dangerous for the Country
By Judy Readon, January 18, 2016
The angry, leftwing populism of Bernie Sanders is smart politics in a contest for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, but is it good for the country’s future?
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are benefitting politically from the frustration and fear millions of Americans have about growing income inequality and persistent wage stagnation.
Seeking the Republican nomination, Trump’s basic message is Mexican immigrants and Muslims and weak and corrupt office holders are at fault for the country’s problems. His message is perfectly encapsulated in his first campaign TV ad, in which a male narrator tells us: “The politicians can pretend it’s something else, but Donald Trump calls it radical Islamic terrorism. That’s why he’s calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we can figure out what’s going on….And he’ll stop illegal immigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for.”
Seeking the Democratic nomination, Sanders’ basic message is Wall Street and billionaires and weak and corrupt office holders are at fault for the country’s problems. His message is perfectly encapsulated in a campaign ad that aired recently, in which Sanders himself tells us: “It’s called a rigged economy, and this is how it works. Most new wealth flows to the top 1 percent. It’s a system held in place by corrupt politics where Wall Street banks and billionaires buy elections.”
Both are practicing a politics of anger with an us-versus-them theme.
Of course few tears need be shed for the billionaires and Wall Streeters who are Sanders’ targets. They can take care of themselves.
It is, however, worth looking at who the 536 American billionaires are (note: Communist China actually has 60 more billionaires than the United States). In a list compiled by Forbes of Americans worth at least $1.7 billion in 2015, there is a sprinkling of hedge funders and other Wall Street types, but the vast majority of billionaires derived their fortunes from manufacturing, including chewing gum and beer, and other industries, such as software, the internet, media, retailing and real estate. Interestingly, no one from New Hampshire made the list, and only one person from Iowa.
The top 10 billionaires are Bill Gates (Microsoft), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Charles and David Koch (oil, coal), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Michael Bloomberg (financial data and media); Jim Walton (Wal-Mart), and Larry Page (Google). None of these men are Wall Streeters and only two – the Koch brothers – invest heavily in elections. Most appear to have earned their wealth fair and square, but, again, all of these folks can take care of themselves.
Where Sanders and Trump do overlap is in their targeting of what they describe as a corrupt political system, and this is where the danger of Sanders’ campaign lies.
As he does in his TV ad, on the campaign trail Sanders constantly refers to a rigged economy and corrupt political system. Sometimes he calls the political system both rigged and corrupt. Rigged. Corrupt. Rigged. Corrupt. Rigged. Corrupt.
While there is little worry that Sanders’ supporters will transfer their allegiance to Trump, by beating the drum that the political system is corrupt and rigged, Sanders is unwittingly reinforcing the beliefs of Trump’s core supporters. Sanders rhetoric assures them their anger is not only justified, but righteous.
If Trump fails to win the Republican nomination, won’t Trump supporters simply consider it further evidence that Trump and Sanders are correct that the political system is corrupt and rigged? If the political system is corrupt and rigged, why participate in it? And if in the future a charismatic rightwing populist calls for arms not votes, will they heed that call? At a time when some people take up guns to turn away federal agents seeking to collect grazing fees, is that out of the question?
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'People are talking about revolution. What kind of a revolution would it be to have the first woman president of the United States?'"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Albright: 'special place in hell' for women who don't support Clinton
Former secretary of state says women must help each other, while people are talking about a ‘revolution’ led by the first female US president
By Tom McCarthy, February 6, 2016
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at an event in New Hampshire on Saturday, telling the crowd and voters in general: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”
In polling, Clinton trails the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by an average of around 17 points. She leads him nationally by 15 to 20 points. In this week’s Iowa caucus, which Clinton won narrowly, the former secretary of state led Sanders among women by 53% to 42% but lost out among younger voters.
Both campaigns were in New Hampshire on Saturday, ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Introducing Clinton in Concord, Albright said: “When she was secretary of state, she restored America’s reputation.
“Those other people before made huge mistakes. They really undermined our reputation and our position in the world, and Hillary Clinton brought us back, she restored our position in the world.
“People are talking about revolution. What kind of a revolution would it be to have the first woman president of the United States?”
That was met with a chant of “Madam President! Madam President!”
“Not only that,” said Albright. “But she’s just the best!”
Albright was the first woman to be secretary of state and served during the presidency of Clinton’s husband, Bill. She closed her New Hampshire speech with an allusion to the ongoing struggle with Republicans over abortion rights.
“Young women have to support Hillary Clinton. The story is not over!” she said. “They’re going to want to push us back. Appointments to the supreme court make all the difference.
“It’s not done and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”
Albright has recited the line for years, and the line drew a great cheer from the Concord crowd. but it may not play as well retrospectively, with a glance back of just six days, when Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won young voters in Iowa – by a margin of six-to-one, including young women.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Albright: 'special place in hell' for women who don't support Clinton
Former secretary of state says women must help each other, while people are talking about a ‘revolution’ led by the first female US president
By Tom McCarthy, February 6, 2016
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at an event in New Hampshire on Saturday, telling the crowd and voters in general: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”
In polling, Clinton trails the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by an average of around 17 points. She leads him nationally by 15 to 20 points. In this week’s Iowa caucus, which Clinton won narrowly, the former secretary of state led Sanders among women by 53% to 42% but lost out among younger voters.
Both campaigns were in New Hampshire on Saturday, ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Introducing Clinton in Concord, Albright said: “When she was secretary of state, she restored America’s reputation.
“Those other people before made huge mistakes. They really undermined our reputation and our position in the world, and Hillary Clinton brought us back, she restored our position in the world.
“People are talking about revolution. What kind of a revolution would it be to have the first woman president of the United States?”
That was met with a chant of “Madam President! Madam President!”
“Not only that,” said Albright. “But she’s just the best!”
Albright was the first woman to be secretary of state and served during the presidency of Clinton’s husband, Bill. She closed her New Hampshire speech with an allusion to the ongoing struggle with Republicans over abortion rights.
“Young women have to support Hillary Clinton. The story is not over!” she said. “They’re going to want to push us back. Appointments to the supreme court make all the difference.
“It’s not done and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”
Albright has recited the line for years, and the line drew a great cheer from the Concord crowd. but it may not play as well retrospectively, with a glance back of just six days, when Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won young voters in Iowa – by a margin of six-to-one, including young women.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, February 6, 2016
"... you've been an awfully dull candidate." Very good assessment of JEB!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Republican politics has devolved into a pathetic "reality show," on the verge of cancellation. Don't think the GOP will be renewed for too many more episodes. They have definitely jumped the shark. And that's a very good thing.
* I for one am happy to see Jeb go down and get thrown into the dust bin of history. I think he is just like his neoconservative brother George W.
...................................................................................................................................................................
An Open Letter to Jeb Bush
By Mona Charen, February 5, 2016
Dear Gov. Bush: There are many ways to express your love of country. One is to serve as president. In your case, that path seems closed. Since April, you spent the better part of $15 million in Iowa, yet you came sixth, winning just 2.8 percent of the vote and one delegate. At this rate, you'd need to spend $18,540,000,000 to win the nomination — which is more than even Right to Rise can manage.
There is no shame in losing, of course, and it's always possible that New Hampshire will shock the world by giving you a victory, but let's face it, the RealClearPolitics average of New Hampshire polls has you at under 10 percent (under 5 percent nationally), and your donors are panicking. After what was supposed to be a reassuring post-Iowa conference call with your campaign, one donor told Politico, "Have you ever heard the phrase 'rattle of death?'"
Even stipulating that primary polls are notoriously poor, there are other reasons to conclude that this is not your year. It may not have much to do with you personally. There has never been a third president from the same family. Most Americans were fine with two Adamses, Harrisons, Roosevelts and Bushes. Three is pushing it. I know; I know. You're your own man. Of course that's true. Life isn't fair. But it goes both ways. You would almost certainly never have been governor if your name had been James Ellis instead of James Ellis Bush.
You seem to be a fine person and were certainly a superior and very conservative governor of Florida. For good or ill, gratitude for past service is not the mood this year, and, with all due respect, except at the last debate, when, freed from Donald Trump's bullying, you finally stood up straight, you've been an awfully dull candidate.
We cannot chalk it up to voter ignorance. Between your campaign and your super PAC, you've already spent $89.1 million on positive ads about yourself and negative ads about others.
One of the great traits about the Bush family, as about other great New England Protestant old-money families, is that you value good manners, courtesy and integrity. Those virtues are disparaged in our increasingly vituperative, bombastic and swaggering era. One senses that you find Donald Trump's conduct disgusting and even a little bewildering. Good for you. It is.
And yet, you've directed the overwhelming majority of your negative advertising (and you've led the pack on negative ad spending) not against Trump, who seems to represent everything you find destructive and dangerous in modern politics, but against your old friend and ally Marco Rubio.
Your ads have been embarrassing. You and Rubio agree on nearly everything, so you're dredging up long since debunked stories about credit cards and ridiculous accusations of missed votes in the Senate chamber. Really? Is that all you've got? No, you've also run ads attacking Rubio for taking the same position you took on illegal immigration.
You seem to believe, as many of us do, that in order to prosper, in fact, in order to survive, the Republican Party must look beyond its aging, white, rural and evangelical Christian core to welcome African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, urbanites and the young. Yet by attacking Rubio, you are attempting to sabotage the very best messenger the Republican Party has found in decades. As you yourself put it: "What Marco has, I think, is something that the Republican Party needs to have: a hopeful, optimistic message based on our principles. He's probably the most articulate conservative on the scene today."
After Iowa, Marco Rubio has an excellent chance of winning the Republican nomination. If he prevailed, he would be the most conservative nominee in decades and well-situated to win the general election. This is not to hurt your feelings, but your general election favorability ratings are the worst in the Republican field with the exception of Trump. Despite the avalanche of negative ads, Rubio's net favorable ratings are the best (with the exception of Ben Carson, and we know where that's going).
If you were to drop out of the race now and endorse Marco Rubio, or, at the very least, call off the attack dogs, you would be advancing everything you say you believe in except yourself. It would be a gracious and inspiring gesture. It would be a different way to serve your country — and might even revive our faith in Yankee integrity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Republican politics has devolved into a pathetic "reality show," on the verge of cancellation. Don't think the GOP will be renewed for too many more episodes. They have definitely jumped the shark. And that's a very good thing.
* I for one am happy to see Jeb go down and get thrown into the dust bin of history. I think he is just like his neoconservative brother George W.
...................................................................................................................................................................
An Open Letter to Jeb Bush
By Mona Charen, February 5, 2016
Dear Gov. Bush: There are many ways to express your love of country. One is to serve as president. In your case, that path seems closed. Since April, you spent the better part of $15 million in Iowa, yet you came sixth, winning just 2.8 percent of the vote and one delegate. At this rate, you'd need to spend $18,540,000,000 to win the nomination — which is more than even Right to Rise can manage.
There is no shame in losing, of course, and it's always possible that New Hampshire will shock the world by giving you a victory, but let's face it, the RealClearPolitics average of New Hampshire polls has you at under 10 percent (under 5 percent nationally), and your donors are panicking. After what was supposed to be a reassuring post-Iowa conference call with your campaign, one donor told Politico, "Have you ever heard the phrase 'rattle of death?'"
Even stipulating that primary polls are notoriously poor, there are other reasons to conclude that this is not your year. It may not have much to do with you personally. There has never been a third president from the same family. Most Americans were fine with two Adamses, Harrisons, Roosevelts and Bushes. Three is pushing it. I know; I know. You're your own man. Of course that's true. Life isn't fair. But it goes both ways. You would almost certainly never have been governor if your name had been James Ellis instead of James Ellis Bush.
You seem to be a fine person and were certainly a superior and very conservative governor of Florida. For good or ill, gratitude for past service is not the mood this year, and, with all due respect, except at the last debate, when, freed from Donald Trump's bullying, you finally stood up straight, you've been an awfully dull candidate.
We cannot chalk it up to voter ignorance. Between your campaign and your super PAC, you've already spent $89.1 million on positive ads about yourself and negative ads about others.
One of the great traits about the Bush family, as about other great New England Protestant old-money families, is that you value good manners, courtesy and integrity. Those virtues are disparaged in our increasingly vituperative, bombastic and swaggering era. One senses that you find Donald Trump's conduct disgusting and even a little bewildering. Good for you. It is.
And yet, you've directed the overwhelming majority of your negative advertising (and you've led the pack on negative ad spending) not against Trump, who seems to represent everything you find destructive and dangerous in modern politics, but against your old friend and ally Marco Rubio.
Your ads have been embarrassing. You and Rubio agree on nearly everything, so you're dredging up long since debunked stories about credit cards and ridiculous accusations of missed votes in the Senate chamber. Really? Is that all you've got? No, you've also run ads attacking Rubio for taking the same position you took on illegal immigration.
You seem to believe, as many of us do, that in order to prosper, in fact, in order to survive, the Republican Party must look beyond its aging, white, rural and evangelical Christian core to welcome African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, urbanites and the young. Yet by attacking Rubio, you are attempting to sabotage the very best messenger the Republican Party has found in decades. As you yourself put it: "What Marco has, I think, is something that the Republican Party needs to have: a hopeful, optimistic message based on our principles. He's probably the most articulate conservative on the scene today."
After Iowa, Marco Rubio has an excellent chance of winning the Republican nomination. If he prevailed, he would be the most conservative nominee in decades and well-situated to win the general election. This is not to hurt your feelings, but your general election favorability ratings are the worst in the Republican field with the exception of Trump. Despite the avalanche of negative ads, Rubio's net favorable ratings are the best (with the exception of Ben Carson, and we know where that's going).
If you were to drop out of the race now and endorse Marco Rubio, or, at the very least, call off the attack dogs, you would be advancing everything you say you believe in except yourself. It would be a gracious and inspiring gesture. It would be a different way to serve your country — and might even revive our faith in Yankee integrity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Maher attempted to get conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to admit that Democrats have more respectable debates than Republicans."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bill Maher slams the “feces throwers in the Republican debate”: Democrats are “on a different level of the evolutionary scale” than them
There was a fascinating discussion in Bill Maher’s “Overtime” segment of Friday night’s “Real Time” this week when Maher attempted to get conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to admit that Democrats have more respectable debates than Republicans.
When asked whether the DNC’s decision to add more debates (after hiding them for so long) would have a positive impact, MSNBC’s Alex Wagner gave a resounding “yes.” She said that Thursday night’s debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was a perfect example. “I just think you have two substantive people talking about substantive issues, that’s good for the country, that’s good for the party, that’s good for the people being turned on to the democratic process.”
Maher agreed, apologizing to his Republican panelists, he said, “it does look like just a whole different species. I mean they had this substantive discussion among two adults who never went out of the bounds of decorum, talking about what progressivism is. They’re just on a different level of the evolutionary scale than the feces throwers in the Republican debate.”
There was also a remarkable conversation where feminist icon Gloria Steinem schooled Williams that voting for Hillary Clinton wasn’t about being a woman because “we’re not voting for Sarah Palin… excuse me, we’re voting for a woman who represents the majority of women and men.”
Maher remarked that President Obama got over 90 percent of black voters and that Clinton will likely not get over 90 percent of women voters. Steinem said that there is a deep reason for this in that women are primarily responsible for the child rearing “we associate female authority with childhood emotionality, irrationality…” Williams tried to claim that it was that way 50 years ago but Steinem smacked him down for being so obviously naive. “We will only be able to recognize human talent in all of its forms when men are raising children as much as women are and women are in the public world as much as men are.”
Check out the full discussion below:
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bill Maher slams the “feces throwers in the Republican debate”: Democrats are “on a different level of the evolutionary scale” than them
"It does look like just a whole different species," Blll Maher said
By Sarah Burris, February 6, 2016There was a fascinating discussion in Bill Maher’s “Overtime” segment of Friday night’s “Real Time” this week when Maher attempted to get conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to admit that Democrats have more respectable debates than Republicans.
When asked whether the DNC’s decision to add more debates (after hiding them for so long) would have a positive impact, MSNBC’s Alex Wagner gave a resounding “yes.” She said that Thursday night’s debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was a perfect example. “I just think you have two substantive people talking about substantive issues, that’s good for the country, that’s good for the party, that’s good for the people being turned on to the democratic process.”
Maher agreed, apologizing to his Republican panelists, he said, “it does look like just a whole different species. I mean they had this substantive discussion among two adults who never went out of the bounds of decorum, talking about what progressivism is. They’re just on a different level of the evolutionary scale than the feces throwers in the Republican debate.”
There was also a remarkable conversation where feminist icon Gloria Steinem schooled Williams that voting for Hillary Clinton wasn’t about being a woman because “we’re not voting for Sarah Palin… excuse me, we’re voting for a woman who represents the majority of women and men.”
Maher remarked that President Obama got over 90 percent of black voters and that Clinton will likely not get over 90 percent of women voters. Steinem said that there is a deep reason for this in that women are primarily responsible for the child rearing “we associate female authority with childhood emotionality, irrationality…” Williams tried to claim that it was that way 50 years ago but Steinem smacked him down for being so obviously naive. “We will only be able to recognize human talent in all of its forms when men are raising children as much as women are and women are in the public world as much as men are.”
Check out the full discussion below:
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Hey, why don’t we just select our president through a national random lottery? ... I’ll take those odds over Trump."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Interesting. I didn't know Trump was a clown spouting off. Without this article highlighting the absurdity of the interview I might have actually voted for him.
* Don't feel bad - these days it's essentially impossible to tell the difference between traditional clowns and clownish suit-wearing businessman-politicians. Back in the day you could just check for a fright-wig, but in Trump's case, that's not quite going to do it.
* ... Trump is clearly incompetent, and the folks who support him are focused only on his anti-establishment bravado. They miss all of the details that would clearly indicate that he should be nowhere near any public office. But unfortunately history is littered with other morons who found their way to the top, and were idolized by the ignorant masses. The Trump debacle is not unique in history.
* I don't know about a natural citizen test for President, but an IQ test would make far more sense. Recalling 2007 also include VP.
* Re: Showing this clip to Trump supporters and confronting him with his idiocy... Obviously, at this point there are hours of clips of such examples of his incompetence, bigotry, etc. circulating through the press. Can we stop believing that all we have to do is present facts to his supporters, and we will therefore open their eyes? These are stupid, stupid people. And you can't argue with stupid. We're gonna have to figure out a different plan - Maybe we can convince them that going into a voting booth will give you Ebola?
* Well, the biggest thing he missed is he has no understanding of the value of Iran not having a nuclear program. There's a real value to it and frankly it's more than $150 billion dollars since an insulted nuclear Iran is an Iran that could sell nuclear weapons to militants and discontents. ...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump’s Iran idiocy: The interview that should have ended his candidacy once and for all
Donald Trump gave an interview this week all of his potential supporters should watch. In his own words, Trump lays bare the very reasons why he would be such a disastrous choice for president.
The interview with Anderson Cooper on Thursday, which can be seen here, took place in New Hampshire where Trump is campaigning for the upcoming Republican primary in New Hampshire, and the setting included a small group of ordinary New Hampshire voters.
The topic turns to President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Trump unwittingly displays for all to see that he simply does not understand the most basic elements of the agreement.
Trump proclaims his familiar boast that he is the best deal-maker ever and the best negotiator ever, and that the Obama administration completely botched the negotiation with Iran. And then Trump graced us with an inside account of how he, as a master deal-maker, would have negotiated the agreement with Iran and obtained a much better outcome for America.
Primarily, Trump would have spared America from having to pay $150 billion to Iran. (I won’t quibble with the dollar amount even though it is likely inaccurate).
As Trump explained, he would have said to the Iranians:
Wow. Now there’s a genius negotiator for you. What an amazing display of virtuosity.
Unfortunately, however, there is one little problem with Trump’s entire analysis. And this problem is that the $150 billion was, in fact, readily available. The reason it was readily available is because all of this money actually belonged to Iran, not to America. This was Iran’s own money. This was Iranian money that America had seized and frozen. It was never American money. Not one penny. American money was never at stake. Rather, America was simply returning Iran’s own money that America had seized and was holding in frozen accounts pending the resolution of the sanctions against Iran.
Trump obviously had no clue that this money belonged to Iran. Trump was utterly ignorant about the facts of the deal. Yet this did not prevent Trump from spouting off and denouncing the deal to the American public. This is classic Trump. Even though he may appear to some to be authoritative, the truth is that his demeanor is superficial and he actually has no idea what he is talking about in substance.
There was another little humorous aspect on the subject of this Iranian agreement as well. In his typical bluster, Trump bragged that as part of this deal he would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran. And how, exactly, would Trump have accomplished this? Again, Trump graced us with a master lesson in his wondrous negotiating ability.
Trump said that he would have demanded the return of the prisoners upfront. Trump would not have even begun talks with the Iranians until they first returned the prisoners. When the Iranians refused, Trump would have walked out of the meeting.
Oh, now there’s a real novel idea. Does Trump really think that the professional American negotiators never thought of this? In fact, America had already demanded the return of the prisoners numerous times, and America had already been engaged in all sorts of diplomatic efforts to secure their return. But Iran was still refusing to release the prisoners.
Yet according to Trump, his simplistic maneuver of refusing to negotiate would have somehow magically secured the release of the prisoners “within 24 hours.” This is simply ridiculous.
In fact, we all witnessed a real-life example of how Trump’s supposedly brilliant negotiating skills work-out in reality. This unfolded right before our very eyes in the fiasco Trump created over the presidential debate with Fox News just days before the Iowa caucuses.
Trump demanded that the Fox News host Megyn Kelly be removed as a moderator of the debate. This is akin to Trump demanding that Iran release the prisoners. Fox refused to remove Kelly, just as Iran would have refused to release the prisoners. Trump then deployed his “tough-guy” tactics of walking away and refusing to participate in the debate.
How did that work out for Trump? Well, not so hot. Fox News didn’t exactly fold within 24 hours and yield to the almighty will of Trump. Instead, Fox ignored Trump’s ridiculous demands and went forward with the debate without him. Trump proceeded to lose the Iowa caucuses even though he had been significantly ahead in the polls prior to dropping-out of the debate.
Here we see what happens in real life when Trump’s ridiculous course of action is followed. Utter failure. The entire nation would encounter a similar fate if it followed Trump as president.
In another segment of the video, a local man from the audience explained that he was raising three young daughters, and given Trump’s many insults, disparaging comments about women and foreigners, and profanity, Trump as president would not seem to make a good role model for his daughters.
Trump’s reaction was stunning. Trump immediately accused the man of being a plant. “Who asked you to give this question?” Trump demanded. Did Anderson put you up to this? “This is a CNN set-up!”
Unbelievable. This was highly revealing of Trump’s character. He exhibits a tendency toward paranoia, he immediately concludes that others are conspiring against him without a shred of evidence, and he perceives himself as being victimized. These are traits that are not exactly well suited for a leader of a nation.
In another encounter, a lady from the audience expressed concern that Trump had not provided enough specificity about his policies. Trump’s answer was that he prefers not to provide detailed policies because he desires to remain unpredictable.
Seriously? A presidential candidate running on a platform of unpredictability? Hey, why don’t we just select our president through a national random lottery?
Actually, come to think of it, I’ll take those odds over Trump.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Interesting. I didn't know Trump was a clown spouting off. Without this article highlighting the absurdity of the interview I might have actually voted for him.
* Don't feel bad - these days it's essentially impossible to tell the difference between traditional clowns and clownish suit-wearing businessman-politicians. Back in the day you could just check for a fright-wig, but in Trump's case, that's not quite going to do it.
* ... Trump is clearly incompetent, and the folks who support him are focused only on his anti-establishment bravado. They miss all of the details that would clearly indicate that he should be nowhere near any public office. But unfortunately history is littered with other morons who found their way to the top, and were idolized by the ignorant masses. The Trump debacle is not unique in history.
* I don't know about a natural citizen test for President, but an IQ test would make far more sense. Recalling 2007 also include VP.
* Re: Showing this clip to Trump supporters and confronting him with his idiocy... Obviously, at this point there are hours of clips of such examples of his incompetence, bigotry, etc. circulating through the press. Can we stop believing that all we have to do is present facts to his supporters, and we will therefore open their eyes? These are stupid, stupid people. And you can't argue with stupid. We're gonna have to figure out a different plan - Maybe we can convince them that going into a voting booth will give you Ebola?
* Well, the biggest thing he missed is he has no understanding of the value of Iran not having a nuclear program. There's a real value to it and frankly it's more than $150 billion dollars since an insulted nuclear Iran is an Iran that could sell nuclear weapons to militants and discontents. ...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump’s Iran idiocy: The interview that should have ended his candidacy once and for all
In a CNN interview, Donald Trump lays bare exactly why he would be such a disastrous choice for president
By Cody Cain, February 5, 2016Donald Trump gave an interview this week all of his potential supporters should watch. In his own words, Trump lays bare the very reasons why he would be such a disastrous choice for president.
The interview with Anderson Cooper on Thursday, which can be seen here, took place in New Hampshire where Trump is campaigning for the upcoming Republican primary in New Hampshire, and the setting included a small group of ordinary New Hampshire voters.
The topic turns to President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Trump unwittingly displays for all to see that he simply does not understand the most basic elements of the agreement.
Trump proclaims his familiar boast that he is the best deal-maker ever and the best negotiator ever, and that the Obama administration completely botched the negotiation with Iran. And then Trump graced us with an inside account of how he, as a master deal-maker, would have negotiated the agreement with Iran and obtained a much better outcome for America.
Primarily, Trump would have spared America from having to pay $150 billion to Iran. (I won’t quibble with the dollar amount even though it is likely inaccurate).
As Trump explained, he would have said to the Iranians:
“Fellas, we [as America] owe $19 trillion [in debt]. We’re a country that has no money. We can’t give you the $150 [billion dollars].” The Iranians would have said, “But we want it!” And Trump would have responded, “We can’t give it! We don’t have it! We don’t have it!”Trump would have stood his ground and absolutely refused to pay the $150 billion. At that point, the meeting would have broken-up with no agreement. But then, two days later, the Iranians would have folded by calling Trump and saying, “Let’s make a deal.” Iran would then have agreed that America would not be required to pay the $150 billion.
Wow. Now there’s a genius negotiator for you. What an amazing display of virtuosity.
Unfortunately, however, there is one little problem with Trump’s entire analysis. And this problem is that the $150 billion was, in fact, readily available. The reason it was readily available is because all of this money actually belonged to Iran, not to America. This was Iran’s own money. This was Iranian money that America had seized and frozen. It was never American money. Not one penny. American money was never at stake. Rather, America was simply returning Iran’s own money that America had seized and was holding in frozen accounts pending the resolution of the sanctions against Iran.
Trump obviously had no clue that this money belonged to Iran. Trump was utterly ignorant about the facts of the deal. Yet this did not prevent Trump from spouting off and denouncing the deal to the American public. This is classic Trump. Even though he may appear to some to be authoritative, the truth is that his demeanor is superficial and he actually has no idea what he is talking about in substance.
There was another little humorous aspect on the subject of this Iranian agreement as well. In his typical bluster, Trump bragged that as part of this deal he would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran. And how, exactly, would Trump have accomplished this? Again, Trump graced us with a master lesson in his wondrous negotiating ability.
Trump said that he would have demanded the return of the prisoners upfront. Trump would not have even begun talks with the Iranians until they first returned the prisoners. When the Iranians refused, Trump would have walked out of the meeting.
Oh, now there’s a real novel idea. Does Trump really think that the professional American negotiators never thought of this? In fact, America had already demanded the return of the prisoners numerous times, and America had already been engaged in all sorts of diplomatic efforts to secure their return. But Iran was still refusing to release the prisoners.
Yet according to Trump, his simplistic maneuver of refusing to negotiate would have somehow magically secured the release of the prisoners “within 24 hours.” This is simply ridiculous.
In fact, we all witnessed a real-life example of how Trump’s supposedly brilliant negotiating skills work-out in reality. This unfolded right before our very eyes in the fiasco Trump created over the presidential debate with Fox News just days before the Iowa caucuses.
Trump demanded that the Fox News host Megyn Kelly be removed as a moderator of the debate. This is akin to Trump demanding that Iran release the prisoners. Fox refused to remove Kelly, just as Iran would have refused to release the prisoners. Trump then deployed his “tough-guy” tactics of walking away and refusing to participate in the debate.
How did that work out for Trump? Well, not so hot. Fox News didn’t exactly fold within 24 hours and yield to the almighty will of Trump. Instead, Fox ignored Trump’s ridiculous demands and went forward with the debate without him. Trump proceeded to lose the Iowa caucuses even though he had been significantly ahead in the polls prior to dropping-out of the debate.
Here we see what happens in real life when Trump’s ridiculous course of action is followed. Utter failure. The entire nation would encounter a similar fate if it followed Trump as president.
In another segment of the video, a local man from the audience explained that he was raising three young daughters, and given Trump’s many insults, disparaging comments about women and foreigners, and profanity, Trump as president would not seem to make a good role model for his daughters.
Trump’s reaction was stunning. Trump immediately accused the man of being a plant. “Who asked you to give this question?” Trump demanded. Did Anderson put you up to this? “This is a CNN set-up!”
Unbelievable. This was highly revealing of Trump’s character. He exhibits a tendency toward paranoia, he immediately concludes that others are conspiring against him without a shred of evidence, and he perceives himself as being victimized. These are traits that are not exactly well suited for a leader of a nation.
In another encounter, a lady from the audience expressed concern that Trump had not provided enough specificity about his policies. Trump’s answer was that he prefers not to provide detailed policies because he desires to remain unpredictable.
Seriously? A presidential candidate running on a platform of unpredictability? Hey, why don’t we just select our president through a national random lottery?
Actually, come to think of it, I’ll take those odds over Trump.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Indeed, Cruz is a cunning little conniver who had Trump duped."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz Outwits Donald Trump with Ease
By Cody Cain, February 5, 2016
Poor Donald Trump. He was just so thoroughly swindled by Ted Cruz it's not even funny.
Yes, this is the New York City billionaire we're talking about here. Supposedly the big-time deal-maker. This is the guy who wrote the book, "The Art of the Deal."
Trump is constantly bragging about his ability to make great deals. He'll beat the Chinese. He'll beat the Japanese. He'll beat the Mexican government. Nobody is supposed to be able to pull one over on Trump.
Yet along comes Ted Cruz and, with the ease of taking candy from a baby, he swindles Trump out of his shorts right off the bat.
It all began a few months ago in the summer of 2015. Cruz identified his clueless mark well in advance, like a Texas rattler spotting a hapless rodent from afar. Cruz actively sought out Trump and courted his attention, mainly by simply plying Trump with compliments. Trump has such a ridiculously inflated ego that he is a sucker for flattery, and Cruz zeroed right in on Trump's weakness.
It worked like a charm.
Cruz landed a meeting with Trump in his office in Trump Tower in New York City. "I don't know why I'm meeting the guy, to be honest," Trump said.
Poor Trump. He never even saw it coming.
Trump was quickly ensnared in Cruz's little trap. The bromance was on. The two competing Republican candidates declined to attack each other, and instead began publicly complimenting each other. Trump even spoke at an event in Washington, D.C. hosted by Cruz to protest Obama's historic nuclear agreement with Iran.
But Ted Cruz had ulterior motives in striking-up this little fling with Trump. In September of 2015, Trump was enormously popular with around 31% in the national polls, and Cruz was down in the doldrums with around 6%.
So Cruz saw the opportunity to gain popularity for himself by hitching his wagon to Trump's wagon. By appearing to be an ally of Trump, and suckering Trump into talking about Cruz and saying positive things about Cruz, the massive fan-base of Trump supporters would get to know Cruz, warm-up to Cruz, and even begin to like Cruz.
Trump fell for it like a rookie.
It seems blatantly obvious to everyone what Cruz was doing. Well, everyone, that is, except for Trump, who couldn't seem to see past Cruz's disingenuous flattery. Cruz was simply playing nice-nice with Trump in order to position himself to one day be able to steal Trump's supporters.
In fact, Cruz was caught admitting this on a secretly recorded audio tape during a closed-door fundraising session with donors. Cruz told his donors that even though he was saying nice things about Trump in public, Cruz personally believed that Trump did not have the judgment to be president, and that Trump's campaign would eventually bring itself down.
Cruz admitted that his strategy was to "bear hug" Trump and "smother [him] with love" so that when Trump faltered, the lion's share of Trump's supporters would shift over to Cruz.
Indeed, Cruz is a cunning little conniver who had Trump duped.
By December-January, Cruz had climbed his way up in the polls to second place behind Trump and far above all the other candidates. And suddenly, Cruz became Trump's biggest competitor. Trump finally recognized the threat posed by Cruz and reportedly told his staff that Cruz "is hanging around the top too long. Time to take him down."
Thereafter, Trump began fervently attacking Cruz for potentially being ineligible to serve as president due to Cruz's birthplace in Canada, and for loans that Cruz received from Wall Street to help fund his 2012 senate campaign that Cruz did not properly disclose. The bromance was over.
By this time, however, it was too late. Cruz had already built-up his base of supporters. And lo and behold, Cruz skated past Trump to win the Iowa caucuses, thereby rendering Trump a loser.
Poor Trump. Outsmarted, used and abused.
So much for Trump being some sort of a super-hero deal-maker. On his very first outing he was outwitted by Cruz in a simple little maneuver. How in the world could Trump handle world leaders, much less national affairs, when he got so smoked by Cruz in Iowa?
Well, this all seems to clear things up. We can now see that Trump is full of bluster, but empty in substance.
This little tale has also shed an unfavorable light upon Cruz. While he is shrewd and cunning, we see that Cruz is also highly dishonest. His entire outward display of affection for Trump was completely false and part of a highly calculated grand deception. Wow. This guy wasn't just telling a fib or two, but he was acting out an elaborate and pre-meditated false scheme. And he was good at it, too! We clearly see that this wasn't his first rodeo in lying and deceiving.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is that the central theme in Cruz's entire campaign is that he is the candidate for "truth." Wow. Now this is hypocrisy on a whole new level! This guy is dangerous.
Neither of these men belong in politics. But they do seem to have a lot in common. They should both drop-out of the campaign and rekindle their bromance.
They deserve each other.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz Outwits Donald Trump with Ease
By Cody Cain, February 5, 2016
Poor Donald Trump. He was just so thoroughly swindled by Ted Cruz it's not even funny.
Yes, this is the New York City billionaire we're talking about here. Supposedly the big-time deal-maker. This is the guy who wrote the book, "The Art of the Deal."
Trump is constantly bragging about his ability to make great deals. He'll beat the Chinese. He'll beat the Japanese. He'll beat the Mexican government. Nobody is supposed to be able to pull one over on Trump.
Yet along comes Ted Cruz and, with the ease of taking candy from a baby, he swindles Trump out of his shorts right off the bat.
It all began a few months ago in the summer of 2015. Cruz identified his clueless mark well in advance, like a Texas rattler spotting a hapless rodent from afar. Cruz actively sought out Trump and courted his attention, mainly by simply plying Trump with compliments. Trump has such a ridiculously inflated ego that he is a sucker for flattery, and Cruz zeroed right in on Trump's weakness.
It worked like a charm.
Cruz landed a meeting with Trump in his office in Trump Tower in New York City. "I don't know why I'm meeting the guy, to be honest," Trump said.
Poor Trump. He never even saw it coming.
Trump was quickly ensnared in Cruz's little trap. The bromance was on. The two competing Republican candidates declined to attack each other, and instead began publicly complimenting each other. Trump even spoke at an event in Washington, D.C. hosted by Cruz to protest Obama's historic nuclear agreement with Iran.
But Ted Cruz had ulterior motives in striking-up this little fling with Trump. In September of 2015, Trump was enormously popular with around 31% in the national polls, and Cruz was down in the doldrums with around 6%.
So Cruz saw the opportunity to gain popularity for himself by hitching his wagon to Trump's wagon. By appearing to be an ally of Trump, and suckering Trump into talking about Cruz and saying positive things about Cruz, the massive fan-base of Trump supporters would get to know Cruz, warm-up to Cruz, and even begin to like Cruz.
Trump fell for it like a rookie.
It seems blatantly obvious to everyone what Cruz was doing. Well, everyone, that is, except for Trump, who couldn't seem to see past Cruz's disingenuous flattery. Cruz was simply playing nice-nice with Trump in order to position himself to one day be able to steal Trump's supporters.
In fact, Cruz was caught admitting this on a secretly recorded audio tape during a closed-door fundraising session with donors. Cruz told his donors that even though he was saying nice things about Trump in public, Cruz personally believed that Trump did not have the judgment to be president, and that Trump's campaign would eventually bring itself down.
Cruz admitted that his strategy was to "bear hug" Trump and "smother [him] with love" so that when Trump faltered, the lion's share of Trump's supporters would shift over to Cruz.
Indeed, Cruz is a cunning little conniver who had Trump duped.
By December-January, Cruz had climbed his way up in the polls to second place behind Trump and far above all the other candidates. And suddenly, Cruz became Trump's biggest competitor. Trump finally recognized the threat posed by Cruz and reportedly told his staff that Cruz "is hanging around the top too long. Time to take him down."
Thereafter, Trump began fervently attacking Cruz for potentially being ineligible to serve as president due to Cruz's birthplace in Canada, and for loans that Cruz received from Wall Street to help fund his 2012 senate campaign that Cruz did not properly disclose. The bromance was over.
By this time, however, it was too late. Cruz had already built-up his base of supporters. And lo and behold, Cruz skated past Trump to win the Iowa caucuses, thereby rendering Trump a loser.
Poor Trump. Outsmarted, used and abused.
So much for Trump being some sort of a super-hero deal-maker. On his very first outing he was outwitted by Cruz in a simple little maneuver. How in the world could Trump handle world leaders, much less national affairs, when he got so smoked by Cruz in Iowa?
Well, this all seems to clear things up. We can now see that Trump is full of bluster, but empty in substance.
This little tale has also shed an unfavorable light upon Cruz. While he is shrewd and cunning, we see that Cruz is also highly dishonest. His entire outward display of affection for Trump was completely false and part of a highly calculated grand deception. Wow. This guy wasn't just telling a fib or two, but he was acting out an elaborate and pre-meditated false scheme. And he was good at it, too! We clearly see that this wasn't his first rodeo in lying and deceiving.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is that the central theme in Cruz's entire campaign is that he is the candidate for "truth." Wow. Now this is hypocrisy on a whole new level! This guy is dangerous.
Neither of these men belong in politics. But they do seem to have a lot in common. They should both drop-out of the campaign and rekindle their bromance.
They deserve each other.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, February 5, 2016
"... Cruz’s problem is that going back to his college days at Princeton, those who know him best seem to despise him most."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Cruz - more dangerous, deceitful and disingenuous than Richard Nixon on his best day!
* Nixon had more scruples than Cruz will ever have
* This column is a good start, I guess, but everyone needs to know that Ted Cruz' campaign manager is (to use a term that Ted would understand) the second coming of Lee Atwater. His name is Jeff Roe, and an attack ad of his last year in Missouri is widely cited as being one of two things that led gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich to commit suicide (the other was an equally despicable whispering campaign that Schweich was Jewish, which he wasn't). That Ted Cruz would select this person to run his national campaign should tell anyone all they need to know about Senator Cruz. And as for Roe, well, we've seen what he is willing to do in a statewide race, so I'm sure the worst is yet to come.
* "willfully blind" describes to a tee the evangelical vote.
* ... can anyone doubt Cruz is a slime-crawling anti-Semite? And that could be taken as an insult by slime crawlers AND anti-Semites. Just saying.
* No, he shut down our government and cost millions of Americans their days worth of work while he obnoxiously read 'Green Eggs & Ham' without even getting the irony.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The utter nastiness of Ted Cruz
By Dana Milbank, February 5, 2016
When Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) last month mocked Donald Trump’s “New York values,” it wasn’t entirely clear what he was implying.
This week we got a clue: For Cruz, “New York” is another way of saying “Jewish.”
At an event in New Hampshire, Cruz, the Republican Iowa caucuses winner, was asked about campaign money he and his wife borrowed from Goldman Sachs. Cruz, asserting that Trump had “upward of $480 million of loans from giant Wall Street banks,” said: “For him to make this attack, to use a New York term, it’s the height of chutzpah.” Cruz, pausing for laughter after the phrase “New York term,” exaggerated the guttural “ch” to more laughter and applause.
But “chutzpah,” of course, is not a “New York” term. It’s a Yiddish — a Jewish — one. And using “New York” as a euphemism for “Jewish” has long been an anti-Semitic dog whistle.
I followed both Cruz and Trump this week at multiple campaign events across New Hampshire. It was, in a sense, a pleasure to see them use their prodigious skills of character assassination against each other. It was demagogue against demagogue: lie vs. lie. Both men riled their supporters with fantasies and straw men.
But there were discernible differences. Trump owned anger. Cruz, by contrast, had a lock on nastiness. Trump is belligerent and hyperbolic, with an authoritarian style. But while Trump fires up the masses with his nonstop epithets, Cruz has Joe McCarthy’s knack for false insinuation and underhandedness. What sets Cruz apart is the malice he exudes.
Cruz jokes that “the whole point of the campaign” is that “the Washington elites despise” him. But Cruz’s problem is that going back to his college days at Princeton, those who know him best seem to despise him most. Not a single Senate colleague has endorsed his candidacy, and Iowa’s Republican governor urged Cruz’s defeat, then called his campaign “unethical.”
Ben Carson, who rarely has a bad word to say about anybody in the GOP race, accused Cruz of “deceit and dirty tricks and lies” this week after the Texan’s campaign spread the false rumor during the Iowa caucuses that Carson was quitting the race. Two former rivals who also appeal to religious conservatives, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum (who endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida), have questioned Cruz’s truthfulness, too.
Sarah Palin, whose support for Cruz in 2012 helped get him elected to the Senate, this week denounced him after a Cruz surrogate accused her of accepting payment from Trump to back him. She, too, accused Cruz’s campaign of “lies,” a “dirty trick” and “typical Washington tactics.”
Cruz, in Nashua, slashed back at his onetime benefactor: “It seems if you spend too much time with Donald Trump, strange things happen to people.” Somebody in the crowd shouted “Fire Palin!” and the audience cheered.
The Iowa secretary of state, a Republican, issued a statement before the caucuses accusing Cruz’s campaign of “false representation” because of a mailing to voters charging them with a “voting violation” and assigning them and their neighbors phony grades.
After Cruz’s caucus-night skullduggery — a campaign email to supporters and a tweet by a Cruz national co-chairman suggesting Carson was quitting the race — his response continued the deception. Though he apologized to Carson, he said that “our political team forwarded a news story from CNN” and “all the rest of it is just silly noise.” But CNN said nothing about Carson dropping out.
After Trump, in his overblown way, accused Cruz of stealing the election, Cruz replied, righteously, that “I have no intention of insulting him or throwing mud.”
No? He accused Trump of “a Trumpertantrum.” He said Trump as president “would have nuked Denmark.” He said Trump “doesn’t have any core beliefs.” He mischaracterized several of Trump’s positions, saying “he wants to expand Obamacare,” that “for his entire life, 60 years, he has been advocating for full-on socialized medicine” and that Trump favors “amnesty” for illegal immigrants and “wants to deport people that are here illegally but then let them back in immediately and become citizens.” He speculated that Trump may have “billions” in loans and said the concept of repaying loans is “novel and unfamiliar to Donald.”
The misrepresentation isn’t limited to Trump. In a single speech in Nashua last week, he mischaracterized things said by, among others, Jimmy Carter, Chris Wallace, guests on Sean Hannity’s show, Atlanta’s mayor, Rubio and, of course, President Obama.
I asked the Cruz campaign Thursday evening to substantiate several of these claims. After this column was published online Friday afternoon, the campaign provided citations that didn’t back up what Cruz had alleged. Unsurprising: Cruz’s purpose is not to inform but to insinuate.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Cruz - more dangerous, deceitful and disingenuous than Richard Nixon on his best day!
* Nixon had more scruples than Cruz will ever have
* This column is a good start, I guess, but everyone needs to know that Ted Cruz' campaign manager is (to use a term that Ted would understand) the second coming of Lee Atwater. His name is Jeff Roe, and an attack ad of his last year in Missouri is widely cited as being one of two things that led gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich to commit suicide (the other was an equally despicable whispering campaign that Schweich was Jewish, which he wasn't). That Ted Cruz would select this person to run his national campaign should tell anyone all they need to know about Senator Cruz. And as for Roe, well, we've seen what he is willing to do in a statewide race, so I'm sure the worst is yet to come.
* "willfully blind" describes to a tee the evangelical vote.
* ... can anyone doubt Cruz is a slime-crawling anti-Semite? And that could be taken as an insult by slime crawlers AND anti-Semites. Just saying.
* No, he shut down our government and cost millions of Americans their days worth of work while he obnoxiously read 'Green Eggs & Ham' without even getting the irony.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The utter nastiness of Ted Cruz
By Dana Milbank, February 5, 2016
When Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) last month mocked Donald Trump’s “New York values,” it wasn’t entirely clear what he was implying.
This week we got a clue: For Cruz, “New York” is another way of saying “Jewish.”
At an event in New Hampshire, Cruz, the Republican Iowa caucuses winner, was asked about campaign money he and his wife borrowed from Goldman Sachs. Cruz, asserting that Trump had “upward of $480 million of loans from giant Wall Street banks,” said: “For him to make this attack, to use a New York term, it’s the height of chutzpah.” Cruz, pausing for laughter after the phrase “New York term,” exaggerated the guttural “ch” to more laughter and applause.
But “chutzpah,” of course, is not a “New York” term. It’s a Yiddish — a Jewish — one. And using “New York” as a euphemism for “Jewish” has long been an anti-Semitic dog whistle.
I followed both Cruz and Trump this week at multiple campaign events across New Hampshire. It was, in a sense, a pleasure to see them use their prodigious skills of character assassination against each other. It was demagogue against demagogue: lie vs. lie. Both men riled their supporters with fantasies and straw men.
But there were discernible differences. Trump owned anger. Cruz, by contrast, had a lock on nastiness. Trump is belligerent and hyperbolic, with an authoritarian style. But while Trump fires up the masses with his nonstop epithets, Cruz has Joe McCarthy’s knack for false insinuation and underhandedness. What sets Cruz apart is the malice he exudes.
Cruz jokes that “the whole point of the campaign” is that “the Washington elites despise” him. But Cruz’s problem is that going back to his college days at Princeton, those who know him best seem to despise him most. Not a single Senate colleague has endorsed his candidacy, and Iowa’s Republican governor urged Cruz’s defeat, then called his campaign “unethical.”
Ben Carson, who rarely has a bad word to say about anybody in the GOP race, accused Cruz of “deceit and dirty tricks and lies” this week after the Texan’s campaign spread the false rumor during the Iowa caucuses that Carson was quitting the race. Two former rivals who also appeal to religious conservatives, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum (who endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida), have questioned Cruz’s truthfulness, too.
Sarah Palin, whose support for Cruz in 2012 helped get him elected to the Senate, this week denounced him after a Cruz surrogate accused her of accepting payment from Trump to back him. She, too, accused Cruz’s campaign of “lies,” a “dirty trick” and “typical Washington tactics.”
Cruz, in Nashua, slashed back at his onetime benefactor: “It seems if you spend too much time with Donald Trump, strange things happen to people.” Somebody in the crowd shouted “Fire Palin!” and the audience cheered.
The Iowa secretary of state, a Republican, issued a statement before the caucuses accusing Cruz’s campaign of “false representation” because of a mailing to voters charging them with a “voting violation” and assigning them and their neighbors phony grades.
After Cruz’s caucus-night skullduggery — a campaign email to supporters and a tweet by a Cruz national co-chairman suggesting Carson was quitting the race — his response continued the deception. Though he apologized to Carson, he said that “our political team forwarded a news story from CNN” and “all the rest of it is just silly noise.” But CNN said nothing about Carson dropping out.
After Trump, in his overblown way, accused Cruz of stealing the election, Cruz replied, righteously, that “I have no intention of insulting him or throwing mud.”
No? He accused Trump of “a Trumpertantrum.” He said Trump as president “would have nuked Denmark.” He said Trump “doesn’t have any core beliefs.” He mischaracterized several of Trump’s positions, saying “he wants to expand Obamacare,” that “for his entire life, 60 years, he has been advocating for full-on socialized medicine” and that Trump favors “amnesty” for illegal immigrants and “wants to deport people that are here illegally but then let them back in immediately and become citizens.” He speculated that Trump may have “billions” in loans and said the concept of repaying loans is “novel and unfamiliar to Donald.”
The misrepresentation isn’t limited to Trump. In a single speech in Nashua last week, he mischaracterized things said by, among others, Jimmy Carter, Chris Wallace, guests on Sean Hannity’s show, Atlanta’s mayor, Rubio and, of course, President Obama.
I asked the Cruz campaign Thursday evening to substantiate several of these claims. After this column was published online Friday afternoon, the campaign provided citations that didn’t back up what Cruz had alleged. Unsurprising: Cruz’s purpose is not to inform but to insinuate.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... many, I suspect, began with noble intentions and were seduced into the dark side."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Except of course, if there ever was a trickle-down, this is it. All these scams, including the greatest scam, that the Republican Party is still a legitimate political party, flow like water from the greatest heist in history, the Reagan Revolution. Every base was covered, no stone unturned, in undermining the middle class, punishing the poor, massively enriching the rich and giving them all the political power, in other words undermining democracy and replacing it with plutocracy. Citizens United, etc, were just the final stroke, legalizing the obvious. All this was set up prior to Reagan's election, because, yes Virginia, even Republicans once had to actually be elected. The safeguards against propaganda had to go early, because no fascist system was ever built without it. Hence, Fox and hate radio and websites, building the ignoramous base, so necessary for any fascist takeover. This scam was likely in development as early as the JFK assassination, probably, though thanks to the cover-ups unproven to be the first shot of the Right-Wing Revolution. This guy says it started out pure. Horse pucky. It was as pure as the Nazi Revolution, also nonviolent and legal on the surface, from Day One.
* Grifters grifting from grifters grifting from everyone.
* Conservatives are straight out of the Bible, where ample references are made of false prophets, Pharisees and other temple's salesmen...
* And all the worst parts at that.
* The Con$ervative Movement's barrage of dishonest propaganda -- manufactured solely in pursuit of the suckers' money -- is a significant reason for the Republican base's current state of political insanity. But these Con$ervative Movement grifters are just working a well-established market. The Republican Party has been running a massive pigeon-drop on the American middle class for decades. Republicans just don't want these opportunistic scammers working their marks while they're running their own con.
* ... I despise fraud, but frankly all the GOP candidates are frauds. There's not an honest human among them. I suspect the gullibility of those who have not been trained to think for themselves has a lot to do with the phenomenon.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How con$ervatives betray conservatives: A conservative explains how grifters, buck-rakers and scoundrels have poisoned his movement
Excerpted from "TOO DUMB TO FAIL: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots"
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
—W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
—Eric Hoffer
To begin, it’s important we set something straight. There’s the conservative movement, and there’s the Con$ervative Movement. The conservative movement is rooted in a proud intellectual heritage and is committed to protecting fundamental freedoms. The Con$ervative Movement has turned the cause into a profiteering venture, and, in the process, exploited some of the worst impulses of grassroots conservatives. For the conservative movement to survive and thrive, we need to excommunicate the hucksters and scoundrels who are running the Con$ervative Movement.
If you’re unfamiliar with the problem, in May of 2015, I wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal titled “The ‘Conservative’ PACs Trolling for Your Money.” In the column, I reported on a group called the Conservative Action Fund who wanted to draft former Florida representative Allen West to run for the US Senate there. “With Marco Rubio running for the White House, this seat is even more vulnerable,” the April 17, 2015, solicitation said before asking recipients to “make a generous gift of $15, $25, $35, or even $50” to circulate a petition. There was just one problem: West was unlikely to run for the Florida Senate seat, because, as I noted in the column, he had moved to Texas.
The same group also sent out a fundraising e-mail asking people to donate money and sign a petition to draft Condi Rice to run for California’s senate seat (it’s unclear which African American Republican—West or Rice—was less likely to run for senate in 2016). Around the same time, Conservative America Now, yet another group with an innocuous sounding name, was raising money to “draft Arizona representative Matt Salmon to challenge Senator John McCain.” In February of 2015, Salmon’s spokesman suggested the email “appears to intentionally mislead potential donors.”
But the problem isn’t limited to groups raising money ostensibly to support hypothetical candidates. According to FEC reports, the Conservative Action Fund (a group we referenced earlier), spent less than 20 percent of funds they raised during the 2014 cycle supporting candidates and campaigns. As is often the case, most of the money went to consultants and overhead. Again, these findings are not unique.
In 2013, Ken Cuccinelli, a staunch conservative who now heads the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), narrowly lost his gubernatorial race in Virginia. Rather than sit idly by, he filed a lawsuit alleging that much of the $2.2 million raised in 2013 by an outside group called Conservative StrikeForce PAC was the result of using Cuccinelli’s name—yet the political action committee (PAC) contributed “less than one half of one percent” of that amount to his campaign. The PAC’s treasurer, Scott B. Mackenzie, responded to a request for comment in my Wall Street Journal column and conceded the group “fell short of our expectations and we were unable to spend as much on the race as we would have liked.” In May of 2015, a settlement was reached between the parties that appeared to observers to be very favorable for Cuccinelli. Only time will tell if this has a chilling effect on this kind of activity.
Sounding the Alarm
The good news is that several media outlets—mainstream as well as ideological—have begun sounding the alarm. In February 2015, conservative blogger John Hawkins published a study of seventeen political action committees. His RightWingNews website found that the bottom ten PACs he examined contributed less than 10 percent of the money they raised on independent expenditures or direct contributions to campaigns. Hawkins then asked a series of depressing rhetorical questions: “How many conservative candidates lost in 2014 because of a lack of funds? How many of them came up short in primaries, lost winnable seats, or desperately tried to fight off better funded challengers? How much of a difference would another $50 million have made last year? That’s a very relevant question because the ten PACs at the bottom of this list spent $54,318,498 and only paid out $3,621,896 to help get Republicans elected.”
So why do they do it? In some cases, we need to understand that fledgling groups require a lot of overhead to get started. But that excuse certainly doesn’t account for all of this. Another answer might simply be incompetence. But it’s also likely that some of these groups are simply bad actors whose work is a net negative for the conservative movement. Some might have started with bad motives. But many, I suspect, began with noble intentions and were seduced into the dark side. (If you’re looking to make money and can’t cut it in the business world or as a candidate or political operative, then this is a pretty good gig.)
And for former politicians, who says cashing in at some lobbying firm is the only way to go? Creating your own gig in the Con$ervative Movement is a great way to build a retirement nest egg. Consider the case of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who was essentially forced out of his position as chairman of the Tea Party group FreedomWorks in late 2012. Armey lost an internal power struggle with then FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe, a bespectacled libertarian known for his ridiculously long sideburns, after Armey raised concerns over royalties paid to Kibbe for his ironically titled book Hostile Takeover. (Armey argued FreedomWorks’ resources were used to write and market Kibbe’s book and that Kibbe was personally profiting at the expense of the organization.) But it’s hard to feel sorry for Armey. He landed softly thanks to a golden parachute. As ABC News reported, “Under the terms of the deal, Armey will receive $400,000 a year until he is 92—a total of $8 million—to be a consultant.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Except of course, if there ever was a trickle-down, this is it. All these scams, including the greatest scam, that the Republican Party is still a legitimate political party, flow like water from the greatest heist in history, the Reagan Revolution. Every base was covered, no stone unturned, in undermining the middle class, punishing the poor, massively enriching the rich and giving them all the political power, in other words undermining democracy and replacing it with plutocracy. Citizens United, etc, were just the final stroke, legalizing the obvious. All this was set up prior to Reagan's election, because, yes Virginia, even Republicans once had to actually be elected. The safeguards against propaganda had to go early, because no fascist system was ever built without it. Hence, Fox and hate radio and websites, building the ignoramous base, so necessary for any fascist takeover. This scam was likely in development as early as the JFK assassination, probably, though thanks to the cover-ups unproven to be the first shot of the Right-Wing Revolution. This guy says it started out pure. Horse pucky. It was as pure as the Nazi Revolution, also nonviolent and legal on the surface, from Day One.
* Grifters grifting from grifters grifting from everyone.
* Conservatives are straight out of the Bible, where ample references are made of false prophets, Pharisees and other temple's salesmen...
* And all the worst parts at that.
* The Con$ervative Movement's barrage of dishonest propaganda -- manufactured solely in pursuit of the suckers' money -- is a significant reason for the Republican base's current state of political insanity. But these Con$ervative Movement grifters are just working a well-established market. The Republican Party has been running a massive pigeon-drop on the American middle class for decades. Republicans just don't want these opportunistic scammers working their marks while they're running their own con.
* ... I despise fraud, but frankly all the GOP candidates are frauds. There's not an honest human among them. I suspect the gullibility of those who have not been trained to think for themselves has a lot to do with the phenomenon.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How con$ervatives betray conservatives: A conservative explains how grifters, buck-rakers and scoundrels have poisoned his movement
The Con$ervative Movement has turned a cause into profiteering, exploited worst impulse of grassroots conservatives
By Matt K. Lewis, January 31, 2016Excerpted from "TOO DUMB TO FAIL: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots"
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
—W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
—Eric Hoffer
To begin, it’s important we set something straight. There’s the conservative movement, and there’s the Con$ervative Movement. The conservative movement is rooted in a proud intellectual heritage and is committed to protecting fundamental freedoms. The Con$ervative Movement has turned the cause into a profiteering venture, and, in the process, exploited some of the worst impulses of grassroots conservatives. For the conservative movement to survive and thrive, we need to excommunicate the hucksters and scoundrels who are running the Con$ervative Movement.
If you’re unfamiliar with the problem, in May of 2015, I wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal titled “The ‘Conservative’ PACs Trolling for Your Money.” In the column, I reported on a group called the Conservative Action Fund who wanted to draft former Florida representative Allen West to run for the US Senate there. “With Marco Rubio running for the White House, this seat is even more vulnerable,” the April 17, 2015, solicitation said before asking recipients to “make a generous gift of $15, $25, $35, or even $50” to circulate a petition. There was just one problem: West was unlikely to run for the Florida Senate seat, because, as I noted in the column, he had moved to Texas.
The same group also sent out a fundraising e-mail asking people to donate money and sign a petition to draft Condi Rice to run for California’s senate seat (it’s unclear which African American Republican—West or Rice—was less likely to run for senate in 2016). Around the same time, Conservative America Now, yet another group with an innocuous sounding name, was raising money to “draft Arizona representative Matt Salmon to challenge Senator John McCain.” In February of 2015, Salmon’s spokesman suggested the email “appears to intentionally mislead potential donors.”
But the problem isn’t limited to groups raising money ostensibly to support hypothetical candidates. According to FEC reports, the Conservative Action Fund (a group we referenced earlier), spent less than 20 percent of funds they raised during the 2014 cycle supporting candidates and campaigns. As is often the case, most of the money went to consultants and overhead. Again, these findings are not unique.
In 2013, Ken Cuccinelli, a staunch conservative who now heads the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), narrowly lost his gubernatorial race in Virginia. Rather than sit idly by, he filed a lawsuit alleging that much of the $2.2 million raised in 2013 by an outside group called Conservative StrikeForce PAC was the result of using Cuccinelli’s name—yet the political action committee (PAC) contributed “less than one half of one percent” of that amount to his campaign. The PAC’s treasurer, Scott B. Mackenzie, responded to a request for comment in my Wall Street Journal column and conceded the group “fell short of our expectations and we were unable to spend as much on the race as we would have liked.” In May of 2015, a settlement was reached between the parties that appeared to observers to be very favorable for Cuccinelli. Only time will tell if this has a chilling effect on this kind of activity.
Sounding the Alarm
The good news is that several media outlets—mainstream as well as ideological—have begun sounding the alarm. In February 2015, conservative blogger John Hawkins published a study of seventeen political action committees. His RightWingNews website found that the bottom ten PACs he examined contributed less than 10 percent of the money they raised on independent expenditures or direct contributions to campaigns. Hawkins then asked a series of depressing rhetorical questions: “How many conservative candidates lost in 2014 because of a lack of funds? How many of them came up short in primaries, lost winnable seats, or desperately tried to fight off better funded challengers? How much of a difference would another $50 million have made last year? That’s a very relevant question because the ten PACs at the bottom of this list spent $54,318,498 and only paid out $3,621,896 to help get Republicans elected.”
So why do they do it? In some cases, we need to understand that fledgling groups require a lot of overhead to get started. But that excuse certainly doesn’t account for all of this. Another answer might simply be incompetence. But it’s also likely that some of these groups are simply bad actors whose work is a net negative for the conservative movement. Some might have started with bad motives. But many, I suspect, began with noble intentions and were seduced into the dark side. (If you’re looking to make money and can’t cut it in the business world or as a candidate or political operative, then this is a pretty good gig.)
And for former politicians, who says cashing in at some lobbying firm is the only way to go? Creating your own gig in the Con$ervative Movement is a great way to build a retirement nest egg. Consider the case of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who was essentially forced out of his position as chairman of the Tea Party group FreedomWorks in late 2012. Armey lost an internal power struggle with then FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe, a bespectacled libertarian known for his ridiculously long sideburns, after Armey raised concerns over royalties paid to Kibbe for his ironically titled book Hostile Takeover. (Armey argued FreedomWorks’ resources were used to write and market Kibbe’s book and that Kibbe was personally profiting at the expense of the organization.) But it’s hard to feel sorry for Armey. He landed softly thanks to a golden parachute. As ABC News reported, “Under the terms of the deal, Armey will receive $400,000 a year until he is 92—a total of $8 million—to be a consultant.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Politicians will continue to ignore secular Americans until they are convinced that there is a price to be paid for doing so."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Thank you for saying what needed to be said. I too am sick and tired of the religious right who have taken over this country with their irrational nonsense. Strict separation of church and state needs to be enforced. If they want to believe in nonsense, that's their personal life. But they must keep their nonsense out of the government and the laws. It's pretty simple. We need more people to stand up for the right to freedom FROM religion....
* Well Said! As an atheist, (I like infidel better actually) I am sick and tired of the false piety from politicians. I would be happy to see a presidential candidate that does not invoke a deity in his or her campaign. Once one politician has the courage to do so I believe we can open the way to considering a wide number of secular issue in the operation of our government that are precluded by the false premisses that their exists a deity or deities and that there is an afterlife. Neither of which have any basis in science.
* Infidels have to decide in which god they don't believe. Atheists are generic :_>
* You are trying to "herd cats". Half the secularists that I know don't even believe in secularism, they are just waiting for something better to come along. It is hard to get people to believe in a cause when that cause is not believing in anything. Well, at least you don't have to worry about the dangers of disillusionment. I personally am with George Carlin, we really should worship the life giving sun, at least until we are all cooked by it (thanks to global warming). Count me in (out)
* Secularism is NOT believing in nothing; it is the belief that there is nothing like, similar or pertinent to a god. WE SECULARISTS BELIEVE IN SCIENCE. So take that to your superstitious church.
* ... Instead of the feebleness and futility of faith, let's live lives of purposefulness, self-determination, courage, activity, and compassion.
* It's about time this issue was covered. Secularists and Atheists talk about it often, but the media never seems to cover it - until this article today. Secularists - which includes people who follow a religious faith yet believe in separation of church and state - are too often ignored. The idea that any sort of religious faith should be required for a candidate is ridiculous, particularly in the United States. How about we rate people by their good deeds, or lack thereof? Belief, absent action, is useless anyhow. It's just sentiment and talk.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sick and Tired of ‘God Bless America’
By Susan Jacoby, February 5, 2016
The population of nonreligious Americans — including atheists, agnostics and those who call themselves “nothing in particular” — stands at an all-time high this election year. Americans who say religion is not important in their lives and who do not belong to a religious group, according to the Pew Research Center, have risen in numbers from an estimated 21 million in 2008 to more than 36 million now.
Despite the extraordinary swiftness and magnitude of this shift, our political campaigns are still conducted as if all potential voters were among the faithful. The presumption is that candidates have everything to gain and nothing to lose by continuing their obsequious attitude toward orthodox religion and ignoring the growing population of those who make up a more secular America.
Ted Cruz won in Iowa by expanding Republican voter turnout among the evangelical base. Donald J. Trump placed second after promising “to protect Christians” from enemies foreign and domestic. The third-place finisher Marco Rubio’s line “I don’t think you can go to church too often” might well have been the campaign mantra. Mr. Rubio was first christened a Roman Catholic, baptized again at the age of 8 into the Mormon Church, and now attends a Southern Baptist megachurch with his wife on Saturdays and Catholic Mass on Sundays.
Democrats are only a trifle more secular in their appeals. Hillary Clinton repeatedly refers to her Methodist upbringing, and even Bernie Sanders — a cultural Jew not known to belong to a synagogue — squirms when asked whether he believes in God. When Jimmy Kimmel posed the question, Mr. Sanders replied in a fog of words at odds with his usual blunt style: “I am who I am. And what I believe in and what my spirituality is about, is that we’re all in this together.” He once referred to a “belief in God” that requires him to follow the Golden Rule — a quote his supporters seem to trot out whenever someone suggests he’s an atheist or agnostic.
The question is not why nonreligious Americans vote for these candidates — there is no one on the ballot who full-throatedly endorses nonreligious humanism — but why candidates themselves ignore the growing group of secular voters.
Yes, America is still a predominantly Christian nation, but evangelical Christians (including multiple Protestant denominations), at 25.4 percent, are the only group larger than those who don’t belong to any church. At 22.8 percent, according to Pew, the unchurched make up a larger group than Catholics, any single Protestant denomination and small minorities of Jews, Muslims and Hindus.
Critics have suggested that there is no such entity as secular America, because the nonreligious do not all share the same values. One might just as easily say the same thing about the religious. President Jimmy Carter, for example, left the Southern Baptist Convention because he disagreed with its views about women — but Mr. Carter remains his own kind of devout and liberal Baptist in the tradition of his 18th-century religious forebears.
Secularists remain politically weak in part because of the reluctance of many, especially the young, to become “joiners.” Rejection of labels may be one reason so many of the religiously unaffiliated prefer to check “nothing in particular” rather than the atheist or agnostic box.
But it takes joiners to create a lobby. The American Center for Law and Justice, an organization focused on the rights of Christians, gathered more than a million signatures on a petition protesting the imprisonment of Saeed Abedini, an Iranian-American pastor and convert from Islam who was one of four Americans freed in last month’s prisoner swap.
For small secular organizations, a million signatures for any cause would constitute a supernatural happening. I spent a few years working for the Center for Inquiry, a humanist think tank that merged last month, in a rare union of secular forces, with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Michael De Dora, the center’s public policy director, argues that secularists must work with liberal and mainstream religious groups on issues of mutual concern.
Yet there is some controversy over coalition building between those who consider themselves “hard” and “soft” atheists. I suppose I must be a “soft” atheist for believing that there is a huge political upside to ad hoc coalitions with liberal religious groups.
Freedom of conscience for all — which exists only in secular democracies — should be at the top of the list of shared concerns. Candidates who rightly denounce the persecution of Christians by radical Islamists should be ashamed of themselves for not expressing equal indignation at the persecution of freethinkers and atheists, as well as dissenting Muslims and small religious sects, not only by terrorists but also by theocracies like Saudi Arabia. With liberal religious allies, it would be easier for secularists to hold candidates to account when they talk as if freedom of conscience is a human right only for the religious.
Even more critical is the necessity of reclaiming the language of religious freedom from the far right. As defined by many pandering politicians, “religious freedom” is in danger of becoming code for accepting public money while imposing faith-based values on others.
Anyone who dismisses the importance of taking back this language should consider the gravity of the mistake made by supporters of legal abortion when they allowed the anti-abortion movement to claim the term “pro-life” after Roe v. Wade.
Secularists must hold candidates to account when they insult secular values, whether that means challenging them in town hall meetings or withholding donations. Why, for example, would any secular Republican (yes, there are some) think of supporting the many Republican politicians who have denied the scientific validity of evolution? Politicians will continue to ignore secular Americans until they are convinced that there is a price to be paid for doing so.
“God bless America” has become the standard ending of every major political speech. Just once in my life, I would like the chance to vote for a presidential candidate who ends his or her appeals with Thomas Paine’s observation that “the most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Thank you for saying what needed to be said. I too am sick and tired of the religious right who have taken over this country with their irrational nonsense. Strict separation of church and state needs to be enforced. If they want to believe in nonsense, that's their personal life. But they must keep their nonsense out of the government and the laws. It's pretty simple. We need more people to stand up for the right to freedom FROM religion....
* Well Said! As an atheist, (I like infidel better actually) I am sick and tired of the false piety from politicians. I would be happy to see a presidential candidate that does not invoke a deity in his or her campaign. Once one politician has the courage to do so I believe we can open the way to considering a wide number of secular issue in the operation of our government that are precluded by the false premisses that their exists a deity or deities and that there is an afterlife. Neither of which have any basis in science.
* Infidels have to decide in which god they don't believe. Atheists are generic :_>
* You are trying to "herd cats". Half the secularists that I know don't even believe in secularism, they are just waiting for something better to come along. It is hard to get people to believe in a cause when that cause is not believing in anything. Well, at least you don't have to worry about the dangers of disillusionment. I personally am with George Carlin, we really should worship the life giving sun, at least until we are all cooked by it (thanks to global warming). Count me in (out)
* Secularism is NOT believing in nothing; it is the belief that there is nothing like, similar or pertinent to a god. WE SECULARISTS BELIEVE IN SCIENCE. So take that to your superstitious church.
* ... Instead of the feebleness and futility of faith, let's live lives of purposefulness, self-determination, courage, activity, and compassion.
* It's about time this issue was covered. Secularists and Atheists talk about it often, but the media never seems to cover it - until this article today. Secularists - which includes people who follow a religious faith yet believe in separation of church and state - are too often ignored. The idea that any sort of religious faith should be required for a candidate is ridiculous, particularly in the United States. How about we rate people by their good deeds, or lack thereof? Belief, absent action, is useless anyhow. It's just sentiment and talk.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sick and Tired of ‘God Bless America’
By Susan Jacoby, February 5, 2016
The population of nonreligious Americans — including atheists, agnostics and those who call themselves “nothing in particular” — stands at an all-time high this election year. Americans who say religion is not important in their lives and who do not belong to a religious group, according to the Pew Research Center, have risen in numbers from an estimated 21 million in 2008 to more than 36 million now.
Despite the extraordinary swiftness and magnitude of this shift, our political campaigns are still conducted as if all potential voters were among the faithful. The presumption is that candidates have everything to gain and nothing to lose by continuing their obsequious attitude toward orthodox religion and ignoring the growing population of those who make up a more secular America.
Ted Cruz won in Iowa by expanding Republican voter turnout among the evangelical base. Donald J. Trump placed second after promising “to protect Christians” from enemies foreign and domestic. The third-place finisher Marco Rubio’s line “I don’t think you can go to church too often” might well have been the campaign mantra. Mr. Rubio was first christened a Roman Catholic, baptized again at the age of 8 into the Mormon Church, and now attends a Southern Baptist megachurch with his wife on Saturdays and Catholic Mass on Sundays.
Democrats are only a trifle more secular in their appeals. Hillary Clinton repeatedly refers to her Methodist upbringing, and even Bernie Sanders — a cultural Jew not known to belong to a synagogue — squirms when asked whether he believes in God. When Jimmy Kimmel posed the question, Mr. Sanders replied in a fog of words at odds with his usual blunt style: “I am who I am. And what I believe in and what my spirituality is about, is that we’re all in this together.” He once referred to a “belief in God” that requires him to follow the Golden Rule — a quote his supporters seem to trot out whenever someone suggests he’s an atheist or agnostic.
The question is not why nonreligious Americans vote for these candidates — there is no one on the ballot who full-throatedly endorses nonreligious humanism — but why candidates themselves ignore the growing group of secular voters.
Yes, America is still a predominantly Christian nation, but evangelical Christians (including multiple Protestant denominations), at 25.4 percent, are the only group larger than those who don’t belong to any church. At 22.8 percent, according to Pew, the unchurched make up a larger group than Catholics, any single Protestant denomination and small minorities of Jews, Muslims and Hindus.
Critics have suggested that there is no such entity as secular America, because the nonreligious do not all share the same values. One might just as easily say the same thing about the religious. President Jimmy Carter, for example, left the Southern Baptist Convention because he disagreed with its views about women — but Mr. Carter remains his own kind of devout and liberal Baptist in the tradition of his 18th-century religious forebears.
Secularists remain politically weak in part because of the reluctance of many, especially the young, to become “joiners.” Rejection of labels may be one reason so many of the religiously unaffiliated prefer to check “nothing in particular” rather than the atheist or agnostic box.
But it takes joiners to create a lobby. The American Center for Law and Justice, an organization focused on the rights of Christians, gathered more than a million signatures on a petition protesting the imprisonment of Saeed Abedini, an Iranian-American pastor and convert from Islam who was one of four Americans freed in last month’s prisoner swap.
For small secular organizations, a million signatures for any cause would constitute a supernatural happening. I spent a few years working for the Center for Inquiry, a humanist think tank that merged last month, in a rare union of secular forces, with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Michael De Dora, the center’s public policy director, argues that secularists must work with liberal and mainstream religious groups on issues of mutual concern.
Yet there is some controversy over coalition building between those who consider themselves “hard” and “soft” atheists. I suppose I must be a “soft” atheist for believing that there is a huge political upside to ad hoc coalitions with liberal religious groups.
Freedom of conscience for all — which exists only in secular democracies — should be at the top of the list of shared concerns. Candidates who rightly denounce the persecution of Christians by radical Islamists should be ashamed of themselves for not expressing equal indignation at the persecution of freethinkers and atheists, as well as dissenting Muslims and small religious sects, not only by terrorists but also by theocracies like Saudi Arabia. With liberal religious allies, it would be easier for secularists to hold candidates to account when they talk as if freedom of conscience is a human right only for the religious.
Even more critical is the necessity of reclaiming the language of religious freedom from the far right. As defined by many pandering politicians, “religious freedom” is in danger of becoming code for accepting public money while imposing faith-based values on others.
Anyone who dismisses the importance of taking back this language should consider the gravity of the mistake made by supporters of legal abortion when they allowed the anti-abortion movement to claim the term “pro-life” after Roe v. Wade.
Secularists must hold candidates to account when they insult secular values, whether that means challenging them in town hall meetings or withholding donations. Why, for example, would any secular Republican (yes, there are some) think of supporting the many Republican politicians who have denied the scientific validity of evolution? Politicians will continue to ignore secular Americans until they are convinced that there is a price to be paid for doing so.
“God bless America” has become the standard ending of every major political speech. Just once in my life, I would like the chance to vote for a presidential candidate who ends his or her appeals with Thomas Paine’s observation that “the most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, February 4, 2016
"They projected fundamentally different approaches to what they agreed were mutual goals."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Clinton, Sanders tangle in fierce one-on-one Democratic debate
By Susan Page, February 5, 2016
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tangled in a fierce debate Thursday over the definition of a progressive and the direction of the Democratic Party.
In their first head-to-head debate — just five days before the New Hampshire primary — Clinton accused Sanders of waging “an artful smear” against her by criticizing contributions Wall Street bankers and others have contributed to her campaign and the super PAC supporting her, challenging him to cite a vote she had changed to advance their interests.
Sanders countered that contributions by powerful interests had corrupted the political system and shaped government policy in countless ways, from the deregulation of financial institutions in the 1990s to the expensive cost of drugs today.
Standing side-by-side on a stage at the University of New Hampshire at Durham, the two were more combative and sometimes slashing toward one another than in their previous four debates, which had included long-shot contenders now out of the race. The tone reflected the high stakes and the nearing primary — and the conclusion that both campaigns have enough money and enough support to wage an extended battle for the nomination.
They projected fundamentally different approaches to what they agreed were mutual goals.
Clinton argued for pragmatism. “A progressive is someone who makes progress; that’s what I intend to do,” she said, saying Sanders’ proposals for "Medicare for All" and free college tuition were “just not achievable.”
Sanders called for a “political revolution” that would include “major changes” in national priorities and in the Democratic Party.
The debate, hosted by MSNBC, centered in part on a dispute that has been brewing on the campaign trail: Sanders' charge that Clinton wasn't a real progressive. Clinton argued that Sanders had cast himself as the self-proclaimed "gatekeeper" who determined who was a progressive, using a definition that would exclude even President Obama and Vice President Biden.
Progressive enough? Clinton pushes back against Sanders
"If we're going to get into labels, I don't think it was 'progressive' to vote against the Brady Bill five times," she said, raising Sanders' opposition to some gun laws popular with Democratic voters.
"Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment," Sanders replied. "I represent ordinary, working Americans."
Again and again, he hammered his attack on the power of Wall Street and big banks. That issue continued to put Clinton on the defensive, including over $675,000 she received for three speeches to Goldman Sachs after resigning as secretary of State. Asked whether she would release the transcripts of those speeches she said she was "willing to look into it" but didn't commit to doing so.
On another controversy that dogs her, she insisted she was "100% confident" that an ongoing FBI investigation into her exclusive use of a private email server as secretary of State wouldn't create problems for her. "I have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever," saying with obvious exasperation that the dispute had reached a level of absurdity.
Both candidates agreed that the federal government should intervene to help Flint, Mich., deal with an environmental crisis that has polluted its drinking water with lead.
They did close on a friendly note. Clinton declined a question about whether she would consider Sanders as a running mate, but she did say that, if she won the nomination, the first person she would call to discuss the direction of the Democratic Party would be her current rival.
"On our worst days," Sanders responded, "I think it's fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate."
On that, at least, they shook hands.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Clinton, Sanders tangle in fierce one-on-one Democratic debate
By Susan Page, February 5, 2016
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tangled in a fierce debate Thursday over the definition of a progressive and the direction of the Democratic Party.
In their first head-to-head debate — just five days before the New Hampshire primary — Clinton accused Sanders of waging “an artful smear” against her by criticizing contributions Wall Street bankers and others have contributed to her campaign and the super PAC supporting her, challenging him to cite a vote she had changed to advance their interests.
Sanders countered that contributions by powerful interests had corrupted the political system and shaped government policy in countless ways, from the deregulation of financial institutions in the 1990s to the expensive cost of drugs today.
Standing side-by-side on a stage at the University of New Hampshire at Durham, the two were more combative and sometimes slashing toward one another than in their previous four debates, which had included long-shot contenders now out of the race. The tone reflected the high stakes and the nearing primary — and the conclusion that both campaigns have enough money and enough support to wage an extended battle for the nomination.
They projected fundamentally different approaches to what they agreed were mutual goals.
Clinton argued for pragmatism. “A progressive is someone who makes progress; that’s what I intend to do,” she said, saying Sanders’ proposals for "Medicare for All" and free college tuition were “just not achievable.”
Sanders called for a “political revolution” that would include “major changes” in national priorities and in the Democratic Party.
The debate, hosted by MSNBC, centered in part on a dispute that has been brewing on the campaign trail: Sanders' charge that Clinton wasn't a real progressive. Clinton argued that Sanders had cast himself as the self-proclaimed "gatekeeper" who determined who was a progressive, using a definition that would exclude even President Obama and Vice President Biden.
Progressive enough? Clinton pushes back against Sanders
"If we're going to get into labels, I don't think it was 'progressive' to vote against the Brady Bill five times," she said, raising Sanders' opposition to some gun laws popular with Democratic voters.
"Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment," Sanders replied. "I represent ordinary, working Americans."
Again and again, he hammered his attack on the power of Wall Street and big banks. That issue continued to put Clinton on the defensive, including over $675,000 she received for three speeches to Goldman Sachs after resigning as secretary of State. Asked whether she would release the transcripts of those speeches she said she was "willing to look into it" but didn't commit to doing so.
On another controversy that dogs her, she insisted she was "100% confident" that an ongoing FBI investigation into her exclusive use of a private email server as secretary of State wouldn't create problems for her. "I have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever," saying with obvious exasperation that the dispute had reached a level of absurdity.
Both candidates agreed that the federal government should intervene to help Flint, Mich., deal with an environmental crisis that has polluted its drinking water with lead.
They did close on a friendly note. Clinton declined a question about whether she would consider Sanders as a running mate, but she did say that, if she won the nomination, the first person she would call to discuss the direction of the Democratic Party would be her current rival.
"On our worst days," Sanders responded, "I think it's fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate."
On that, at least, they shook hands.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Let's hope that the GOP watched this debate-- they would have seen how it should be done.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* 100% CORRECT ABOUT BEING MORE SOCIABLE THAN THE REPUBLICANS AND MORE CIVIL!!!
* The Dem debate is exactly what a debate is supposed to be,a little edgy and about IDEAS, instead of the monkey poop fight the GOP sideshows are. I just want to go take a shower after 2 minutes of Trump, Cruz, and the rest of those con men.
* these two candidates are definitely better on a maturity level than the entire gop crybaby brigade (i personally prefer sanders) gop should learn from them that there is a way to respectfully disagree with one another.
* i approve what all i've seen and heard of bernard sanders so far. i might not have made up my mind for him, but i like his debate skills and would want to see him again on the same stage.
* Republicans keep calling hilary a liar.. It is funny how none of them minded bush and cheney lying about WMDs and killing 100K+ Civilians in iraq. I didn't see any of this sort of venom directed at bush by the Right wing.. Republicans just have no morals whatsoever.
* It was a very informative and mostly issue-centered debate. The two highly respected candidates were very presidential in every aspect of their presentation as expected. Such a matured and detailed approach to discussing issues will certainly help voters to know their presidential candidates stand on topics being talked about.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bernie and Hillary end first solo debate with love fest
February 4, 2016
Democratic presidential rivals Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton knocked each other around Thursday in their first one-on-one debate of the 2016 season, but ultimately closed ranks behind the notion of keeping the White House in their party’s hands.
Sanders spent much of the evening arguing that he was the true standard-bearer for the Democratic Party, hammering the former secretary of state over her ties to Wall Street and vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Clinton focused her energies largely on defending her progressive bona fides, while arguing that the Vermont independent was putting ideological purity on a pedestal above pragmatic proposals that could actually become reality.
But by the end of their MSNBC encounter, the two candidates closed ranks.
It started when moderator Chuck Todd asserted that Clinton did not think Sanders could be president. She looked genuinely surprised, and said, “I never said that,” then brushed aside his follow-up about whether she might pick Sanders as a running mate if she wins the party’s nomination.
“ Well, I’m certainly going to unite the party, but I’m not getting ahead of myself. I think that would be a little bit presumptuous,” Clinton said. “If I’m so fortunate as to be the nominee, the first person I will call to talk to about where we go and how we get it done will be Sen. Sanders.”
Todd tried the question on Sanders.
“I agree with what the secretary said. We shouldn’t be getting ahead of ourselves,” the Vermont senator replied. ”And as I have said many times, you know, sometimes in these campaigns, things get a little bit out of hand. I happen to respect the secretary very much, I hope it’s mutual. And on our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.”
Clinton agreed, declaring “That’s true, that’s true.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* 100% CORRECT ABOUT BEING MORE SOCIABLE THAN THE REPUBLICANS AND MORE CIVIL!!!
* The Dem debate is exactly what a debate is supposed to be,a little edgy and about IDEAS, instead of the monkey poop fight the GOP sideshows are. I just want to go take a shower after 2 minutes of Trump, Cruz, and the rest of those con men.
* these two candidates are definitely better on a maturity level than the entire gop crybaby brigade (i personally prefer sanders) gop should learn from them that there is a way to respectfully disagree with one another.
* i approve what all i've seen and heard of bernard sanders so far. i might not have made up my mind for him, but i like his debate skills and would want to see him again on the same stage.
* Republicans keep calling hilary a liar.. It is funny how none of them minded bush and cheney lying about WMDs and killing 100K+ Civilians in iraq. I didn't see any of this sort of venom directed at bush by the Right wing.. Republicans just have no morals whatsoever.
* It was a very informative and mostly issue-centered debate. The two highly respected candidates were very presidential in every aspect of their presentation as expected. Such a matured and detailed approach to discussing issues will certainly help voters to know their presidential candidates stand on topics being talked about.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bernie and Hillary end first solo debate with love fest
February 4, 2016
Democratic presidential rivals Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton knocked each other around Thursday in their first one-on-one debate of the 2016 season, but ultimately closed ranks behind the notion of keeping the White House in their party’s hands.
Sanders spent much of the evening arguing that he was the true standard-bearer for the Democratic Party, hammering the former secretary of state over her ties to Wall Street and vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Clinton focused her energies largely on defending her progressive bona fides, while arguing that the Vermont independent was putting ideological purity on a pedestal above pragmatic proposals that could actually become reality.
But by the end of their MSNBC encounter, the two candidates closed ranks.
It started when moderator Chuck Todd asserted that Clinton did not think Sanders could be president. She looked genuinely surprised, and said, “I never said that,” then brushed aside his follow-up about whether she might pick Sanders as a running mate if she wins the party’s nomination.
“ Well, I’m certainly going to unite the party, but I’m not getting ahead of myself. I think that would be a little bit presumptuous,” Clinton said. “If I’m so fortunate as to be the nominee, the first person I will call to talk to about where we go and how we get it done will be Sen. Sanders.”
Todd tried the question on Sanders.
“I agree with what the secretary said. We shouldn’t be getting ahead of ourselves,” the Vermont senator replied. ”And as I have said many times, you know, sometimes in these campaigns, things get a little bit out of hand. I happen to respect the secretary very much, I hope it’s mutual. And on our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.”
Clinton agreed, declaring “That’s true, that’s true.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)