...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* According to Politifact, Trump has told the most lies during the campaign than any other candidate. In fact, they dubbed him liar of the year. You, of course, are one of those who think that if he said it, it must be true.
* According to punditfact, Fox leads the way with over 50% of the on air statements made by their pundits being rated as some level of false, followed my MSNBC at just under 50%, and CNN around 25%. Seems that conservatives like to goose step to misinformation considering the ratings difference between Fox and MSNBC.
* We all know the media created Trump (2 billion dollars free advertising). What they didn't create are the Trump supporters. They are in a league of their own. For every grievance you have against a Hillary supporter, much worse can be said about Trump supporters. It takes a lot of chutzpah, and sheer ignorance, to jump on the Trump train. Trump once said he'd default on the US debt. Even saying that out loud is utterly indefensible. #MakeAmericaGreekAgain
* Clinton has been under attack for decades. She will never crumble.
* What I don't understand is all these men who have female children who are supporting Trump. Don't they even care that he's a misogynist creep?
* I have been saying that for months. Back in the day, if you got the money, you payed back people who lost money on YOU. If you could. Obligated by law or no. That was what men of honor and integrity did. Donald says he has 10 billion. Make some of those who lost on you whole. The man is scum.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Former GOP senator: Trump is a sociopath
By Jessie Hellmann, May 7, 2016
Former U.S. Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.) called Donald Trump a sociopath Friday, saying he would never support the presumptive GOP nominee even though his favored candidate, John Kasich, suspended his campaign earlier this week.
“Unequivocally, I am not supporting Donald Trump,” Humphrey told the New Hampshire Union Leader. “I think he’s a sociopath.”
Humphrey is a Kasich delegate and said he would support the Ohio governor at the Republican National Convention until the convention is “gaveled to a close.” He said Trump lacks experience, understanding of issues and temperament.
Kasich suspended his presidential campaign Wednesday after only getting 8 percent of the vote in Indiana’s primary Tuesday.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Republican insiders "... really do not want their conservative party to become the tool of a man whose political principles are highly elastic."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* When the election is over and trump is gone the old guard gop will have to pick up the pieces.
* Maybe. But it would also be a good opportunity for more progressive independents to move in and help move the party into the 21st century.
* The gop can not just follow trump and bis voters this year because once he's gone they''ll have a lot of explaining to do about why they supported trump and his viewa. They shoukd not vote for him. Lose the election, which will happen anyway, then separate themselves from this whole trump mess. That is the long term plan for the gop, else they will go away with trump.
* the worst thing for either party is that the American people realize that political lifers control government and not the public.
* Political lifers got there by re-election. The public put them there. Don't delude yourself into thinking that your vote doesn't matter -- it does.
* This Presidential election is an historical existential trial for the Republican Party. All their machinations to become the ruling party and undo the needed social advancements of the Franklin Roosevelt era have filled their party with people more interested in a kind of religious purity rather than with the responsibility for good government. This situation for the Republican Party has been a long time in the making and the Party will have to go through this. It is my opinion and hope that a Trump candidacy will be such a disaster that there will be major purges creating a very angry, but impotent third party and thus allowing the Republican Party to eventually become a responsible partner in good government, but it will take time.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP leaders reel from Donald Trump's conquest of their party
By David Horsey, May 6, 2016
The last two Republican presidents — who both happen to be named Bush — are refusing to endorse their party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Mitt Romney, Bob Dole and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the three living Republicans who won the nomination but fell short of the White House, have not endorsed Trump. The Republican speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, announced on Thursday that he is not ready to support Trump because he wants “a standard-bearer that bears our standards.”
Those are just the most familiar names among prominent Republicans who are staying off the Trump bandwagon. Nothing like this has ever happened. Even in 1964, when many well-known Republicans were horrified by Barry Goldwater’s nomination, the 1960 nominee, Richard Nixon, campaigned for Goldwater, and the most recent GOP president at the time, Dwight Eisenhower, gave him a tepid endorsement.
This year, many Republican leaders are not merely shunning Trump, some are looking for a candidate to run against him to give conservative voters an option other than sitting out the election or voting for the Democratic nominee. Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse has forcefully come out against Trump, and now a political action committee has formed to draft Sasse for a third-party ticket. When asked if he would run, Sasse said, “Absolutely not.” Sasse may truly not be interested, but someone else could be. It really does not matter who it is because those pushing for a third candidate do not care about winning, they just want to make sure Trump loses.
All these Republican insiders seem as freaked out by the possibility of a Trump victory as they are by the prospect of him losing big and dragging down GOP candidates for the Senate and the House. They are serious people who really do not want their commander-in-chief to be a man who claims to know all about Russia because he ran a Miss Universe beauty contest in Moscow, a guy who would put as much stock in bogus news stories from National Enquirer as he would a national security briefing.
And, whether they think Trump has a chance to win, they really do not want their conservative party to become the tool of a man whose political principles are highly elastic. That’s what Ryan means when he implies Trump falls short of the party’s “standards.”
Unlike those past Republican nominees and presidents, Ryan does not have the luxury of skipping out on the GOP convention in Cleveland this July. As speaker, he is slotted to chair the convention. Will he still be able to withhold his endorsement, even after he runs the roll call that makes Trump the nominee? When the red, white and blue balloons rain from the ceiling and Trump brings his glamorous family onstage for his moment of triumph, will Ryan be standing close by? Or will he find that is a good time for a bathroom break?
There will be many such awkward moments awaiting Republican leaders in the months to come. That is what happens to a party that does not realize it is being conquered until the wild usurper and his rebellious horde are already inside the gates.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* When the election is over and trump is gone the old guard gop will have to pick up the pieces.
* Maybe. But it would also be a good opportunity for more progressive independents to move in and help move the party into the 21st century.
* The gop can not just follow trump and bis voters this year because once he's gone they''ll have a lot of explaining to do about why they supported trump and his viewa. They shoukd not vote for him. Lose the election, which will happen anyway, then separate themselves from this whole trump mess. That is the long term plan for the gop, else they will go away with trump.
* the worst thing for either party is that the American people realize that political lifers control government and not the public.
* Political lifers got there by re-election. The public put them there. Don't delude yourself into thinking that your vote doesn't matter -- it does.
* This Presidential election is an historical existential trial for the Republican Party. All their machinations to become the ruling party and undo the needed social advancements of the Franklin Roosevelt era have filled their party with people more interested in a kind of religious purity rather than with the responsibility for good government. This situation for the Republican Party has been a long time in the making and the Party will have to go through this. It is my opinion and hope that a Trump candidacy will be such a disaster that there will be major purges creating a very angry, but impotent third party and thus allowing the Republican Party to eventually become a responsible partner in good government, but it will take time.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP leaders reel from Donald Trump's conquest of their party
By David Horsey, May 6, 2016
The last two Republican presidents — who both happen to be named Bush — are refusing to endorse their party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Mitt Romney, Bob Dole and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the three living Republicans who won the nomination but fell short of the White House, have not endorsed Trump. The Republican speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, announced on Thursday that he is not ready to support Trump because he wants “a standard-bearer that bears our standards.”
Those are just the most familiar names among prominent Republicans who are staying off the Trump bandwagon. Nothing like this has ever happened. Even in 1964, when many well-known Republicans were horrified by Barry Goldwater’s nomination, the 1960 nominee, Richard Nixon, campaigned for Goldwater, and the most recent GOP president at the time, Dwight Eisenhower, gave him a tepid endorsement.
This year, many Republican leaders are not merely shunning Trump, some are looking for a candidate to run against him to give conservative voters an option other than sitting out the election or voting for the Democratic nominee. Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse has forcefully come out against Trump, and now a political action committee has formed to draft Sasse for a third-party ticket. When asked if he would run, Sasse said, “Absolutely not.” Sasse may truly not be interested, but someone else could be. It really does not matter who it is because those pushing for a third candidate do not care about winning, they just want to make sure Trump loses.
All these Republican insiders seem as freaked out by the possibility of a Trump victory as they are by the prospect of him losing big and dragging down GOP candidates for the Senate and the House. They are serious people who really do not want their commander-in-chief to be a man who claims to know all about Russia because he ran a Miss Universe beauty contest in Moscow, a guy who would put as much stock in bogus news stories from National Enquirer as he would a national security briefing.
And, whether they think Trump has a chance to win, they really do not want their conservative party to become the tool of a man whose political principles are highly elastic. That’s what Ryan means when he implies Trump falls short of the party’s “standards.”
Unlike those past Republican nominees and presidents, Ryan does not have the luxury of skipping out on the GOP convention in Cleveland this July. As speaker, he is slotted to chair the convention. Will he still be able to withhold his endorsement, even after he runs the roll call that makes Trump the nominee? When the red, white and blue balloons rain from the ceiling and Trump brings his glamorous family onstage for his moment of triumph, will Ryan be standing close by? Or will he find that is a good time for a bathroom break?
There will be many such awkward moments awaiting Republican leaders in the months to come. That is what happens to a party that does not realize it is being conquered until the wild usurper and his rebellious horde are already inside the gates.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Do we need to require IQ tests before allowing boarding of airplanes? SHEESH!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Good holy God, America. This is embarrassing.
* Well these days, anything that involves mathematics, science etc..is considered "terrorist" by some of our proud-to-be-uneducated compatriots.
* Now it seems that any person who has knowledge of intricate mathematics must be some sort of terrorist? This doesn't speak well of how ordinary citizens regard the intelligence of others like themselves.
* There is a new IQ test now comparing some folks to a serving of sauerkraut. In this case,the sauerkraut won.
* Good god. Do we really have to pander to the lowest I.Q.'s in the country?
* As my mother used to say, "We are at the mercy of the dropout"...
* Fercriskes! Here's a great idea. Find the dumbest, most frightened passenger on the plane and let her decide whether we can take off or not. What a total crock of horseshit
...................................................................................................................................................................
Professor's airplane math didn't equal airplane threat
By Associated Press, May 7, 2016
An Ivy League professor said his flight was delayed because a fellow passenger thought the math equations he was writing might be a sign he was a terrorist.
American Airlines confirms that the woman expressed suspicions about University of Pennsylvania economics professor Guido Menzio. She said she was too ill to take the Air Wisconsin-operated flight.
Menzio said he was flying from Philadelphia to Syracuse on Thursday night and was solving a differential equation related to a speech he was set to give at Queen's University in Ontario, Canada. He said the woman sitting next to him passed a note to a flight attendant and the plane headed back to the gate. Menzio, who is Italian and has curly, dark hair, said the pilot then asked for a word and he was questioned by an official.
"I thought they were trying to get clues about her illness," he told The Associated Press in an email. "Instead, they tell me that the woman was concerned that I was a terrorist because I was writing strage things on a pad of paper."
Menzio said he explained what he had been doing and the flight took off soon afterward. He was treated respectfully throughout, he added. But, he said, he was concerned about a delay that a brief conversation or an Internet search could have resolved.
"Not seeking additional information after reports of 'suspicious activity' ... is going to create a lot of problems, especially as xenophobic attitudes may be emerging," he said.
American spokesman Casey Norton said the Air Wisconsin crew followed protocol to take care of an ill passenger and then to investigate her allegations. Norton wouldn't specify the details of the allegations, but said officials determined them to be non-credible. The woman was rebooked on a later flight.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Good holy God, America. This is embarrassing.
* Well these days, anything that involves mathematics, science etc..is considered "terrorist" by some of our proud-to-be-uneducated compatriots.
* Now it seems that any person who has knowledge of intricate mathematics must be some sort of terrorist? This doesn't speak well of how ordinary citizens regard the intelligence of others like themselves.
* There is a new IQ test now comparing some folks to a serving of sauerkraut. In this case,the sauerkraut won.
* Good god. Do we really have to pander to the lowest I.Q.'s in the country?
* As my mother used to say, "We are at the mercy of the dropout"...
* Fercriskes! Here's a great idea. Find the dumbest, most frightened passenger on the plane and let her decide whether we can take off or not. What a total crock of horseshit
...................................................................................................................................................................
Professor's airplane math didn't equal airplane threat
By Associated Press, May 7, 2016
An Ivy League professor said his flight was delayed because a fellow passenger thought the math equations he was writing might be a sign he was a terrorist.
American Airlines confirms that the woman expressed suspicions about University of Pennsylvania economics professor Guido Menzio. She said she was too ill to take the Air Wisconsin-operated flight.
Menzio said he was flying from Philadelphia to Syracuse on Thursday night and was solving a differential equation related to a speech he was set to give at Queen's University in Ontario, Canada. He said the woman sitting next to him passed a note to a flight attendant and the plane headed back to the gate. Menzio, who is Italian and has curly, dark hair, said the pilot then asked for a word and he was questioned by an official.
"I thought they were trying to get clues about her illness," he told The Associated Press in an email. "Instead, they tell me that the woman was concerned that I was a terrorist because I was writing strage things on a pad of paper."
Menzio said he explained what he had been doing and the flight took off soon afterward. He was treated respectfully throughout, he added. But, he said, he was concerned about a delay that a brief conversation or an Internet search could have resolved.
"Not seeking additional information after reports of 'suspicious activity' ... is going to create a lot of problems, especially as xenophobic attitudes may be emerging," he said.
American spokesman Casey Norton said the Air Wisconsin crew followed protocol to take care of an ill passenger and then to investigate her allegations. Norton wouldn't specify the details of the allegations, but said officials determined them to be non-credible. The woman was rebooked on a later flight.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, May 6, 2016
"... Republican voters lined up behind a man who said of Planned Parenthood, 'I have a lot of respect for some of the things they do ...'" Ooops!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Someone forgot to tell the GOP that more women vote than men.
* Relative to the other wingnut crazies...Trump is actually an improvement for PP. It's doubtful that he would make defunding PP a central goal of his administration.
* It is doubtful that he will have an administration, hence no need for goals.
* At being a flip flopper liar and traitor, sleazy Donald will say anything and switch sides if he thinks its a good con job opportunity.
* He's about to make all his money back. And then some.
* Let's wait and see what Trump says about PP in the coming weeks. We know these truths based on his recent behavior. 1. Says just about anything to fire up the base of the moment. 2. The people in his life have never found it necessary to avail themselves of PP services (we all know 97% of what PP does IS NOT abortion). 3. Women that are not model-standard beautiful have little to no value to him
...................................................................................................................................................................
How Planned Parenthood won the Republican primary
By Iron Carmon, May 6, 2016
Among the ways Donald Trump has departed from his party’s line, one has gone relatively unnoticed: his refusal to demonize Planned Parenthood. Even as he vows to strip it of federal funding for contraception and sexual health services because Planned Parenthood affiliates perform abortions, Trump has insisted the organization also does “wonderful things.”
At the outset of the primary race, Republican voters had their pick of Rick Santorum (who said Planned Parenthood should be prosecuted), Mike Huckabee (who implicitly equated the group with the shooter who killed three people outside a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood), Rick Perry (who presided over some of the most zealous defunding of Planned Parenthood in Texas), John Kasich (ditto in Ohio) Ted Cruz (who led the drive to shut down the federal government over Planned Parenthood funding), Jeb Bush (who said Planned Parenthood is “not actually doing women’s health issues”), Rand Paul (who proclaimed “there’s no reason in the world we have to fund Planned Parenthood at all”), Marco Rubio (who claimed Planned Parenthood offering fetal tissue donation “created an incentive for people to be pushed into abortion”), Chris Christie (who said of prioritizing defunding the group because it performs abortions, “I can’t think of anything bigger than that”), Ben Carson (who peddled the debunked myth that Planned Parenthood targets black neighborhoods), and Carly Fiorina (who falsely claimed Planned Parenthood was keeping fetuses alive to harvest their brains).
The voters passed. Instead, Republican voters lined up behind a man who said of Planned Parenthood, “I have a lot of respect for some of the things they do, the cervical cancer on women.”
While Trump’s statements on Planned Parenthood don’t explain why he won, it is nonetheless notable that his refusal to demonize an organization anti-abortion groups consider responsible for genocide was no deal breaker for a majority of primary voters.
Not that Trump’s opponents didn’t try to make it a deal beaker. In the waning days before the Indiana primary, Cruz said, “Donald can’t criticize Hillary Clinton on Planned Parenthood, because he agrees with her. They both say it’s terrific and—and that it should keep taxpayer funding.”
That’s not true. Hillary Clinton told Fusion she wants to expand funding to Planned Parenthood. Trump has repeatedly said he would strip Planned Parenthood of its funding — none of which goes to abortion — as long as it continues to provide abortions. Regardless, Indiana voters, whose governor Mike Pence led the initial charge against Planned Parenthood when he was in Congress, did not care. Nor did enough voters care that anti-abortion groups urged them towards almost anyone but Trump.
Trump’s relatively mild line on Planned Parenthood has been attributed to his daughter Ivanka, whom he has also credited with helping him push back at charges that he is anti-woman. Last August, Trump told Sean Hannity that after Jeb Bush questioned whether women’s health needed to be funded at all, “I said, ‘Wow, that’s incredible, that’s a really stupid statement to make,’ and Ivanka is so much into that whole issue of women’s health and women, and she’s my guide on that whole subject, but she understands how I feel about it.” In its profile of Ivanka Trump, The New York Times cited an unnamed source close to Trump saying she had ”successfully convinced her father to maintain his qualified support for Planned Parenthood in the face of Republican criticism.”
Perhaps that’s because even after an onslaught of secretly-recorded videos accusing Planned Parenthood of illegally trafficking in fetal tissue, or as Republican hopefuls repeatedly put it, “baby parts,” Planned Parenthood remains very popular. An NBC News/WSJ poll conducted a month after the videos surfaced showed that Planned Parenthood was more popular than any other entity polled, more than the NRA, more than Barack Obama. A month later, another NBC News/WSJ poll found that six in 10 Americans opposed denying Planned Parenthood federal funds.
Planned Parenthood says that’s because, by its count, 1 in 5 women have visited their facilities at least once and formed its own conclusions. Subsequent investigations into Planned Parenthood over the videos have resulted in no charges for anyone but the anti-abortion activists who made them. They were indicted in Texas in an investigation that was supposed to bring down Planned Parenthood. That, too, may have also defused the videos’ impact beyond the most committed anti-abortion voters.
A total opposition to Planned Parenthood among Republicans is a relatively new phenomenon. In 2012, Barack Obama battered Mitt Romney for trying to defund the group, pointing out that the last Republican president didn’t hold that position. “George Bush never suggested that we eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood,” Obama said. Even then, the most incendiary statement Romney made about Planned Parenthood was far milder than the denunciations offered by almost all the Republican presidential candidates this year: “Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that.” That quote made its way into Obama’s second campaign ad of the cycle, and the attack line was credited with helping Obama turn out and win with unmarried women.
Trump’s position, while identical to Romney’s, is clouded by his repeated praise of Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services, giving the impression he is more moderate on the issue than his stated policy preference.
Trump’s victory, despite showering kind words on the bete noire of the anti-abortion movement, suggests that the movement is less powerful among the Republican electorate than has been previously suggested. The leaders of that movement repeatedly said Trump was an unacceptable pick, even before he told Chris Matthews that women who have abortions should be punished under a future ban, a seriously off-message statement Trump abruptly backed off of.
“On the issue of defending unborn children and protecting women from the violence of abortion, Mr. Trump cannot be trusted,” said movement leaders in a January statement signed by heads of the Susan B. Anthony List and the Concerned Women for America, among others.
That was then. This week, some of those groups, according to what they told the Washington Times, are falling in line behind Trump. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the Susan B. Anthony List, who did not respond to MSNBC’s request for comment, cited Trump’s support for defunding Planned Parenthood and a federal ban on abortions after 20 weeks. She said, “We’re expecting Trump to be a man of his word and follow through, just as he would on any issue.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Someone forgot to tell the GOP that more women vote than men.
* Relative to the other wingnut crazies...Trump is actually an improvement for PP. It's doubtful that he would make defunding PP a central goal of his administration.
* It is doubtful that he will have an administration, hence no need for goals.
* At being a flip flopper liar and traitor, sleazy Donald will say anything and switch sides if he thinks its a good con job opportunity.
* He's about to make all his money back. And then some.
* Let's wait and see what Trump says about PP in the coming weeks. We know these truths based on his recent behavior. 1. Says just about anything to fire up the base of the moment. 2. The people in his life have never found it necessary to avail themselves of PP services (we all know 97% of what PP does IS NOT abortion). 3. Women that are not model-standard beautiful have little to no value to him
...................................................................................................................................................................
How Planned Parenthood won the Republican primary
By Iron Carmon, May 6, 2016
Among the ways Donald Trump has departed from his party’s line, one has gone relatively unnoticed: his refusal to demonize Planned Parenthood. Even as he vows to strip it of federal funding for contraception and sexual health services because Planned Parenthood affiliates perform abortions, Trump has insisted the organization also does “wonderful things.”
At the outset of the primary race, Republican voters had their pick of Rick Santorum (who said Planned Parenthood should be prosecuted), Mike Huckabee (who implicitly equated the group with the shooter who killed three people outside a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood), Rick Perry (who presided over some of the most zealous defunding of Planned Parenthood in Texas), John Kasich (ditto in Ohio) Ted Cruz (who led the drive to shut down the federal government over Planned Parenthood funding), Jeb Bush (who said Planned Parenthood is “not actually doing women’s health issues”), Rand Paul (who proclaimed “there’s no reason in the world we have to fund Planned Parenthood at all”), Marco Rubio (who claimed Planned Parenthood offering fetal tissue donation “created an incentive for people to be pushed into abortion”), Chris Christie (who said of prioritizing defunding the group because it performs abortions, “I can’t think of anything bigger than that”), Ben Carson (who peddled the debunked myth that Planned Parenthood targets black neighborhoods), and Carly Fiorina (who falsely claimed Planned Parenthood was keeping fetuses alive to harvest their brains).
The voters passed. Instead, Republican voters lined up behind a man who said of Planned Parenthood, “I have a lot of respect for some of the things they do, the cervical cancer on women.”
While Trump’s statements on Planned Parenthood don’t explain why he won, it is nonetheless notable that his refusal to demonize an organization anti-abortion groups consider responsible for genocide was no deal breaker for a majority of primary voters.
Not that Trump’s opponents didn’t try to make it a deal beaker. In the waning days before the Indiana primary, Cruz said, “Donald can’t criticize Hillary Clinton on Planned Parenthood, because he agrees with her. They both say it’s terrific and—and that it should keep taxpayer funding.”
That’s not true. Hillary Clinton told Fusion she wants to expand funding to Planned Parenthood. Trump has repeatedly said he would strip Planned Parenthood of its funding — none of which goes to abortion — as long as it continues to provide abortions. Regardless, Indiana voters, whose governor Mike Pence led the initial charge against Planned Parenthood when he was in Congress, did not care. Nor did enough voters care that anti-abortion groups urged them towards almost anyone but Trump.
Trump’s relatively mild line on Planned Parenthood has been attributed to his daughter Ivanka, whom he has also credited with helping him push back at charges that he is anti-woman. Last August, Trump told Sean Hannity that after Jeb Bush questioned whether women’s health needed to be funded at all, “I said, ‘Wow, that’s incredible, that’s a really stupid statement to make,’ and Ivanka is so much into that whole issue of women’s health and women, and she’s my guide on that whole subject, but she understands how I feel about it.” In its profile of Ivanka Trump, The New York Times cited an unnamed source close to Trump saying she had ”successfully convinced her father to maintain his qualified support for Planned Parenthood in the face of Republican criticism.”
Perhaps that’s because even after an onslaught of secretly-recorded videos accusing Planned Parenthood of illegally trafficking in fetal tissue, or as Republican hopefuls repeatedly put it, “baby parts,” Planned Parenthood remains very popular. An NBC News/WSJ poll conducted a month after the videos surfaced showed that Planned Parenthood was more popular than any other entity polled, more than the NRA, more than Barack Obama. A month later, another NBC News/WSJ poll found that six in 10 Americans opposed denying Planned Parenthood federal funds.
Planned Parenthood says that’s because, by its count, 1 in 5 women have visited their facilities at least once and formed its own conclusions. Subsequent investigations into Planned Parenthood over the videos have resulted in no charges for anyone but the anti-abortion activists who made them. They were indicted in Texas in an investigation that was supposed to bring down Planned Parenthood. That, too, may have also defused the videos’ impact beyond the most committed anti-abortion voters.
A total opposition to Planned Parenthood among Republicans is a relatively new phenomenon. In 2012, Barack Obama battered Mitt Romney for trying to defund the group, pointing out that the last Republican president didn’t hold that position. “George Bush never suggested that we eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood,” Obama said. Even then, the most incendiary statement Romney made about Planned Parenthood was far milder than the denunciations offered by almost all the Republican presidential candidates this year: “Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that.” That quote made its way into Obama’s second campaign ad of the cycle, and the attack line was credited with helping Obama turn out and win with unmarried women.
Trump’s position, while identical to Romney’s, is clouded by his repeated praise of Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services, giving the impression he is more moderate on the issue than his stated policy preference.
Trump’s victory, despite showering kind words on the bete noire of the anti-abortion movement, suggests that the movement is less powerful among the Republican electorate than has been previously suggested. The leaders of that movement repeatedly said Trump was an unacceptable pick, even before he told Chris Matthews that women who have abortions should be punished under a future ban, a seriously off-message statement Trump abruptly backed off of.
“On the issue of defending unborn children and protecting women from the violence of abortion, Mr. Trump cannot be trusted,” said movement leaders in a January statement signed by heads of the Susan B. Anthony List and the Concerned Women for America, among others.
That was then. This week, some of those groups, according to what they told the Washington Times, are falling in line behind Trump. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the Susan B. Anthony List, who did not respond to MSNBC’s request for comment, cited Trump’s support for defunding Planned Parenthood and a federal ban on abortions after 20 weeks. She said, “We’re expecting Trump to be a man of his word and follow through, just as he would on any issue.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Some environmental activists believe Corrigan’s comments are part of an effort by the Kochs to reach out to journalists and others, to be as a New Yorker article by Jane Mayer branded it, the New Koch, new packaging for the same old beliefs and interests."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* “I think Charles has said the climate is changing,” Corrigan said, referring to Charles Koch. “So the climate is changing..." Spoken with awe and reverence about a figure more powerful and credible to Republicans than God. Actually an incredible perspective on just how screwed up things are in the GOP. What's next? Will the Koch Bros decide women have rights? That gun laws are necessary? Surely, thou makest all things better God-Koch.
* Minds are like parachutes: they work better when they are open.
* It is a good thing for the Koch brothers that Koch is privately held. Otherwise they could become the subject of an investor fraud lawsuit due to their paying for climate denial propaganda while privately knowing that man-caused climate change is real and thus is an investment risk for all fossil fuel companies.
* The effects of greenhouse gases is a 100+ year old well-known scientific causation fact . . . not mere 'correlation'. And we know EXACTLY what to do. Pass a REVENUE NEUTRAL carbon tax that taxes carbon sources but gives the money back in other forms (reduced income tax, actual payments, etc.). Keep the incentives for green energy systems going. Make a big push toward electric cars. Improve building codes by requiring more insulation. Etc. It is pretty basic stuff but the right spins it all with crazy paranoid conspiracy theories saying it that it is a hoax. That's silly. ...................................................................................................................................................................
How a top environmentalist responds when a Koch executive acknowledges climate change
By Steven Mufson, May 3, 2016
Koch Industries, generally viewed as Lucifer by environmentalists, surprised people at a recent Wall Street Journal forum when the company’s director of environment, health and safety, Sheryl Corrigan, said that climate change is real and people have something to do with it.
“I think Charles has said the climate is changing,” Corrigan said, referring to Charles Koch. “So the climate is changing. I think he’s also said, and we believe, that humans have a part in that.”
But then she added, “what the real question is…what are we going to do about it? What is the right answer?”
This week, Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, who has no shortage of ideas about what to do about it, decided to write an open letter to Charles Koch making a few suggestions for starters.
“I wanted to write to welcome you into the not-very-exclusive club that includes the strong majority of Americans, 99+ percent of scientists, nearly all Democratic candidates and a growing number of conservative Republicans,” he wrote. “We’re happy to have you!”
Brune said his first suggestion was to speak up. “Your voice is an important one and I hope you’ll speak up if your opinion has truly changed.”
Next, he said “now that your position on climate change may be shifting, we hope that you’ll join the push toward the clean energy economy and invest in the clean energy sources that increasingly are powering America and the world.” Brune noted that these energy sources are “becoming more affordable and more accessible each day.”
Third, Brune said it was time for the Kochs to stop funding “organizations and political candidates who either deny climate science or oppose nearly every policy that would advance climate solutions.” He singled out the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has been campaigning to roll back renewable incentives in states.
Whether Brune gets a reply remains to be seen. Some environmental activists believe Corrigan’s comments are part of an effort by the Kochs to reach out to journalists and others, to be as a New Yorker article by Jane Mayer branded it, the New Koch, new packaging for the same old beliefs and interests. Koch Industries owns oil refineries, large lease holdings in the oil sands region of Alberta, and other energy investments.
But if Charles Koch, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has had a change of heart, it would be worth exploring, Brune said in an interview.
“We’re looking at this positively,” he said. “Once you have an institution that is one of the largest players in politics aggressively promoting climate denialism suddenly change its stance and say that climate change is real and humans have a role in solving it, that is a huge opportunity. It potentially represents a sea change in climate politics.”
Brune, noting that the brothers Charles and David Koch are expected to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns this year, said that “there are few things that get our members more worked up than Koch brothers messing with our elections, and messing with our climate.”
But he said that “eventually the Republican Party si going to have to come around on climate change.” And, he added, “in a cynical way, that can’t happen until two rich executives from Wichita, Kans. signal that it’s okay.”
Even if the Koch brothers were to recognize climate change, coming to any sort of an agreement between the likes of the Sierra Club and the libertarian, anti-regulation, anti-tax Kochs seems remote.
“When we have subsidies and mandates it can pervert that situation and make it that much harder to bring ideas forward,” Corrigan said at the Wall Street Journal event. She said “let those technologies compete and the market will sort it out.”
Brune said he would “love it” if there were “a competition in the marketplace of ideas” about the best way to phase in clean energy, increase prosperity and decrease emissions. He said maybe one of the sessions at the Kochs’ reported secret strategy sessions could be devoted to the topic. “I’d be happy to lead a workshop,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* “I think Charles has said the climate is changing,” Corrigan said, referring to Charles Koch. “So the climate is changing..." Spoken with awe and reverence about a figure more powerful and credible to Republicans than God. Actually an incredible perspective on just how screwed up things are in the GOP. What's next? Will the Koch Bros decide women have rights? That gun laws are necessary? Surely, thou makest all things better God-Koch.
* Minds are like parachutes: they work better when they are open.
* It is a good thing for the Koch brothers that Koch is privately held. Otherwise they could become the subject of an investor fraud lawsuit due to their paying for climate denial propaganda while privately knowing that man-caused climate change is real and thus is an investment risk for all fossil fuel companies.
* The effects of greenhouse gases is a 100+ year old well-known scientific causation fact . . . not mere 'correlation'. And we know EXACTLY what to do. Pass a REVENUE NEUTRAL carbon tax that taxes carbon sources but gives the money back in other forms (reduced income tax, actual payments, etc.). Keep the incentives for green energy systems going. Make a big push toward electric cars. Improve building codes by requiring more insulation. Etc. It is pretty basic stuff but the right spins it all with crazy paranoid conspiracy theories saying it that it is a hoax. That's silly. ...................................................................................................................................................................
How a top environmentalist responds when a Koch executive acknowledges climate change
By Steven Mufson, May 3, 2016
Koch Industries, generally viewed as Lucifer by environmentalists, surprised people at a recent Wall Street Journal forum when the company’s director of environment, health and safety, Sheryl Corrigan, said that climate change is real and people have something to do with it.
“I think Charles has said the climate is changing,” Corrigan said, referring to Charles Koch. “So the climate is changing. I think he’s also said, and we believe, that humans have a part in that.”
But then she added, “what the real question is…what are we going to do about it? What is the right answer?”
This week, Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, who has no shortage of ideas about what to do about it, decided to write an open letter to Charles Koch making a few suggestions for starters.
“I wanted to write to welcome you into the not-very-exclusive club that includes the strong majority of Americans, 99+ percent of scientists, nearly all Democratic candidates and a growing number of conservative Republicans,” he wrote. “We’re happy to have you!”
Brune said his first suggestion was to speak up. “Your voice is an important one and I hope you’ll speak up if your opinion has truly changed.”
Next, he said “now that your position on climate change may be shifting, we hope that you’ll join the push toward the clean energy economy and invest in the clean energy sources that increasingly are powering America and the world.” Brune noted that these energy sources are “becoming more affordable and more accessible each day.”
Third, Brune said it was time for the Kochs to stop funding “organizations and political candidates who either deny climate science or oppose nearly every policy that would advance climate solutions.” He singled out the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has been campaigning to roll back renewable incentives in states.
Whether Brune gets a reply remains to be seen. Some environmental activists believe Corrigan’s comments are part of an effort by the Kochs to reach out to journalists and others, to be as a New Yorker article by Jane Mayer branded it, the New Koch, new packaging for the same old beliefs and interests. Koch Industries owns oil refineries, large lease holdings in the oil sands region of Alberta, and other energy investments.
But if Charles Koch, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has had a change of heart, it would be worth exploring, Brune said in an interview.
“We’re looking at this positively,” he said. “Once you have an institution that is one of the largest players in politics aggressively promoting climate denialism suddenly change its stance and say that climate change is real and humans have a role in solving it, that is a huge opportunity. It potentially represents a sea change in climate politics.”
Brune, noting that the brothers Charles and David Koch are expected to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns this year, said that “there are few things that get our members more worked up than Koch brothers messing with our elections, and messing with our climate.”
But he said that “eventually the Republican Party si going to have to come around on climate change.” And, he added, “in a cynical way, that can’t happen until two rich executives from Wichita, Kans. signal that it’s okay.”
Even if the Koch brothers were to recognize climate change, coming to any sort of an agreement between the likes of the Sierra Club and the libertarian, anti-regulation, anti-tax Kochs seems remote.
“When we have subsidies and mandates it can pervert that situation and make it that much harder to bring ideas forward,” Corrigan said at the Wall Street Journal event. She said “let those technologies compete and the market will sort it out.”
Brune said he would “love it” if there were “a competition in the marketplace of ideas” about the best way to phase in clean energy, increase prosperity and decrease emissions. He said maybe one of the sessions at the Kochs’ reported secret strategy sessions could be devoted to the topic. “I’d be happy to lead a workshop,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"That Democratic advantage, 242-180 at the outset, may be the single most important pair of numbers to understand in determining the ultimate outcome of the race."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why the outcome of the 2016 election is already crystal clear
By Paul Waldman, May 4, 2016
The general election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump promises to be one of the weirdest, nastiest, and most fascinating cultural/political events of any of our lifetimes. So bear with me for a little while as I suck all the life out of it and explain why it's actually going to be pretty simple. The likely outcome, while not completely preordained, is already clear to see.
That's because of the strange and rather undemocratic feature of our presidential voting system known as the Electoral College. While an essay in favor of eliminating it will have to wait for another day, the key fact about the college is that it makes the race matter only in those states where both sides have some chance of winning, what we usually call the "battleground" states. There aren't very many of them, and even before the general election begins — i.e., even before Republicans nominate Donald Trump, perhaps the most unpopular major party nominee in history — the Democratic nominee has a serious advantage.
Let's take the last four elections, two won by Barack Obama and two won by George W. Bush, as our starting point. There were 17 states (plus D.C.) that Democrats won in all four of those elections: California, Oregon, and Washington in the West; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan in the Midwest; and everything in the Northeast from Maryland on up, with the exception of New Hampshire. Just those states give the Democrats 242 of the 270 electoral votes they need to take the White House.
The Republicans, on the other hand, won 22 states in all four of those elections, covering parts of the Deep South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West, plus Alaska. But those states only add up to 180 electoral votes.
While there are a few states in those two groups where things might become competitive — Republicans will contest Wisconsin, and Democrats think they have a chance in Arizona, for instance — the truth is that even in this unusual election year, none of them are likely to flip. Donald Trump could strangle a puppy on live television and he would still win Idaho and Mississippi; Hillary Clinton could make Martin Shkreli her running mate and she'd still win California and Massachusetts. But if any of those states do change, it's likely to be in Clinton's direction, given Trump's unpopularity.
That Democratic advantage, 242-180 at the outset, may be the single most important pair of numbers to understand in determining the ultimate outcome of the race. What it means is that Donald Trump will have to not just do well in swing states, he'll have to sweep almost all of them in order to win.
Here's a revealing comparison. In 2004, George W. Bush beat John Kerry by 2.5 percentage points nationwide — close, but compared to the 2000 election, a relatively easy victory. In doing so, he took the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. The only true swing state Kerry won was New Hampshire. Yet Bush won the Electoral College by a margin of only 35 electoral votes, 286-251.
Contrast that with 2012, when Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by 4 percentage points — a little more comfortable than Bush's 2004 win, but not hugely different. On the state level, Obama bested Bush's 2004 results only by taking New Hampshire. Yet Obama's margin in the Electoral College was enormous: 332-206, or 126 votes.
If Hillary Clinton starts with those 242 electoral votes, she only needs 28 more to win. As it happens, Florida has 29 electoral votes, so she could win there, lose every other swing state, and still win. Or she could take Virginia (13 EVs) and North Carolina (15 EVs) and lose all the others. Or she could take Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4), and Iowa (6) and lose all the others. Or...well, you get the idea. There are a whole variety of ways Clinton could win, while Trump has to run the table.
That isn't to say that the national result doesn't matter; it's only been in the rarest of circumstances (like 2000) that the total vote and the electoral vote pointed in opposite directions. But by now few people are saying that Donald Trump has such fantastic appeal to working class white men that he can steal states in the Midwest, or tap some heretofore unnoticed vein of votes. And you can forget about the momentary disgruntlement from supporters of Bernie Sanders playing a major role; in November, Clinton will retain the votes of nearly all Democrats. Barack Obama got the votes of 92 percent of Democrats in 2012, and she'll be in the same neighborhood.
Will Donald Trump do as well among Republicans? He might, as they realize that the alternative is Clinton, so they might as well go with their party's nominee even if he wasn't their first choice. But Trump only needs to bleed a couple of points in his party for the election to fall well out of his reach.
Looking at the election this way can make the daily back-and-forth of the campaign seem unimportant. But that's true only if you think that the final outcome is all that matters. It isn't; the campaign is an opportunity for us to discuss all kinds of issues and get to know ourselves as a country better, even if we don't always like what we see. This election will by turns be fascinating, outrageous, appalling, disgusting, disheartening, and perhaps even inspiring. But when it's all over, the chances that anyone will be saying the words "President Trump" are pretty low.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why the outcome of the 2016 election is already crystal clear
By Paul Waldman, May 4, 2016
The general election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump promises to be one of the weirdest, nastiest, and most fascinating cultural/political events of any of our lifetimes. So bear with me for a little while as I suck all the life out of it and explain why it's actually going to be pretty simple. The likely outcome, while not completely preordained, is already clear to see.
That's because of the strange and rather undemocratic feature of our presidential voting system known as the Electoral College. While an essay in favor of eliminating it will have to wait for another day, the key fact about the college is that it makes the race matter only in those states where both sides have some chance of winning, what we usually call the "battleground" states. There aren't very many of them, and even before the general election begins — i.e., even before Republicans nominate Donald Trump, perhaps the most unpopular major party nominee in history — the Democratic nominee has a serious advantage.
Let's take the last four elections, two won by Barack Obama and two won by George W. Bush, as our starting point. There were 17 states (plus D.C.) that Democrats won in all four of those elections: California, Oregon, and Washington in the West; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan in the Midwest; and everything in the Northeast from Maryland on up, with the exception of New Hampshire. Just those states give the Democrats 242 of the 270 electoral votes they need to take the White House.
The Republicans, on the other hand, won 22 states in all four of those elections, covering parts of the Deep South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West, plus Alaska. But those states only add up to 180 electoral votes.
While there are a few states in those two groups where things might become competitive — Republicans will contest Wisconsin, and Democrats think they have a chance in Arizona, for instance — the truth is that even in this unusual election year, none of them are likely to flip. Donald Trump could strangle a puppy on live television and he would still win Idaho and Mississippi; Hillary Clinton could make Martin Shkreli her running mate and she'd still win California and Massachusetts. But if any of those states do change, it's likely to be in Clinton's direction, given Trump's unpopularity.
That Democratic advantage, 242-180 at the outset, may be the single most important pair of numbers to understand in determining the ultimate outcome of the race. What it means is that Donald Trump will have to not just do well in swing states, he'll have to sweep almost all of them in order to win.
Here's a revealing comparison. In 2004, George W. Bush beat John Kerry by 2.5 percentage points nationwide — close, but compared to the 2000 election, a relatively easy victory. In doing so, he took the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. The only true swing state Kerry won was New Hampshire. Yet Bush won the Electoral College by a margin of only 35 electoral votes, 286-251.
Contrast that with 2012, when Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by 4 percentage points — a little more comfortable than Bush's 2004 win, but not hugely different. On the state level, Obama bested Bush's 2004 results only by taking New Hampshire. Yet Obama's margin in the Electoral College was enormous: 332-206, or 126 votes.
If Hillary Clinton starts with those 242 electoral votes, she only needs 28 more to win. As it happens, Florida has 29 electoral votes, so she could win there, lose every other swing state, and still win. Or she could take Virginia (13 EVs) and North Carolina (15 EVs) and lose all the others. Or she could take Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4), and Iowa (6) and lose all the others. Or...well, you get the idea. There are a whole variety of ways Clinton could win, while Trump has to run the table.
That isn't to say that the national result doesn't matter; it's only been in the rarest of circumstances (like 2000) that the total vote and the electoral vote pointed in opposite directions. But by now few people are saying that Donald Trump has such fantastic appeal to working class white men that he can steal states in the Midwest, or tap some heretofore unnoticed vein of votes. And you can forget about the momentary disgruntlement from supporters of Bernie Sanders playing a major role; in November, Clinton will retain the votes of nearly all Democrats. Barack Obama got the votes of 92 percent of Democrats in 2012, and she'll be in the same neighborhood.
Will Donald Trump do as well among Republicans? He might, as they realize that the alternative is Clinton, so they might as well go with their party's nominee even if he wasn't their first choice. But Trump only needs to bleed a couple of points in his party for the election to fall well out of his reach.
Looking at the election this way can make the daily back-and-forth of the campaign seem unimportant. But that's true only if you think that the final outcome is all that matters. It isn't; the campaign is an opportunity for us to discuss all kinds of issues and get to know ourselves as a country better, even if we don't always like what we see. This election will by turns be fascinating, outrageous, appalling, disgusting, disheartening, and perhaps even inspiring. But when it's all over, the chances that anyone will be saying the words "President Trump" are pretty low.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
RedState: ‘Confirm Merrick Garland Before It Is Too Late’
By Ian Millhiser, May 4, 2016
RedState, the influential conservative blog that has often helped shape the outcome of Republican primary elections and congressional Republican strategy, says its now time for Republicans to end their blockade of Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. “Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, this is not even a close call,” the site tells its readers, adding that “there is absolutely no reason to drag this out any longer.”
The conservative site’s new position, penned by RedState managing editor Leon Wolf, is hardly a robust endorsement of President Obama’s nominee. “Garland is not a great choice,” Wolf writes, “but he is not a terrible one, either.” Wolf sees Garland’s primary virtue as the fact that he is unlikely to remain on the Supreme Court for very long — “he is old (for a modern Supreme Court appointment) and will be up for replacement in probably 10 years instead of 20 or 30.”
That fact, Wolf writes, argues in favor of confirming Garland before he is replaced with someone else:
The question, however, is whether such softening will matter. Especially in a post-Citizens United world, it is very easy for interest groups to raise enough money to harass senators and to back a credible primary challenger in that senator’s next race. Thus, even if the overwhelming majority of movement conservatives break in favor of a Garland confirmation, Senate Republicans may still be spooked by small, minority factions that cling to their demands for maximal opposition.
...................................................................................................................................................................
RedState: ‘Confirm Merrick Garland Before It Is Too Late’
By Ian Millhiser, May 4, 2016
RedState, the influential conservative blog that has often helped shape the outcome of Republican primary elections and congressional Republican strategy, says its now time for Republicans to end their blockade of Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. “Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, this is not even a close call,” the site tells its readers, adding that “there is absolutely no reason to drag this out any longer.”
The conservative site’s new position, penned by RedState managing editor Leon Wolf, is hardly a robust endorsement of President Obama’s nominee. “Garland is not a great choice,” Wolf writes, “but he is not a terrible one, either.” Wolf sees Garland’s primary virtue as the fact that he is unlikely to remain on the Supreme Court for very long — “he is old (for a modern Supreme Court appointment) and will be up for replacement in probably 10 years instead of 20 or 30.”
That fact, Wolf writes, argues in favor of confirming Garland before he is replaced with someone else:
Republicans must know that there is absolutely no chance that we will win the White House in 2016 now. They must also know that we are likely to lose the Senate as well. So the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger, and we are in no position to stop it.This unqualified call for Republicans to change strategy could be an important development in the battle over the Supreme Court. From the moment Justice Antonin Scalia’s death created a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans were hemmed in by conservative interest groups that demanded maximal resistance to anyone President Obama named to fill this vacant seat. RedState, however, historically has been aligned with the factions that demand scorched earth tactics. So Wolf’s call for Garland’s confirmation suggests that even the most hardline Republicans could soften their position now that Trump is the nominee.
The question, however, is whether such softening will matter. Especially in a post-Citizens United world, it is very easy for interest groups to raise enough money to harass senators and to back a credible primary challenger in that senator’s next race. Thus, even if the overwhelming majority of movement conservatives break in favor of a Garland confirmation, Senate Republicans may still be spooked by small, minority factions that cling to their demands for maximal opposition.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Along with the rest of us!
......................................................................................................................................
"... Robert’s distortion of a critical term in our history has made a vocabulary fight into a constitutional crisis. It overturns laws that were designed to address truly dangerous big money forces."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* This election cycle is proof positive that Citizens United is irrelevant to how we pick leaders. Freedom and liberty are the only way to eliminate corruption. Disallowing speech, either because of money or content (think global warming or hate speech) destroys freedom and liberty which in turn eliminates any truth from rearing its politically incorrect head.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How the Supreme Court gets corruption totally wrong
By Zephyr Teachout, May 5, 2016
Members of Congress spend the majority of their time fundraising from wealthy donors, learning the smallest details about donors’ lives — at the expense of learning about the policy details most relevant to their legislative work. When they’re not fundraising, members may be anxious about meeting their fundraising quotas set by the national committees, or worried about offending the secret donors to powerful super PACs. This lurking fear undoubtedly shapes policy decisions, lest a wrong move trigger a deluge of attack ads from special interests.
The Supreme Court has said that none of this is corrupt or corrupting. That defies law, history and logic. In a recent case Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Any [campaign finance] regulation must instead target what we have called ‘quid pro quo’ corruption or its appearance. That Latin phrase captures the notion of a direct exchange of an official act for money.”
While quid pro quo is, in fact, a Latin phrase, that’s the extent of the rightness of his argument. The phrase comes from contract law, and traditionally was used to describe a relatively equal exchange between parties to a contract. It is not historically a phrase from corruption law. “Quid pro quo” appeared less than 100 times in all state and federal bribery and extortion cases before 1976. That year, Buckley v. Valeo struck down limits on campaign spending while upholding limits on campaign contributions. There, the Court used the phrase quid pro quo in passing. But the Roberts Court has clung to it, using it to narrow the definition of corruption and thus broaden the limits of what our representatives can do. This new standard is inappropriately limited and reveals an unrealistic view of the corruption in our politics.
Our founding generation understood that corruption happened whenever those in public power use public power for private ends. They also understood corruption as the central threat to the survival and flourishing of our country. During the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers debated the corruption implications of dozens of Constitutional provisions, and George Mason described their job as protecting against corruption lest the country “be at an end.” Alexander Hamilton described the convention as a project in enacting “every practical obstacle to corruption and cabal.”
We know the Founders weren’t just talking about direct exchanges of money for official action, because as Professor Larry Lessig has shown, only five of the 325 mentions of “corruption” in the debates around the ratification of our Constitution referred to what would now be considered criminal bribery. The rest referred to instances where those in public power used that power for private, selfish ends. The fact that the narrow quid pro quo definition has replaced the traditional idea of corruption is not just bad history; it’s a dangerous misunderstanding.
The stakes are high. The quid pro quo understanding is vastly naïve, and Robert’s distortion of a critical term in our history has made a vocabulary fight into a constitutional crisis. It overturns laws that were designed to address truly dangerous big money forces.
Lobbyists have gained grotesque amounts of power in legislation, allowed to use campaign cash and the revolving door of political appointees to gain influence. According to the Court, as long as you don’t say magic words of exchange while talking to a lawmaker, your financial support is not corrupting, even if it sways legislation and policy. To add insult to injury, the Court is now — in McDonnell v. US — also considering narrowing traditional bribery laws as well, adding requirements before prosecutors can bring basic federal corruption charges. A tendency to constrain corruption in both campaign finance and criminal bribery law will lead citizens with few tools to fight a serious threat to our democratic culture.
It’s common sense that big money is corrupting: When corporations spend vast amounts of money, they do it because they they know that they can use that capital to exert their influence. A 2014 study by the Sunlight Foundation showed that $5.8 billion spent by corporations in lobbying and campaign contributions reaped some $4.4 trillion in federal business and subsidies for those corporations. They do it because it works.
But it doesn’t work for democracy. We need to revive the traditional understanding of corruption, overturn Citizens United and continue the long American fight for freedom from powerful interests.
What will that mean? First and foremost, it means public financing of elections, which Teddy Roosevelt called for long ago. Public financing allows candidates who show some threshold amount of public support to receive sufficient funding for their campaigns. Congressman John Sarbanes has introduced legislation that would match small contributions with public funds, and free candidates and officeholders from begging from big donors. This legislation would broaden and diversify democratic participation, in our voters and candidates alike.
Only with independence from outside interests can our representatives disentangle from the corruption of our current system.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* This election cycle is proof positive that Citizens United is irrelevant to how we pick leaders. Freedom and liberty are the only way to eliminate corruption. Disallowing speech, either because of money or content (think global warming or hate speech) destroys freedom and liberty which in turn eliminates any truth from rearing its politically incorrect head.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How the Supreme Court gets corruption totally wrong
By Zephyr Teachout, May 5, 2016
Members of Congress spend the majority of their time fundraising from wealthy donors, learning the smallest details about donors’ lives — at the expense of learning about the policy details most relevant to their legislative work. When they’re not fundraising, members may be anxious about meeting their fundraising quotas set by the national committees, or worried about offending the secret donors to powerful super PACs. This lurking fear undoubtedly shapes policy decisions, lest a wrong move trigger a deluge of attack ads from special interests.
The Supreme Court has said that none of this is corrupt or corrupting. That defies law, history and logic. In a recent case Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Any [campaign finance] regulation must instead target what we have called ‘quid pro quo’ corruption or its appearance. That Latin phrase captures the notion of a direct exchange of an official act for money.”
While quid pro quo is, in fact, a Latin phrase, that’s the extent of the rightness of his argument. The phrase comes from contract law, and traditionally was used to describe a relatively equal exchange between parties to a contract. It is not historically a phrase from corruption law. “Quid pro quo” appeared less than 100 times in all state and federal bribery and extortion cases before 1976. That year, Buckley v. Valeo struck down limits on campaign spending while upholding limits on campaign contributions. There, the Court used the phrase quid pro quo in passing. But the Roberts Court has clung to it, using it to narrow the definition of corruption and thus broaden the limits of what our representatives can do. This new standard is inappropriately limited and reveals an unrealistic view of the corruption in our politics.
Our founding generation understood that corruption happened whenever those in public power use public power for private ends. They also understood corruption as the central threat to the survival and flourishing of our country. During the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers debated the corruption implications of dozens of Constitutional provisions, and George Mason described their job as protecting against corruption lest the country “be at an end.” Alexander Hamilton described the convention as a project in enacting “every practical obstacle to corruption and cabal.”
We know the Founders weren’t just talking about direct exchanges of money for official action, because as Professor Larry Lessig has shown, only five of the 325 mentions of “corruption” in the debates around the ratification of our Constitution referred to what would now be considered criminal bribery. The rest referred to instances where those in public power used that power for private, selfish ends. The fact that the narrow quid pro quo definition has replaced the traditional idea of corruption is not just bad history; it’s a dangerous misunderstanding.
The stakes are high. The quid pro quo understanding is vastly naïve, and Robert’s distortion of a critical term in our history has made a vocabulary fight into a constitutional crisis. It overturns laws that were designed to address truly dangerous big money forces.
Lobbyists have gained grotesque amounts of power in legislation, allowed to use campaign cash and the revolving door of political appointees to gain influence. According to the Court, as long as you don’t say magic words of exchange while talking to a lawmaker, your financial support is not corrupting, even if it sways legislation and policy. To add insult to injury, the Court is now — in McDonnell v. US — also considering narrowing traditional bribery laws as well, adding requirements before prosecutors can bring basic federal corruption charges. A tendency to constrain corruption in both campaign finance and criminal bribery law will lead citizens with few tools to fight a serious threat to our democratic culture.
It’s common sense that big money is corrupting: When corporations spend vast amounts of money, they do it because they they know that they can use that capital to exert their influence. A 2014 study by the Sunlight Foundation showed that $5.8 billion spent by corporations in lobbying and campaign contributions reaped some $4.4 trillion in federal business and subsidies for those corporations. They do it because it works.
But it doesn’t work for democracy. We need to revive the traditional understanding of corruption, overturn Citizens United and continue the long American fight for freedom from powerful interests.
What will that mean? First and foremost, it means public financing of elections, which Teddy Roosevelt called for long ago. Public financing allows candidates who show some threshold amount of public support to receive sufficient funding for their campaigns. Congressman John Sarbanes has introduced legislation that would match small contributions with public funds, and free candidates and officeholders from begging from big donors. This legislation would broaden and diversify democratic participation, in our voters and candidates alike.
Only with independence from outside interests can our representatives disentangle from the corruption of our current system.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... under McConnell (R-Ky.), the current Senate has confirmed the fewest civilian presidential nominees of any Congress in the past 30 years."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Dear Mitchell, by stalling anything to do with President Obama you are really hurting the US people. Obviously you do not care about the US people very much. That's okeh because in January you will be relegated back to the minority leader status in the US Senate and someone responsible and grown up will help to move our great country forward and help the good people of the United States of America. Goodbye Mitchell
* The Republican refusal to vote on the Supreme Court nomination in favor of permitting some unnamed future constituency to influence the nomination process effectively disenfranchises President Obama's constituents. What the Republicans are doing (disenfranchising us) is unconstitutional. Impeachment hearings against Sen. Grassley should start immediately. The Republicans have no constitutional right to impose some "lame duck" fabrication on President Obama's authority. This is flagrant partisan politics trying to control the Judicial Branch of the government; something the Framers of the Constitution tried hard to avoid. Impeach all the miscreants!!!
* In the past twenty five (25) years .....the Republican Party hasn't initiated, proposed or accomplished ANYTHING .... to make America a better place for Americans. In 2014, the electorate was fooled into believing that if they could just take control of both House and Senate .... the Republicans could get something done. The electorate attentively listened to Republican Marsha Blackburn rant on Sunday talk shows on how Harry Reid had a pile of job bills sitting on his desk. Over and over again .... Republicans drove this message home and the electorate refused to believe that a team of economist at the Brookings Institute soundly criticized the bills as a bad joke.....that the Republican job's bills really wouldn't create jobs! Well everyone .... especially Republicans who voted for these do-nothing drones in 2014 ..... where's the beef? Where are those 400 Harry Reid bills? Why haven't you retrieved the bills and floated them for a vote? The American electorate knows why! Don't we?
* Crooks like Mitch McConnell are the reason Republican party is imploding.
* Yes! Please, whatever state he represents, he needs to be voted out of office.
* McConnell has a problem with the nominee.. Is nominee a problem because he is a black Muslim? No, He is a white Jew. Is nominee a problem because he is young and will serve many decades? No, he is 63. Is nominee a problem because Democrats approved him for present job? No, Republicans mostly approved. Is nominee a problem because the people should decide? No, they decided four years ago. Is nominee a problem because he bloched the Oklahoma Bomber and Unibomer cases? No, excellent job. Is Senate doing its job? No. Is President doing his job? Yes.
..................................................................................................................................................................
Mitch McConnell’s Senate is confirming very, very few presidential nominees
By Mike DeBonis, May 5, 2016
Since taking the reins of the Senate last year, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has striven to portray the upper house as “working again” under his Republican majority after years of partisan gridlock — passing major legislation on transportation, Medicare, drug abuse and more.
But by one measure highlighted by Democrats, the Senate has done remarkably little: An analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that, under McConnell (R-Ky.), the current Senate has confirmed the fewest civilian presidential nominees of any Congress in the past 30 years.
Through April 30, 198 of President Obama’s nominees have won confirmation in the 114th Congress, excluding military appointments. Compare that to the 345 nominees confirmed up to that date in the final two years of President George W. Bush’s tenure, or the 286 nominees confirmed in the comparable window under President Bill Clinton.
The analysis was commissioned by Senate Democratic leaders, who have bristled at McConnell’s attempts to portray the Senate as newly well-functioning. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) blamed repeated Republican filibusters for shutting down the Senate earlier in Obama’s term and says the only reason the Senate is working again is because Democrats are willing to work in the minority to pass bipartisan bills.
“The Republican Senate is making history for all the wrong reasons,” Reid said in a statement. “Since taking the Senate majority, Republicans have doubled down on their commitment to gridlock, confirming the fewest nominations in decades. This is yet another example of Senate Republicans refusing to do their jobs.”
The difficulty of getting Obama’s nominations confirmed was highlighted last week when the Senate acted, after months of delay, to confirm Roberta Jacobson as ambassador to Mexico after a complicated political deal involving three GOP senators.
The report comes as Democrats are making a new push for the confirmation of Obama’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy caused by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. Republicans have vowed to block Merrick Garland’s confirmation until the next president is elected, and Democrats are seizing on the ascension of Donald Trump to presumptive GOP presidential nominee to undermine that stance.
The current Senate’s record is particularly dim on judicial confirmations. Obama has seen 17 lifetime judges confirmed in the past 16 months, compared to 45 for Bush in the same time frame, 40 for Clinton, and a whopping 82 for George H.W. Bush (including a Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas).
But Republicans have countered by pointing out that a similar number of Obama and George W. Bush judicial nominees have been confirmed overall, thanks to a lame duck flurry of confirmations in late 2014, after Democrats lost the Senate.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the Democratic analysis also “counts each nomination, no matter how small, with the same weight as legislation, no matter how large,” and pointed to a Washington Post Fact Checker item that dismissed Reid’s claim in December that this is “the most unproductive Senate in the history of the country.”
“A vote on the deputy undersecretary of commerce is not the same as passing the first multi-year highway bill in a decade,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Dear Mitchell, by stalling anything to do with President Obama you are really hurting the US people. Obviously you do not care about the US people very much. That's okeh because in January you will be relegated back to the minority leader status in the US Senate and someone responsible and grown up will help to move our great country forward and help the good people of the United States of America. Goodbye Mitchell
* The Republican refusal to vote on the Supreme Court nomination in favor of permitting some unnamed future constituency to influence the nomination process effectively disenfranchises President Obama's constituents. What the Republicans are doing (disenfranchising us) is unconstitutional. Impeachment hearings against Sen. Grassley should start immediately. The Republicans have no constitutional right to impose some "lame duck" fabrication on President Obama's authority. This is flagrant partisan politics trying to control the Judicial Branch of the government; something the Framers of the Constitution tried hard to avoid. Impeach all the miscreants!!!
* In the past twenty five (25) years .....the Republican Party hasn't initiated, proposed or accomplished ANYTHING .... to make America a better place for Americans. In 2014, the electorate was fooled into believing that if they could just take control of both House and Senate .... the Republicans could get something done. The electorate attentively listened to Republican Marsha Blackburn rant on Sunday talk shows on how Harry Reid had a pile of job bills sitting on his desk. Over and over again .... Republicans drove this message home and the electorate refused to believe that a team of economist at the Brookings Institute soundly criticized the bills as a bad joke.....that the Republican job's bills really wouldn't create jobs! Well everyone .... especially Republicans who voted for these do-nothing drones in 2014 ..... where's the beef? Where are those 400 Harry Reid bills? Why haven't you retrieved the bills and floated them for a vote? The American electorate knows why! Don't we?
* Crooks like Mitch McConnell are the reason Republican party is imploding.
* Yes! Please, whatever state he represents, he needs to be voted out of office.
* McConnell has a problem with the nominee.. Is nominee a problem because he is a black Muslim? No, He is a white Jew. Is nominee a problem because he is young and will serve many decades? No, he is 63. Is nominee a problem because Democrats approved him for present job? No, Republicans mostly approved. Is nominee a problem because the people should decide? No, they decided four years ago. Is nominee a problem because he bloched the Oklahoma Bomber and Unibomer cases? No, excellent job. Is Senate doing its job? No. Is President doing his job? Yes.
..................................................................................................................................................................
Mitch McConnell’s Senate is confirming very, very few presidential nominees
By Mike DeBonis, May 5, 2016
Since taking the reins of the Senate last year, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has striven to portray the upper house as “working again” under his Republican majority after years of partisan gridlock — passing major legislation on transportation, Medicare, drug abuse and more.
But by one measure highlighted by Democrats, the Senate has done remarkably little: An analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that, under McConnell (R-Ky.), the current Senate has confirmed the fewest civilian presidential nominees of any Congress in the past 30 years.
Through April 30, 198 of President Obama’s nominees have won confirmation in the 114th Congress, excluding military appointments. Compare that to the 345 nominees confirmed up to that date in the final two years of President George W. Bush’s tenure, or the 286 nominees confirmed in the comparable window under President Bill Clinton.
The analysis was commissioned by Senate Democratic leaders, who have bristled at McConnell’s attempts to portray the Senate as newly well-functioning. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) blamed repeated Republican filibusters for shutting down the Senate earlier in Obama’s term and says the only reason the Senate is working again is because Democrats are willing to work in the minority to pass bipartisan bills.
“The Republican Senate is making history for all the wrong reasons,” Reid said in a statement. “Since taking the Senate majority, Republicans have doubled down on their commitment to gridlock, confirming the fewest nominations in decades. This is yet another example of Senate Republicans refusing to do their jobs.”
The difficulty of getting Obama’s nominations confirmed was highlighted last week when the Senate acted, after months of delay, to confirm Roberta Jacobson as ambassador to Mexico after a complicated political deal involving three GOP senators.
The report comes as Democrats are making a new push for the confirmation of Obama’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy caused by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. Republicans have vowed to block Merrick Garland’s confirmation until the next president is elected, and Democrats are seizing on the ascension of Donald Trump to presumptive GOP presidential nominee to undermine that stance.
The current Senate’s record is particularly dim on judicial confirmations. Obama has seen 17 lifetime judges confirmed in the past 16 months, compared to 45 for Bush in the same time frame, 40 for Clinton, and a whopping 82 for George H.W. Bush (including a Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas).
But Republicans have countered by pointing out that a similar number of Obama and George W. Bush judicial nominees have been confirmed overall, thanks to a lame duck flurry of confirmations in late 2014, after Democrats lost the Senate.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the Democratic analysis also “counts each nomination, no matter how small, with the same weight as legislation, no matter how large,” and pointed to a Washington Post Fact Checker item that dismissed Reid’s claim in December that this is “the most unproductive Senate in the history of the country.”
“A vote on the deputy undersecretary of commerce is not the same as passing the first multi-year highway bill in a decade,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Never thought I'd be saying this, but for once I agree with both former presidents.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Its unfortunate that a family that takes class so seriously can't show a little.
* bush's endorsement is the KISS OF DEATH. he should be serving time or worse.
* Great, from what I have learned, if either one of these humans endorsed anyone, I would not vote for them. Both are pit vipers
* They are just angry that the Bush political legacy is over!
* I"m glad the Bushes will not endorse anyone. Sometimes silence is golden.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Both Former Presidents Bush Don’t Plan to Endorse Donald Trump
By Katie Reilly, May 4, 2016
Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush do not plan to endorse anyone in the the 2016 presidential race.
The father and brother of Jeb Bush, who dropped out of the Republican primary race in February, said they won't participate in the election process and won't endorse presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, the Texas Tribune reported on Wednesday.
"At age 91, President Bush is retired from politics," Jim McGrath, the 41st president's spokesman, said in an email Wednesday, the Tribune reported. "He came out of retirement to do a few things for Jeb, but those were the exceptions that proved the rule."
George W. Bush's personal aide, Freddy Ford, said the 43rd president "does not plan to participate in or comment on the presidential campaign," the Tribune reported.
Both former presidents have endorsed previous Republican nominees, supporting Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.
Jeb Bush endorsed Ted Cruz in March, calling him a "consistent, principled conservative." Cruz ended his campaign for president after losing the Indiana primary on Tuesday.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Its unfortunate that a family that takes class so seriously can't show a little.
* bush's endorsement is the KISS OF DEATH. he should be serving time or worse.
* Great, from what I have learned, if either one of these humans endorsed anyone, I would not vote for them. Both are pit vipers
* They are just angry that the Bush political legacy is over!
* I"m glad the Bushes will not endorse anyone. Sometimes silence is golden.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Both Former Presidents Bush Don’t Plan to Endorse Donald Trump
By Katie Reilly, May 4, 2016
Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush do not plan to endorse anyone in the the 2016 presidential race.
The father and brother of Jeb Bush, who dropped out of the Republican primary race in February, said they won't participate in the election process and won't endorse presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, the Texas Tribune reported on Wednesday.
"At age 91, President Bush is retired from politics," Jim McGrath, the 41st president's spokesman, said in an email Wednesday, the Tribune reported. "He came out of retirement to do a few things for Jeb, but those were the exceptions that proved the rule."
George W. Bush's personal aide, Freddy Ford, said the 43rd president "does not plan to participate in or comment on the presidential campaign," the Tribune reported.
Both former presidents have endorsed previous Republican nominees, supporting Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.
Jeb Bush endorsed Ted Cruz in March, calling him a "consistent, principled conservative." Cruz ended his campaign for president after losing the Indiana primary on Tuesday.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'Anybody who attacks people in the manner that he attacks people … that's evil.'"
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The real trick is to find a politician that isn't an evil character. The very nature of the job corrupts even the purest heart. Still, it is easier to find an honest politician than it is to find a member/owner of the media that isn't pushing their personal agenda and opinions as factual news.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Barry Diller: Donald Trump is 'actually of evil character'
By Fred Imbert, May 5, 2016
Media mogul Barry Diller had some harsh words about Donald Trump on Thursday.
"There's nobody that I've ever known, ever, that's risen to the presidency that was actually of evil character," he told CNBC's "Squawk on the Street." "Anybody who attacks people in the manner that he attacks people … that's evil."
Soon after Trump swept to a strong victory in Indiana on Tuesday, his two remaining opponents — Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — suspended their campaigns. With no one standing in his way, Trump ascended to the status of presumptive Republican nominee.
Diller is also a supporter of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The real trick is to find a politician that isn't an evil character. The very nature of the job corrupts even the purest heart. Still, it is easier to find an honest politician than it is to find a member/owner of the media that isn't pushing their personal agenda and opinions as factual news.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Barry Diller: Donald Trump is 'actually of evil character'
By Fred Imbert, May 5, 2016
Media mogul Barry Diller had some harsh words about Donald Trump on Thursday.
"There's nobody that I've ever known, ever, that's risen to the presidency that was actually of evil character," he told CNBC's "Squawk on the Street." "Anybody who attacks people in the manner that he attacks people … that's evil."
Soon after Trump swept to a strong victory in Indiana on Tuesday, his two remaining opponents — Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — suspended their campaigns. With no one standing in his way, Trump ascended to the status of presumptive Republican nominee.
Diller is also a supporter of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
"To say big donors are turned off by Trump might be an understatement. ... some of the party’s most prolific benefactors talked openly about backing the expected standard-bearer for the rival party." Take that, Donald!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The big donors have been put in their place and they aren't use to playing to someone elses tune.
* So, what's your reaction to him stating that he won't be self-financing, as he previously promised, and will instead be fundraising from the same lobbyists and donors as everyone else?
* I think it's more big donors don't want to waste their money, Trump is going to lose badly and they know it, so they will hang onto their cash for more viable candidates. There is no reason they should throw their money away.
* The 'donor class' has aleady been shown the door once by the Trump supporters. If anything, this election has shown that their money isn't magic. Otherwise, we would be looking at the Bush Rubio ticket this morning.
* So why is the orange buffoon contemplating taking their money (if offered)?
* Oh, come now. The Republicans have been using racism and xenophobia to sell their "brand" since the Nixon campaign. They have appealed to the basest of emotions to win elections, and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass, because Donald outdid them in the emotional appeal to the disempowered and easily misled crowd who have voted against their own interests for decades because they voted on emotion, not thought.
* There is no little fairy in the sky to blame this on. . . this is punishment for our country being dumbed-down by reality TV.
* If you think that Trump will be a "Republican president," you haven't been paying attention. He has no moral center, no convictions held with consistency over time, no "hows" to implement his "whats." Conflating slogans with plans is not the ilk of a man who can lead. Seven bankruptcies and a string of product failures is a good indicator about his ability to run anything and how he reacts to problems. He calls in the lawyers and runs from his financial responsibilities. None of his qualities mark him as a leader and none of what he says shows signs that he has thought about it. Not a leader. fedupwithdonaldtrump.com. Go there and vote.
...................................................................................................................................................................
What the Kochs think about Trump now
Top GOP officials are warming to the party's presumptive nominee, but the donor class remains unswayed.
By Alex Isenstadt, May 5, 2016
Republican donors want nothing to do with Donald Trump.
On Wednesday morning, the presumptive GOP nominee, who has largely self-financed his presidential bid so far, announced that he would be soliciting checks from small contributors and would soon make a decision about whether to accept big contributions from the ranks of Republican megadonors.
But in interviews with more than a dozen major GOP funders, not one on Wednesday would commit to donating to Trump. Some raised the possibility that they would focus solely on giving to House or Senate candidates.
Others went further in expressing their discontent: Representatives of Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who helped to bankroll the rise of the tea party, warned the brothers could sit out the presidential campaign entirely — or even back Hillary Clinton.
With so many of the GOP’s funders closing their checkbooks, battles over money are breaking out behind closed doors. And as concern grows that Republicans will suffer a shortfall that could stymie candidates up and down the ballot, some foresee looming cash fights pitting Trump against congressional Republicans who are anxious to preserve their hard-won majorities.
“There will definitely be high competition for resources,” said Curt Anderson, a former Republican National Committee political director and veteran party strategist. “There’s going to be a push-and-pull. You have a nominee that isn’t universally liked, so there’s going to be a lot of jockeying.”
To say big donors are turned off by Trump might be an understatement. On the day that the GOP crowned a de facto nominee, some of the party’s most prolific benefactors talked openly about backing the expected standard-bearer for the rival party.
Brad Freeman, a Los Angeles investment banker who donated over $1 million to a pro-Jeb Bush super PAC and who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to congressional Republicans over the years, said he planned to donate to “one of the presidential candidates,” though he declined to say which party he’d support.
“Don’t have to decide before maybe October!” he added.
Perhaps the biggest surprise, though, might be the Kochs. Last month, Charles Koch told ABC News that it’s “possible” Clinton would make a better president than Trump. On Wednesday, a spokesman for the brothers declined to rule out the possibility of backing the former secretary of state, though he implicitly criticized both her campaign and Trump’s.
Mark Holden, the general counsel and senior vice president at Koch Industries, said Koch-funded political groups would consider supporting a general election candidate who is “able to garner support from the public with a positive message in support of the issues we care about, and did not engage in personal attacks and mudslinging.”
“That hasn’t happened yet and there is no indication that this will happen given the current tone and tenor of the various campaigns,” he added.
(On Thursday, a spokesman for the Koch-funded political arm Freedom Partners sought to clarify their position, indicating it was unlikely the Kochs would support Clinton. Her “big-government” policies, the spokesman said, were out-of-step with their goals.)
Even before Trump’s Indiana win, party officials had expressed concern about the state of the GOP’s finances — much of it surrounding the Republican National Committee, which ended March with just $16 million on hand and nearly $2 million in outstanding debt. Taken together, the bank account is a fraction of where the committee had been at similar points in 2008 and 2012.
The shortfall has raised alarms among congressional candidates in key battleground states, who traditionally rely on the committee to fund an aggressive field program. The RNC recently acknowledged that it would be directing field staffers to those states later than it initially hoped to.
Behind the scenes, tensions have grown. The RNC recently abruptly canceled a meeting with Pennsylvania Republicans to discuss planned field efforts, leading some party officials to express private frustration, according to three sources familiar with the situation. (An RNC spokeswoman said there had been a scheduling conflict, but the meeting had been rescheduled.) Adding to the strain, last month the RNC told The New York Times that it would establish a Senate Fund to boost candidates in tough races. Yet before announcing the program, it didn’t give a heads up to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, leaving staffers there fuming.
“First anyone here heard of it was in The New York Times,” an NRSC official said.
The RNC declined to directly address the back-and-forth with the Senate committee but said in a statement that “beyond ensuring we win back the White House we are committed to maintaining majorities in the House and Senate.”
With Trump clinching the nomination, the presumptive nominee and the RNC can establish a joint fundraising program that would allow the businessman to simultaneously raise money for himself and the committee. The RNC has attributed its cash shortfall to the protracted nature of the primary, making it impossible for the committee to reach such an agreement until now.
But, even as Trump embraces the mantle of GOP standard-bearer, questions persist about his ability to raise funds. The real estate mogul has shunned fundraising and lacks the donor network most party nominees typically have. He has railed against lobbyists and rainmakers and has bragged that, unlike other candidates seeking the presidency, he can’t be influenced by megadonors.
Yet as he turns to the general election, Trump will be relying on GOP contributors. The businessman said on Wednesday that, after spending more than $40 million out of his own pocket on the primary, he would only partly self-fund the fall campaign.
Many of the GOP’s biggest financiers, though, won’t commit to helping Trump bankroll what’s expected to be a challenging general election campaign.
“Will be watching it all carefully,” said Lawrence Bathgate, a prominent New Jersey attorney and former RNC finance chairman. “Very unusual cycle.”
“My wife would like me to give it up all together,” said Anthony Gioia, a major GOP contributor and former ambassador, adding that he was evaluating his options.
A spokesman for Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson declined to comment on his plans. So, too, did representatives of New York City hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. A spokesman for the Ricketts family, major GOP givers and owners of the Chicago Cubs, said no decision had been made on whether they’ll invest in the presidential race.
Others say they’re turning their attention to critical down-ballot contests, where candidates could find themselves at risk if Trump tanks. Randy Kendrick, the wife of Arizona Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick and a player in the Koch fundraising network, said she would be focused on funding congressional races. So, too, did Frayda Levy, a board member of the anti-tax Club for Growth and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity.
“If and how to participate in the presidential remains to be seen,” she added.
Said George Seay, a Dallas investor who was a major fundraiser for Marco Rubio: “I have gotten involved in some Senate races, but I’m pretty much sidelined politically for now.”
In some corners of the GOP fundraising world, the mood on Wednesday was downright morose. During an interview, one of Washington’s most influential lobbyists joked that he was considering opening up the window of his high-rise office building and jumping.
Others, though, were more sanguine. Trump, they reasoned, might not be so bad after all.
“I think we'll go through an initial phase of holding back,” said former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber, a prominent Washington lobbyist. “If Trump looks good, he'll convert all sorts of donors.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The big donors have been put in their place and they aren't use to playing to someone elses tune.
* So, what's your reaction to him stating that he won't be self-financing, as he previously promised, and will instead be fundraising from the same lobbyists and donors as everyone else?
* I think it's more big donors don't want to waste their money, Trump is going to lose badly and they know it, so they will hang onto their cash for more viable candidates. There is no reason they should throw their money away.
* The 'donor class' has aleady been shown the door once by the Trump supporters. If anything, this election has shown that their money isn't magic. Otherwise, we would be looking at the Bush Rubio ticket this morning.
* So why is the orange buffoon contemplating taking their money (if offered)?
* Oh, come now. The Republicans have been using racism and xenophobia to sell their "brand" since the Nixon campaign. They have appealed to the basest of emotions to win elections, and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass, because Donald outdid them in the emotional appeal to the disempowered and easily misled crowd who have voted against their own interests for decades because they voted on emotion, not thought.
* There is no little fairy in the sky to blame this on. . . this is punishment for our country being dumbed-down by reality TV.
* If you think that Trump will be a "Republican president," you haven't been paying attention. He has no moral center, no convictions held with consistency over time, no "hows" to implement his "whats." Conflating slogans with plans is not the ilk of a man who can lead. Seven bankruptcies and a string of product failures is a good indicator about his ability to run anything and how he reacts to problems. He calls in the lawyers and runs from his financial responsibilities. None of his qualities mark him as a leader and none of what he says shows signs that he has thought about it. Not a leader. fedupwithdonaldtrump.com. Go there and vote.
...................................................................................................................................................................
What the Kochs think about Trump now
Top GOP officials are warming to the party's presumptive nominee, but the donor class remains unswayed.
By Alex Isenstadt, May 5, 2016
Republican donors want nothing to do with Donald Trump.
On Wednesday morning, the presumptive GOP nominee, who has largely self-financed his presidential bid so far, announced that he would be soliciting checks from small contributors and would soon make a decision about whether to accept big contributions from the ranks of Republican megadonors.
But in interviews with more than a dozen major GOP funders, not one on Wednesday would commit to donating to Trump. Some raised the possibility that they would focus solely on giving to House or Senate candidates.
Others went further in expressing their discontent: Representatives of Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who helped to bankroll the rise of the tea party, warned the brothers could sit out the presidential campaign entirely — or even back Hillary Clinton.
With so many of the GOP’s funders closing their checkbooks, battles over money are breaking out behind closed doors. And as concern grows that Republicans will suffer a shortfall that could stymie candidates up and down the ballot, some foresee looming cash fights pitting Trump against congressional Republicans who are anxious to preserve their hard-won majorities.
“There will definitely be high competition for resources,” said Curt Anderson, a former Republican National Committee political director and veteran party strategist. “There’s going to be a push-and-pull. You have a nominee that isn’t universally liked, so there’s going to be a lot of jockeying.”
To say big donors are turned off by Trump might be an understatement. On the day that the GOP crowned a de facto nominee, some of the party’s most prolific benefactors talked openly about backing the expected standard-bearer for the rival party.
Brad Freeman, a Los Angeles investment banker who donated over $1 million to a pro-Jeb Bush super PAC and who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to congressional Republicans over the years, said he planned to donate to “one of the presidential candidates,” though he declined to say which party he’d support.
“Don’t have to decide before maybe October!” he added.
Perhaps the biggest surprise, though, might be the Kochs. Last month, Charles Koch told ABC News that it’s “possible” Clinton would make a better president than Trump. On Wednesday, a spokesman for the brothers declined to rule out the possibility of backing the former secretary of state, though he implicitly criticized both her campaign and Trump’s.
Mark Holden, the general counsel and senior vice president at Koch Industries, said Koch-funded political groups would consider supporting a general election candidate who is “able to garner support from the public with a positive message in support of the issues we care about, and did not engage in personal attacks and mudslinging.”
“That hasn’t happened yet and there is no indication that this will happen given the current tone and tenor of the various campaigns,” he added.
(On Thursday, a spokesman for the Koch-funded political arm Freedom Partners sought to clarify their position, indicating it was unlikely the Kochs would support Clinton. Her “big-government” policies, the spokesman said, were out-of-step with their goals.)
Even before Trump’s Indiana win, party officials had expressed concern about the state of the GOP’s finances — much of it surrounding the Republican National Committee, which ended March with just $16 million on hand and nearly $2 million in outstanding debt. Taken together, the bank account is a fraction of where the committee had been at similar points in 2008 and 2012.
The shortfall has raised alarms among congressional candidates in key battleground states, who traditionally rely on the committee to fund an aggressive field program. The RNC recently acknowledged that it would be directing field staffers to those states later than it initially hoped to.
Behind the scenes, tensions have grown. The RNC recently abruptly canceled a meeting with Pennsylvania Republicans to discuss planned field efforts, leading some party officials to express private frustration, according to three sources familiar with the situation. (An RNC spokeswoman said there had been a scheduling conflict, but the meeting had been rescheduled.) Adding to the strain, last month the RNC told The New York Times that it would establish a Senate Fund to boost candidates in tough races. Yet before announcing the program, it didn’t give a heads up to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, leaving staffers there fuming.
“First anyone here heard of it was in The New York Times,” an NRSC official said.
The RNC declined to directly address the back-and-forth with the Senate committee but said in a statement that “beyond ensuring we win back the White House we are committed to maintaining majorities in the House and Senate.”
With Trump clinching the nomination, the presumptive nominee and the RNC can establish a joint fundraising program that would allow the businessman to simultaneously raise money for himself and the committee. The RNC has attributed its cash shortfall to the protracted nature of the primary, making it impossible for the committee to reach such an agreement until now.
But, even as Trump embraces the mantle of GOP standard-bearer, questions persist about his ability to raise funds. The real estate mogul has shunned fundraising and lacks the donor network most party nominees typically have. He has railed against lobbyists and rainmakers and has bragged that, unlike other candidates seeking the presidency, he can’t be influenced by megadonors.
Yet as he turns to the general election, Trump will be relying on GOP contributors. The businessman said on Wednesday that, after spending more than $40 million out of his own pocket on the primary, he would only partly self-fund the fall campaign.
Many of the GOP’s biggest financiers, though, won’t commit to helping Trump bankroll what’s expected to be a challenging general election campaign.
“Will be watching it all carefully,” said Lawrence Bathgate, a prominent New Jersey attorney and former RNC finance chairman. “Very unusual cycle.”
“My wife would like me to give it up all together,” said Anthony Gioia, a major GOP contributor and former ambassador, adding that he was evaluating his options.
A spokesman for Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson declined to comment on his plans. So, too, did representatives of New York City hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. A spokesman for the Ricketts family, major GOP givers and owners of the Chicago Cubs, said no decision had been made on whether they’ll invest in the presidential race.
Others say they’re turning their attention to critical down-ballot contests, where candidates could find themselves at risk if Trump tanks. Randy Kendrick, the wife of Arizona Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick and a player in the Koch fundraising network, said she would be focused on funding congressional races. So, too, did Frayda Levy, a board member of the anti-tax Club for Growth and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity.
“If and how to participate in the presidential remains to be seen,” she added.
Said George Seay, a Dallas investor who was a major fundraiser for Marco Rubio: “I have gotten involved in some Senate races, but I’m pretty much sidelined politically for now.”
In some corners of the GOP fundraising world, the mood on Wednesday was downright morose. During an interview, one of Washington’s most influential lobbyists joked that he was considering opening up the window of his high-rise office building and jumping.
Others, though, were more sanguine. Trump, they reasoned, might not be so bad after all.
“I think we'll go through an initial phase of holding back,” said former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber, a prominent Washington lobbyist. “If Trump looks good, he'll convert all sorts of donors.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
The National Inquirer is the new bible?
..................................................................................
"'In the face of bigotry, hatred, violence, and small-mindedness, this time, I’m with her.'"
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The republicans have only themselves to blame. They stopped acting like republicans long ago. The voters would never go with the establishment which chooses to ignore their constituents.
* I've been saying all along, I WILL NOT VOTE for someone that says things like, "I could shoot someone and not lose votes". Since then all I have seen is HATE HATE HATE from so many of his supporters, especially on these blogs. It has reinforced my initial reaction to the shooting comment. If this is what he brings is HATE then I want NO part of it and will do ANYTHING I can to stop him. .In no way does Trump reflect American values or beliefs. He has a name for everyone, Lying Ted, Crooked Hilliary, Low Energy Kaisach, it is despicable and UN American. He suggests that a way someone EATS is non presidential, how childish. He even says his supporters will fall asleep if he doesn't entertain while on stage, so it isn't about being President it is about keeping everyone awake, WHAT AN INSULT. I'm a registered Republican and WILL NEVER vote for a monstrosity like Trump. He constantly changes what he says, punish women, oh no punish doctors only two hours later after he is told he just lost votes. He'd pay for legal fees for someone who is punching others that protest him. He is not a savior, many believe he'll go after illegals, YET he hires them instead of Americans. He was horrible in the debates, asked about sending jobs overseas and his response was "its OK", "everyone does it", "its not against the law", he didn't understand the POINT of the question. He was too stupid to realize the point was "what are you going to do about it as President", will you bring your jobs back to America to set an example. Yet no matter how stupid he looked he got more and more support from angry hateful people, because they didn't hear the things I heard. The man is a MONSTER FROM HELL and I will post this every single day until I have reached as many VOTERS as I can. They need to know the TRUTH.
* Here's what I don't understand, the GOP has been fighting Trump ever since he went rogue which was very early on. Why did they continue to allow him to run as a Republican? A party has to have some control over who gets to use their party name on a ballot. Don't reply with "Trump is great" comments because my question really has nothing to do with whether you support him or not. My question is about party control over ballot listings and whether there was a strategy around continuing to allow him to run while all the time acting like they hated it.
* Trump is a result of the current politics not the cause.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Meet the Republicans Who Say They’ll Vote for Hillary Clinton
By Tessa Berenson, May 4, 2016
When Ted Cruz unexpectedly dropped out of the presidential race Tuesday night, anti-Trump Republicans were left staring into what the Texas Senator earlier called “the abyss”: presumptive nominee Donald Trump.
Now some Republicans are being forced to reckon with a question they hoped they were never have to answer: Who would they support in a general election match-up against Hillary Clinton?
Disaffected Republicans have fallen into three groups so far. Some vowed never to vote for Trump, some said they will abandon the Republican Party entirely and some said they will actively support Clinton instead.
For those who are casting their ballots for Clinton in the fall, she appears merely as the lesser of two evils.
“At least it’s not going to disgrace the nation on the first day,” a former senior official in the George W. Bush administration said of voting for Clinton. “I don’t support her at all, but Trump is beyond the pale.”
“I think it’s a mess,”he added. “I mean what the hell even is the party?”
Ben Howe, a contributing editor at conservative website Red State, tweeted before Cruz dropped out, “I am a fiscal conservative and I am a social conservative. That will not change. But I will not vote for an egomaniacal authoritarian. Nope.” And then he followed simply with the Clinton campaign’s hashtag: #ImWithHer.
Mike Treiser, a former staffer on Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, wrote on Facebook: “In the face of bigotry, hatred, violence, and small-mindedness, this time, I’m with her.”
Mark Salter, a former strategist for John McCain, also announced on social media before the Indiana results rolled in that he would support Clinton. “He’s an awful human being,” Salter told TIME of Trump earlier that day. “He appeals to a sliver of the country that mystifies me.”
For her part, Clinton seems ready to seize this opportunity to broaden her voting base, calling out to Democrats, Independents and “thoughtful Republican[s]” during her Pennsylvania victory speech last week. And one of her spokespeople recently told the Associated Press, “We have an informed understanding that we could have the potential to expect support from not just Democrats and independents, but Republicans, too.”
After winning the Indiana primary, Trump took a conciliatory tone during his victory speech at Trump Tower. “We want to bring unity to the Republican Party,” he said. “We have to.”
But that party is one many lifelong members no longer recognize.
Philip Klein, the managing editor of the Washington Examiner, posted a photo Tuesday night of a voter identification form showing him officially changing his registration from Republican. And Cheri Jacobus, a GOP consultant and pundit who has been outspoken against Trump throughout the election, posted on Facebook, “I’m out. RIP GOP.”
“You all should do that,” conservative fireband radio host Steve Deace responded to GOP Chairman Reince Priebus’ call for party unity behind Trump. “But I won’t be one of you all.” He later also posted a photo of a signed registration form with a check mark next to “no party.”
“I registered Republican when I was 18 because I thought free markets and liberty were important,” pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson tweeted that night. “Not sure what ‘Republican’ means today.”
Meghan McCain, daughter of 2008 Republican nominee John McCain, summed it up in what sounds like the disheartened epitaph for the Grand Old Party: “I guess when I said in 2012 that my party was going to evolve or it was going to die – it was easier to choose death.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The republicans have only themselves to blame. They stopped acting like republicans long ago. The voters would never go with the establishment which chooses to ignore their constituents.
* I've been saying all along, I WILL NOT VOTE for someone that says things like, "I could shoot someone and not lose votes". Since then all I have seen is HATE HATE HATE from so many of his supporters, especially on these blogs. It has reinforced my initial reaction to the shooting comment. If this is what he brings is HATE then I want NO part of it and will do ANYTHING I can to stop him. .In no way does Trump reflect American values or beliefs. He has a name for everyone, Lying Ted, Crooked Hilliary, Low Energy Kaisach, it is despicable and UN American. He suggests that a way someone EATS is non presidential, how childish. He even says his supporters will fall asleep if he doesn't entertain while on stage, so it isn't about being President it is about keeping everyone awake, WHAT AN INSULT. I'm a registered Republican and WILL NEVER vote for a monstrosity like Trump. He constantly changes what he says, punish women, oh no punish doctors only two hours later after he is told he just lost votes. He'd pay for legal fees for someone who is punching others that protest him. He is not a savior, many believe he'll go after illegals, YET he hires them instead of Americans. He was horrible in the debates, asked about sending jobs overseas and his response was "its OK", "everyone does it", "its not against the law", he didn't understand the POINT of the question. He was too stupid to realize the point was "what are you going to do about it as President", will you bring your jobs back to America to set an example. Yet no matter how stupid he looked he got more and more support from angry hateful people, because they didn't hear the things I heard. The man is a MONSTER FROM HELL and I will post this every single day until I have reached as many VOTERS as I can. They need to know the TRUTH.
* Here's what I don't understand, the GOP has been fighting Trump ever since he went rogue which was very early on. Why did they continue to allow him to run as a Republican? A party has to have some control over who gets to use their party name on a ballot. Don't reply with "Trump is great" comments because my question really has nothing to do with whether you support him or not. My question is about party control over ballot listings and whether there was a strategy around continuing to allow him to run while all the time acting like they hated it.
* Trump is a result of the current politics not the cause.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Meet the Republicans Who Say They’ll Vote for Hillary Clinton
By Tessa Berenson, May 4, 2016
When Ted Cruz unexpectedly dropped out of the presidential race Tuesday night, anti-Trump Republicans were left staring into what the Texas Senator earlier called “the abyss”: presumptive nominee Donald Trump.
Now some Republicans are being forced to reckon with a question they hoped they were never have to answer: Who would they support in a general election match-up against Hillary Clinton?
Disaffected Republicans have fallen into three groups so far. Some vowed never to vote for Trump, some said they will abandon the Republican Party entirely and some said they will actively support Clinton instead.
For those who are casting their ballots for Clinton in the fall, she appears merely as the lesser of two evils.
“At least it’s not going to disgrace the nation on the first day,” a former senior official in the George W. Bush administration said of voting for Clinton. “I don’t support her at all, but Trump is beyond the pale.”
“I think it’s a mess,”he added. “I mean what the hell even is the party?”
Ben Howe, a contributing editor at conservative website Red State, tweeted before Cruz dropped out, “I am a fiscal conservative and I am a social conservative. That will not change. But I will not vote for an egomaniacal authoritarian. Nope.” And then he followed simply with the Clinton campaign’s hashtag: #ImWithHer.
Mike Treiser, a former staffer on Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, wrote on Facebook: “In the face of bigotry, hatred, violence, and small-mindedness, this time, I’m with her.”
Mark Salter, a former strategist for John McCain, also announced on social media before the Indiana results rolled in that he would support Clinton. “He’s an awful human being,” Salter told TIME of Trump earlier that day. “He appeals to a sliver of the country that mystifies me.”
For her part, Clinton seems ready to seize this opportunity to broaden her voting base, calling out to Democrats, Independents and “thoughtful Republican[s]” during her Pennsylvania victory speech last week. And one of her spokespeople recently told the Associated Press, “We have an informed understanding that we could have the potential to expect support from not just Democrats and independents, but Republicans, too.”
After winning the Indiana primary, Trump took a conciliatory tone during his victory speech at Trump Tower. “We want to bring unity to the Republican Party,” he said. “We have to.”
But that party is one many lifelong members no longer recognize.
Philip Klein, the managing editor of the Washington Examiner, posted a photo Tuesday night of a voter identification form showing him officially changing his registration from Republican. And Cheri Jacobus, a GOP consultant and pundit who has been outspoken against Trump throughout the election, posted on Facebook, “I’m out. RIP GOP.”
“You all should do that,” conservative fireband radio host Steve Deace responded to GOP Chairman Reince Priebus’ call for party unity behind Trump. “But I won’t be one of you all.” He later also posted a photo of a signed registration form with a check mark next to “no party.”
“I registered Republican when I was 18 because I thought free markets and liberty were important,” pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson tweeted that night. “Not sure what ‘Republican’ means today.”
Meghan McCain, daughter of 2008 Republican nominee John McCain, summed it up in what sounds like the disheartened epitaph for the Grand Old Party: “I guess when I said in 2012 that my party was going to evolve or it was going to die – it was easier to choose death.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"[B]lanket license" or no, Trump is doing the wrong thing.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* He doesn't want to pay ASCAP, that's how he remains rich, by not paying on contracts for new buildings or whatever else he can get away with! Guy is a stiff and a schmuck!
* Almost all Musicians despise the Orange Orangutan toupee clown.
* Same thing happened with Reagan, back in the 80s. He was running for re-election and tried appropriating some Springsteen songs. That ended fairly quickly. Some bands and artists are okay with it. Even though much of it can be legally used, it's just like anything else. It's nice to be asked. There is an appalling lack of civility. Being civil does not mean being politically correct. It means just being civil, and using the manners you were probably taught as a child. If you're asked to stop using someone's songs, just stop. There's no need to be contentious about everything. Trump's been using Twisted Sister, too. They're fine with it. There are plenty of other songs he can use. The Stones, and others, don't like Trump. He shouldn't use their stuff if they've asked him not to.
* The fact is that there are just a lot of artists that are just apolitical and just don't want to be involved. There are quite a few artists who have been asked and said no to campaigns using their music. Anyone who's even halfway familiar with the Stones knows that they would've done this even if it was a Democrat. I certainly can't imagine Keith going for it. Well, not until the check cleared at least, lol.
* What a completely moronic reply. Like the Stones "need" Trump and his idiots? Like a musician should be "so honored"?? It is probably THE biggest embarrassment in the world to have your music played at a Trump rally.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rolling Stones ask Trump to stop playing their songs
By The Associated Press, May 4, 2016
The Rolling Stones have asked presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to stop playing their songs at his campaign events.
In a statement Wednesday, the rock band said they have not given permission to the Trump campaign to use their songs and "have requested that they cease all use immediately."
A Trump campaign spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment or say whether they had a license to play their songs.
Trump, an avid music fan, has featured Rolling Stones songs at his rallies for months as part of a diverse soundtrack that includes Elton John, opera and classic rock songs. The Rolling Stones' 1969 classic "You Can't Always Get What You Want" was a popular song for his events, and during an event on Tuesday night, the campaign played "Start Me Up."
Adele and Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler both asked the candidate to stop using their recorded songs to fire up crowds. Neil Young also objected when the real estate mogul used "Rockin' in the Free World" during his campaign kickoff announcement last year. In those cases, the Trump campaign stopped using the songs.
Political campaigns don't need artists' permission to play their songs at rallies as long as the political organization or the venue has gotten what's known as a blanket license from the performing rights organizations ASCAP and BMI for all the music in the licensing group's repertoire.
But artists do have some recourse. BMI, for example, has said it has a provision in its license agreement that allows BMI songwriters or publishers to object to the use of their songs and they have the ability to exclude those songs from the blanket license.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* He doesn't want to pay ASCAP, that's how he remains rich, by not paying on contracts for new buildings or whatever else he can get away with! Guy is a stiff and a schmuck!
* Almost all Musicians despise the Orange Orangutan toupee clown.
* Same thing happened with Reagan, back in the 80s. He was running for re-election and tried appropriating some Springsteen songs. That ended fairly quickly. Some bands and artists are okay with it. Even though much of it can be legally used, it's just like anything else. It's nice to be asked. There is an appalling lack of civility. Being civil does not mean being politically correct. It means just being civil, and using the manners you were probably taught as a child. If you're asked to stop using someone's songs, just stop. There's no need to be contentious about everything. Trump's been using Twisted Sister, too. They're fine with it. There are plenty of other songs he can use. The Stones, and others, don't like Trump. He shouldn't use their stuff if they've asked him not to.
* The fact is that there are just a lot of artists that are just apolitical and just don't want to be involved. There are quite a few artists who have been asked and said no to campaigns using their music. Anyone who's even halfway familiar with the Stones knows that they would've done this even if it was a Democrat. I certainly can't imagine Keith going for it. Well, not until the check cleared at least, lol.
* What a completely moronic reply. Like the Stones "need" Trump and his idiots? Like a musician should be "so honored"?? It is probably THE biggest embarrassment in the world to have your music played at a Trump rally.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rolling Stones ask Trump to stop playing their songs
By The Associated Press, May 4, 2016
The Rolling Stones have asked presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to stop playing their songs at his campaign events.
In a statement Wednesday, the rock band said they have not given permission to the Trump campaign to use their songs and "have requested that they cease all use immediately."
A Trump campaign spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment or say whether they had a license to play their songs.
Trump, an avid music fan, has featured Rolling Stones songs at his rallies for months as part of a diverse soundtrack that includes Elton John, opera and classic rock songs. The Rolling Stones' 1969 classic "You Can't Always Get What You Want" was a popular song for his events, and during an event on Tuesday night, the campaign played "Start Me Up."
Adele and Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler both asked the candidate to stop using their recorded songs to fire up crowds. Neil Young also objected when the real estate mogul used "Rockin' in the Free World" during his campaign kickoff announcement last year. In those cases, the Trump campaign stopped using the songs.
Political campaigns don't need artists' permission to play their songs at rallies as long as the political organization or the venue has gotten what's known as a blanket license from the performing rights organizations ASCAP and BMI for all the music in the licensing group's repertoire.
But artists do have some recourse. BMI, for example, has said it has a provision in its license agreement that allows BMI songwriters or publishers to object to the use of their songs and they have the ability to exclude those songs from the blanket license.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)