— Politi.us

Political Analysis of Today's Events

Archive
Tag "Republicans"

The GOP rank-and-file just love to call Obama an emperor, insinuating that he’s left the constitution behind and become a lawless president. They accuse him of abusing his executive authority and label him accordingly. But President Obama has done much more to get his way than sign a few executive orders. At nearly every alpha-item turn, the President has outfoxed the entire Republican congress even after they took control of both houses in 2012.

The president has a handful of foreign policy accomplishments like the historic Iran deal, the historic Cuba re-engagement, and historic climate deals. And there’s more. The president won every shutdown or near shutdown fight over spending and the debt limit, passed him signature healthcare reform bill, and managed to preside over same-sex marriage’s court win as icing on the cake. The Republicans have been powerless to stop him, and yet have managed to become known as ‘the party of no’ even as they attempt to stifle his every initiative.

1 pane strip 031816 - 2

Now comes the death of Antonin Scalia, noted conservative jurist and scourge of the left, and the subsequent nomination of Merrick Garland. Almost predictably the reaction on the right was nakedly political. ‘Obama gets to name another justice, replacing a conservative?! Over my dead body!’ Many of them, even before the end of the day, had publicly come out as saying they would never confirm a justice nominated by President Obama, even though nearly a year remained before the end of his term.

Let me now take a moment to mention that Republicans have become amazing adept at these kinds of knee jerk reactions, and this is probably the most notable to date. It’s even more damazing than their last major political failure when, led by Senator Ted Cruz, they shut down the government over the federal budget in October of 2013. In this case, and in an astonishing display of political malpractice, they have tied their deliberate intransigence to an unpopular issue directly connected to the presidential election.

In picking this issue to make a stand, the Republicans have given several great political tools to their adversaries and have left themselves no way out of their own box.

First, this knee-jerk display of partisanship will be seen as obstructionism by objective people. Most people feel that this popular president has a right to select the replacement. Also, the constitution is clear on presidential and congressional responsibilities. The Republican’s primary rationale – that the American people should have their say thereby delaying consideration of a replacement – rings hollow, given that it’s only March. And those who say Obama ignores the constitution are now forced to eat their own words as they  ignore their own party’s political departure from any kind of strict adherence to the letter of the law. Many will be hammered for months as hypocrites.

Secondly, vulnerable Republicans and those who aren’t plain crazy will understand that this posture of denying Garland a vote will not play well with moderate voters. The President’s approval rating is high right now, and varound surveys reportedly agree with the President that the nominee should be considered by congress and given a vote. These Republicans will put pressure on their own party to move past the issue, and in so doing, squeeze Mitch McConnell between their own vulnerable candidates and their immovable base.

Finally, this issue isn’t going away and is tied existentially to the election. This means that voters will, in part, make decisions based on the optics associated with this event. Democrats will no doubt work tirelessly to keep this partisan blockade of this nomination on the minds of voters right up until election day. The Republicans are acting unfairly and Some voters will probably punish them for it.

So Republicans, led by Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell, have once again built themselves a nice box to sit in. If they hold firm on their position not to grant a vote to the nominee, they will suffer repeated attacks all the way through election day. On the other hand, if they relent, they will be seen as weak and ineffective by their unrelentingly extreme voter base. They really have nowhere to go on this issue.

For months now people on both sides of the political spectrum have been handwringing about how to beat Donald, or whether he might beat himself. The Republicans will be the first to fall by virtue of the fact that they meet Donald head-on in primary season but make no mistake – the Democrats will have to face him soon enough.

To just about everyone in the media, the circus turned serious contender has been nothing short of a jaw gaping mystery. You mean a total outsider with a loud mouth and ridiculous policy positions hasn’t been laughed out of the race? What about Michelle Bachmann, Todd Akin and Sarah Palin? That’s what’s supposed to happen to these kinds of people!

But lo, Trump has managed to elude the grip of death that has doomed so many before him leaving the media in their collective confusion to wonder about their own relevancy in this new, bizarre world. How does this end? And if I can’t predict the future with any reasonable degree of accuracy on this roller coaster, what good am I to anyone as a pundit?

But there is a simple answer, and that answer is to ignore the 3 Bs (bullying, bloviating and bombast) and forcefully return the conversation to one focused exclusively on policy. Donald can be beaten on policy, but if he’s allowed to run his entire campaign using the 3 Bs, he’ll control the news and the election.

Imagine for a moment a match-up in a general election between President Obama and Donald Trump. How would President Obama handle Trump and his 3 Bs? Obama wouldn’t get caught up in Donald’s web of nonsense. He would stick to the policy discussion, ignore personal attacks, and beat Trump by discussing his positions. The problem we’ve had this election cycle is that Trump has figured out that if he talks about waterboarding, carpet bombing, Losers and Megyn Kelly, he doesn’t have to talk about healthcare, minimum wage, gay marriage, or how he’s really going to handle Putin in the Ukraine, or North Korea, or Iran. Pulling back the curtain is the way to expose Trump to the middle of the road voters who decide every election.

At the end of the day, Trump is a showman who has relied on smoke and mirrors to drown out his competition. But his co-campaigners have also allowed Trump to control the dialog, flailing away with various tactics in their attempts to dodge the steam roller. Cruz tried by killing Trump with kindness – at least at first. But you can’t win playing a willing second fiddle. Bush tried feebly to stand up to the campus bully with predicable results. He was verbally wedgied out of the race. Rubio is finally putting up a stronger fight, but even if it wasn’t too little too late, it wouldn’t work anyway. You can’t out-3B Donald Trump. You simply need to change the rules back to the default. Get campaigns talking about campaign issues, and not Donald’s latest foray into his beloved mine field of taboos.

But Trump has used the Bs to great advantage and obscured from the public his lack of policy sophistication as his Achilles heel.

Recently Donald mentioned that he’s a fan of Planned Parenthood. This is policy kryptonite that not even Donald can overcome with some of his prospective supporters. If Hillary can find enough policy positions that are untenable to his RINO hating base, he’ll prove himself the closet liberal they are all afraid of, and he’ll lose vital support. Policy, and nothing else will sleigh this dragon, but we need to steer the conversation back from the brink of darkness. If Donald continues to be allowed to control the news cycle with the 3 Bs, he’ll control the election.

 

 

I finally had a chance to see the video where Christy was told over a hot mic to go home by Donald Trump. The link is below.

This clip is great for 500 reasons but most importantly, it shows Donald Trump for who he really is. A guy who doesn’t want to share the spotlight, even for a moment. A rude man who treats his people like errand boys. And a man used to having people say yes, no matter what.

Donald Trump is a showman, and he’s putting on a show for people. Christy was nothing more than a prop who made a terrible, horrible, life changing mistake by selling his soul to the Donvil.

Goodbye sweet Christy. You’ve been sent home.

Today Trump said, “One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866#ixzz41JhOsyat

So Trump is already moving to subvert the constitution – and in plain sight. Freedom of press is one of the MOST IMPORTANT FREEDOMS we have. Allowing a free press prevents ABUSE OF POWER by wannabe dictators like Trump. Low educated Trump supporters won’t care, but should. Subverting the press means silencing opposition. First step towards a police state. BEWARE!

Ironically, these same Trumpsters spent the last 7 years calling President Obama a dictator for, ironically, helping them get affordable health care. Now these same intellectually challenged low information voters are ready to elect an ACTUAL dictator whose first order of business, evidently, is to erode the first amendment protections of a free press.

Trump is clearly thin-skinned. He likes to portray himself as a seasoned, thick skinned professional, but his late night Twitter rants and 4th grade debate style paint a strikingly different picture.

When Donald Trump signed his pledge not to run as an independent, it was worthless. Worth less than the paper it was written on, to be specific. Let’s be honest. Does anyone believe that Donald Trump wouldn’t invent a reason to walk away from his pledge as easily as he might stiff a waiter on a tip?

The reality is that Donald is used to doing EXACTLY what Donald wants to do. As a billionaire, he knows no rules, no boss, and there are no exclusion zones. He has a wife, which generally governs the activities of a man, but he’s traded in his wife twice already, so it’s clear that even interpersonally, Donald Trump is willing to do whatever he wants without limitation.

So can we trust Trump to do what he says?

This week while simultaneously calling out Ted Cruz as the single biggest liar in the Republican race (a tacit admission that they are all liars?) Trump also managed to accuse the RNC of breaking its pledge to treat him fairly by not condemning the negative ads run by Cruz’s campaign. So in Donald’s view, negative ads and personal attacks are his providence only, and if he’s not defended by the (supposedly) impartial RNC, they are in violation of their impartiality. I wonder if this is Trumps negotiating style we keep hearing so much about? Demonize the other party while simultaneously accusing the other party of unfairly demonizing you. Then threaten then judge or moderator if they don’t support you.

I’m not sure I’d call that great negotiating, but Donald probably would. Still, let’s think this through. First, he’s backing himself into a corner. Obviously the RNC would never condemn an attack ad unless it crossed a line of decency so egregious that they had no choice. Otherwise they’d be condemning virtually every ad from every candidate. Let’s face it, attack ads are the meat and potatoes of our current political environment.

So by insisting the RNC condemn said advertisements and by further insisting the RNC is packing debate halls with detractors, the Donald is essentially guaranteeing himself a loophole by which he can run an independent campaign without losing face. Logically, he would have to leave the Republican party if this were true, but don’t believe it. Nothing Donald Trump says really matters. He’ll make up whatever excuse he wants and do as he pleases.

Those leading the Republican party today are total jokes. Punchlines for late night comedians. Fodder for the water cooler. The only qualified republican candidates are being overlooked and ignored by the media and will be forced to withdraw after a while due to lack of funds.

You could read 10 stories about Trump and never see a headline about about Christy, Bush or ummm, who are the other people running?

Perhaps this is a media coup after all? I mean, look what they are talking about in the press. Carson? The guy has a picture of himself with Klingon Jesus and doesn’t know apples from oranges about foreign policy.

And Trump? He’s a showman and a salesman, but NOT a politician who knows anything about policy. He thinks ratings translates into votes. We found out that isn’t true last night when we destroyed by Cruz in Iowa.

And Cruz? How could the most hated man in Washington run Washington effectively? Here’s a hint: he can’t. Can you imagine a president like Cruz? I true ideologue? He’d use executive orders to undo all the positive social changes President Obama worked so hard for. He’d work to ban every single type of abortion. He’d kick millions of people out of health care plans with his promise to repeal Obamacare. He’s a sick man who’s ready to wield power for the betterment of himself and his own personal views, but he definitely won’t be the president for all Americans. Only the staunch right wing bible thumping crew who think the apocalypse is nigh.

These guys are all fatally flawed candidates. They can’t win an election against a normal, center Democrat like Clinton. So my feeling is that the media is pumping them up which makes an easy glide path for a Democrat to take office in 2017. But I’m fine with all of it. And thank goodness. Let’s keep talking about Trump, Cruz and Carson. The more the better! I’ll laugh all the way to November.

TRUMP/PALIN for the republican ticket! smh

Today Donald Trump “boycotted” the Fox debate.

My view? You’re an idiot, and so am I.

Fox and Trump had to have coordinated this whole wrestle-mania-like, nonsense feud. It’s terrible politics, really, but it’s GREAT television. Reality TV at it’s best for a land full of nitwits who tune in every day for another helping.

Let’s consider the facts.

Can anyone remember the last time Fox released such an unprofessional statement? So, we’re supposed to believe that suddenly Fox is a ‘fair and balanced’ news outfit where sarcastic commentary is acceptable? Did they hire Ann Coulter and Rush whatever-his-name-is to manage the newsroom?

And can anyone imagine that Donald Trump would NOT react predictably to said sarcastic statement?

So, Fox’s obvious taunt of a presidential front runner is curious at best.

It’s unprofessional, but not so much so that they’ve crossed any real lines of decency. But starting a childish war of words with someone like Trump who could credibly be considered a contender for President is not in the interest of anyone – unless it is.

This reminds me of the standard formula for many reality TV shows where they stuff a bunch of misfits into a big house and sit back while they film the drama. Except it’s not stupid reality TV. It’s prime time American Republican politics and it’s become a bonafide circus act.

Considering Fox isn’t actually run by idiots, they HAD TO KNOW Trump would respond aggressively, so this was all planned theatre. And now they get 2 huge ratings events instead and one. Laughing all the way to the bank.

This is a show, people, nothing more, by the greatest snake oil salesman of all time and the shucksters at Fox news who willing peddle his crap. And we’re the puppets watching it and paying for it. Let that sink in. How’s that feel? I skipped both events although I admit reading this article just to find out if the Republicans were actually able to discuss any policy… And not a hint of policy in this entire article.

Why? Because it’s boring for the Guns and Religion crowd. They’d rather see Sarah Palin balancing a hunting rifle on the bearded Duck Dynasty guy’s head while she shoots at endangered ferrets just to prove she’s more American than you.

Good god, we’ve become a nation of idiots.

While the rest of the world gathers in Paris to discuss the future of planet Earth and the threats posed by climate change, the Republican Party and in particular this week, Ted Cruz,  stand alone on the world stage as the final vanguard of denial and stupidity – or is it just greed? One can only wonder about which is true.

Only the hard-nosed conservatives of the Republican Party could stand proudly before their constituents and once again deny the legitimate role of science in creating public policy, and the mountain of evidence supporting its conclusions. And only the paranoid Republican electorate would believe the dubious tales of vast left-wing conspiracies and greedy scientists (whose conclusions are ripe with falsehoods after being paid for with dirty money of the nefarious corporations that supposedly fund them).

Meanwhile Beijing issued its first-ever red alert for air quality as Republicans decry President Obama’s war on coal while they politic across the nation. And while 2015 appears to be the hottest year on record, Republicans cherry pick data on global temperatures and assure us the glaciers aren’t receding THAT quickly.

I feel like I’m living in Bizaro world where white is black, down is up, and all that jazz. It turns out by the way that Beijing does not even rank in the 20 most polluted cities by air quality.

And as long as I’m talking about Bizaro world, how can I not discuss the topic of guns. Year after year, mass shootings in the United States pile up like newspapers on the lawn of an abandoned house. The solution? More guns of course. Evidently we don’t already have enough on the streets even though it seems like any 15-year-olds in the nation that wants one can get three.

Out of all the carnage and mass shootings we’ve had in the United States over the last several years, the NRA and their staff congressmen are steadfastly against enacting any type of new gun laws to help stem the flow violence. This stands in sharp contrast, of course, to the panic and hysteria that seem to terrify Republican voters at the mere thought of running into a Muslim at the grocery store.

As far as the Republican voter is concerned, allowing repeated mass shootings in the US with no new gun restrictions is acceptable. But after a couple of terrorist attacks, it’s suddenly time to close the border to an entire religion and lock up or listen in on anyone who’s already here.

Do I have that right?

To top it all off, the right wing conservative’s ruled by the tea party are all excited about Donald Trump who’s lack of military experience, multinationalism and cultural awareness will almost certainly lead us into an expensive war with ISIS in Syria. “Let’s carpet bomb” proclaims Trump while a bellicose Ted Cruz implies we’re ready to drop nuclear weapons as he ponders aloud whether sand glows in the dark. These people are insane if they think they can bomb their way out of this problem. But then again, we already know they aren’t sane people.

This war they are promising will explode the debt and result in the deaths of many more thousands of Americans, but as long as it’s a Republican idea, I guess it’s financially and morally ok. Never mind fiscal conservatism, we have some ass to kick with those bombers. Seemed to work just fine for us in Vietnam where carpet bombing brought the North Vietnamese to their knees, right?

In case you haven’t gotten your daily dose of Donald Trump inducing nausea, now Mr. Trump has threatened to boycott the upcoming CNN debate unless a $5M blackmail is paid to the charity of his choice.

You’ll recall that earlier Mr. Trump has boycotted various media outlets for coverage he deems unfavorable, and even threatened to sue one of his primary opponents over negative advertisements. Like most other things Trump, this should be of concern to the average person.

The moment it becomes acceptable to sue political opponents and blackmail the media (even if you don’t like the media), democracy is placed in hospice. Suddenly the ability of news organizations to publish a story some candidate (or worse, an elected official) doesn’t like goes out the window. Now editors will need to consider whether or not it’s worth losing access to the politician, and most news organizations, driven by profit, will have a conflict of interest. Publish only so-called ‘nice’ media or be banished. If this happens, there’s a chance you’ll never hear another opposing view out of the press for fear of reprisal.

What if Barack Obama declared that he’d only allow Fox reporters in the Whitehouse briefings if they paid whatever blackmail he dreamed up? What if the president threw out every conservative media outlet from his press events and only took questions from friendly sources? The difference between Trump and Obama is clear: you’ll rarely, if ever, hear Obama complain about the press even though Fox News has treated him very unfairly (Sean Hannity for example ran a multi-hour show titled ‘Portrait of a Radical’ the night of the 2008 election.)

Obama is clever enough to answer questions and man enough not to complain about the fairness. He’s not a whiner and he’s not afraid to call on Fox and their crony reporters. (And if you think Fox and other conservative media has been fair to Obama, you must be one of those libertarian Republicans because you’re smoking some good stuff.)

Just because you don’t like the point of view of the ‘liberal’ media, that’s no reason to kill democracy and democracy can’t live without media that’s allowed to say what it thinks, even if the schoolyard bully Donald Trump doesn’t like it.

Trump is bad for this country. Roughing up protesters, rounding up Mexicans like criminals, and listing all Muslims in some fascist database makes him more of a threat to our way of life than any other politician or outside terror group.

 

If there’s one thing many politicians – although mainly Republican these days – are not, it’s meek. They don’t shy away from confrontation regardless of whether or not the facts support their point of view. And any politician’s inherent tendency is to lean towards political expediency rather than what is right or wrong. So it’s no surprise that these brash politicians when confronted with the many uncomfortable issues they must discuss, would rather pick fights with the media then actually debate certain topics. After all, the media is an easy punching bag these days, and as a group is a convenient strawman.

We’ve all heard it from the likes of Palin who can’t utter a sentence without blaming a vast left-wing conspiracy which she calls the ‘lamestream’ media. But can you blame her? They actually asked her tough questions when she was running for office, and she wasn’t able to handle herself. So, as many unprepared politicians do these days, she shot the messenger.

But in any democracy, a free and independent press is a necessary component of the system as a whole, and demonizing the very people whose jobs keep us all safe by exposing that which otherwise would remain obfuscated, is hardly the right way to go about things. In other words, demonizing the press for doing its job is bad for everyone – everyone but the unprepared politician.

Now, I’m not saying that the press should get a free ride. When asked whether he was running a comic book campaign for presidency, Donald Trump justifiably took umbrage. Now, I don’t like Trump. He’s a terrible person for a lot of reasons. But let’s face it, the question was bullshit, especially in that setting. But is the ‘lamestream’ media at fault, or was the specific person just doing a crappy job of moderating a debate?

The larger issue here is whether or not it’s okay to demonize the media, and lately the political right has made great sport of doing just that. But the media has a purpose, and if you’re running for office in the US or anywhere else, you should know how to handle an uppity reporter. It comes with the territory. And if you can’t, well then, perhaps you should seek other employment.

The same right wing politicians who criticize the media have also attacked the idea of political correctness. But let’s face it, this argument is just another strawman for an unprepared leader. Being politically correct is a good thing. It keeps us on the right path. For instance, political correctness keeps us from offending African Americans by not calling them negroes, blacks, or other offending terms. It keeps us from referring to the mentally challenged, handicapped and minorities with bigoted or demeaning language.

If someone is complaining about being politically correct, they probably offended someone and would rather not apologize. Probably because they don’t really care who they offended. When Trump was told that Muslims in America were a problem and that Obama was one of them, he was criticized for failing to correct the bigoted older man who asked the question. Instead of doing the right thing like John McCain in 2007, he defended his right to not correct every disparaging remark he hears about the President from his sophomoric supporters, and instead attacked the concept of being politically correct.

But in this case, isn’t being politically correct also the right thing to do in the first place? President Obama really isn’t a Muslim. Muslim as a group in the US really aren’t a big problem, and there certainly aren’t any known terrorist training camps. The problem here isn’t political correctness. It’s Trumps willingness to allow his idiotic supporter to continue to believe not only that President Obama is a dangerous Muslim, but that he’s actually looking into things that can be done about it.

To the logical, thinking person, this is a clear cut case of right and wrong. After all, how can it be right to allow a supporter and voter to remain in the dark about facts? How can it be right to purposefully allow falsehoods to permeate the voting public? Obviously it’s not, and doing so is indefensible, but Trump’s attack on the strawman concept of political correctness shifted the argument away from truth and that was the end of that. Now we’re talking about political correctness by the lamestream media, not Trump’s naked demagoguery and foolish supporters.

I think it’s time we drew a line in the sand. The media isn’t lame. It’s not always great, but it serves an invaluable purpose. If you’re not ready to answer any question a reporter hurls in your direction, then you’re not up for the job as a politician. And if you’re beef with the media at large is their focus on political correctness, you’re probably trying to change the subject from a sticky and uncomfortable position, you’ve taken. The media isn’t the problem, nor is the concept of political correctness. You’re the problem. Hopefully the voters wizen up enough to see that.