Skip to content

Month: January 2016

Annotated Clinton 25 years on @MrWalterShapiro

Annotated Clinton

by digby

This piece by Walter Shapiro revisiting his 1993 profile of Hillary Clinton is really fun to read. He went through and annotated with updates and explanations in light of what we now know about her and it’s  illuminating and interesting. Here’s one page of it.

There’s been so much written about Clinton over the past 25 years that it’s hard to believe you could learn anything new at this point. But retrospectives like these illuminate how someone in the public eye evolves over time and how they stay the same. It’s fascinating.

More here…

.

Friendly reminder about protests at Republican events

Friendly reminder about protests at Republican events

by digby

I notice that there’s a lot of outrage this morning about protesters being barred from attending the Trump event in Vermont last night. This article is from 2006:

When school was canceled to accommodate a campaign visit by President Bush, the two 55-year-old teachers reckoned the time was ripe to voice their simmering discontent with the administration’s policies.

Christine Nelson showed up at the Cedar Rapids rally with a Kerry-Edwards button pinned on her T-shirt; Alice McCabe clutched a small, paper sign stating “No More War.” What could be more American, they thought, than mixing a little dissent with the bunting and buzz of a get-out-the-vote rally headlined by the president?

Their reward: a pair of handcuffs and a strip search at the county jail.

Authorities say they were arrested because they refused to obey reasonable security restrictions, but the women disagree: “Because I had a dissenting opinion, they did what they needed to do to get me out of the way,” said Nelson, who teaches history and government at one of this city’s middle schools.

“I tell my students all the time about how people came to this country for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, that those rights and others are sacred. And all along I’ve been thinking to myself, ‘not at least during this administration.'”

Their experience is hardly unique.

In the months before the 2004 election, dozens of people across the nation were banished from or arrested at Bush political rallies, some for heckling the president, others simply for holding signs or wearing clothing that expressed opposition to the war and administration policies.

Similar things have happened at official, taxpayer-funded, presidential visits, before and after the election. Some targeted by security have been escorted from events, while others have been arrested and charged with misdemeanors that were later dropped by local prosecutors.

Now, in federal courthouses from Charleston, W.Va., to Denver, federal officials and state and local authorities are being forced to defend themselves against lawsuits challenging the arrests and security policies.

While the circumstances differ, the cases share the same fundamental themes. Generally, they accuse federal officials of developing security measures to identify, segregate, deny entry or expel dissenters.

Jeff Rank and his wife, Nicole, filed a lawsuit after being handcuffed and booted from a July 4, 2004, appearance by the president at the West Virginia Capitol in Charleston. The Ranks, who now live in Corpus Christi, Texas, had free tickets to see the president speak, but contend they were arrested and charged with trespassing for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts.

“It’s nothing more than an attempt by the president and his staff to suppress free speech,” said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia, which is providing legal services for the Ranks.

“What happened to the Ranks, and so many others across the country, was clearly an incident of viewpoint discrimination. And the lawsuit is an attempt to make the administration accountable for what we believe were illegal actions,” Schneider said.

In Cedar Rapids, McCabe and Nelson are suing three unnamed Secret Service agents, the Iowa State Patrol and two county sheriff deputies who took part in their arrest. Nelson and McCabe, who now lives in Memphis, accuse law enforcement of violating their right to free speech, assembly and equal protection.

The two women say they were political novices, inexperienced at protest and unprepared for what happened on Sept. 3, 2004.

Soon after arriving at Noelridge Park, a sprawling urban playground dotted with softball diamonds and a public pool, McCabe and Nelson were approached by Secret Service agents in polo shirts and Bermuda shorts. They were told that the Republicans had rented the park and they would have to move because the sidewalk was now considered private property.

McCabe and Nelson say they complied, but moments later were again told to move, this time across the street. After being told to move a third time, Nelson asked why she was being singled out while so many others nearby, including those holding buckets for campaign donations, were ignored. In response, she says, they were arrested.

They were charged with criminal trespass, but the charges were later dropped.

A spokesman for the Secret Service declined to comment on pending litigation or answer questions on security policy for presidential events. White House spokesman Alex Conant also declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

But Justice Department lawyers, in documents filed recently in federal court in Cedar Rapids, outline security at the rally and defend the Secret Service agents’ actions.

They contend the GOP obtained exclusive rights to use the park and that donation takers were ignored because they were an authorized part of the event. They also say McCabe and Nelson were disobedient, repeatedly refusing agents’ orders to move.

“At no time did any political message expressed by the two women play any role in how (the agents) treated them,” they wrote. “All individuals … subject to security restrictions either complied with the security restrictions or were arrested for refusing to comply.”

Defenders say stricter policies are a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a small price for ensuring the safety of a world leader in an era of heightened suspicion and uncertainty.

But Leslie Weise says law enforcers are violating citizens’ rights to voice objections within earshot of the president.

Last year, in Denver, Weise and two friends were evicted from a Bush town hall meeting on Social Security reform.

Weise, a 40-year-old environmental lawyer who is now a stay-at-home mother, opposes the war in Iraq and the administration’s energy policies. Like friends Alex Young and Karen Bauer, Weise did some volunteer work for the Kerry campaign.

In the days before Bush’s March 2005 town hall meeting, the trio toyed briefly with the notion of actively protesting the visit. But they said they decided against it because they had heard of arrests at Bush appearances in North Dakota and Arizona.

After parking Weise’s car, the three, dressed in professional attire and holding tickets obtained from their local congressman, arrived at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum. Young cleared security, but Weise and Bauer were briefly detained and told by staff they had been “identified” and would be arrested if they tried “any funny stuff,” according to court records.

After finding their seats, they were approached again by staff and removed before Bush began speaking. Days later, Weise learned from Secret Service in Denver that a bumper sticker on her green Saab hatchback — “No More Blood for Oil” — caught the attention of security.

“I had every reason to attend that event, just as anyone else in the room had that day,” said Weise. “If we raised security to a higher level just because we had an opinion different from the administration, I think that goes far beyond what is appropriate for this country.”

Lawsuits by protesters are not always embraced by the courts. In Pennsylvania, a federal judge dismissed a suit challenging the arrests of six men who stripped down to thongs and formed a pyramid to protest the Abu Ghraib scandal when Bush paid a visit to Lancaster.

The judge ruled the authorities acted with probable cause and are entitled to qualified immunity, shielding them from liability. The ruling is on appeal.

Such efforts to segregate or diminish dissent are hardly new to American politics.

The ACLU has sued several presidents over attempts to silence opposition, as in 1997, when President Clinton tried to prevent protesters from lining his inaugural parade route. And during the tumultuous 1960s, it was not uncommon for hecklers and protesters to be whisked away or managed at a distance from rallies and events.

“In my mind, it all started with Nixon. He was the first presidential candidate to really make an effort to control their image and disrupt public interruption at events,” said Cary Covington, a political science professor at the University of Iowa.

But political experts say the 2004 Bush campaign rewrote the playbook for organizing campaign rallies.

At the Republican National Convention in New York City and at other campaign stops, security segregated protesters in designated “free speech zones” set up at a significant distance from each rally. To get into events headlined by Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, supporters were required to obtain tickets through GOP channels or sign loyalty oaths.

Political experts agree Bush 2004 went to greater lengths than Kerry officials — or any past campaign — to choreograph a seamless, partisan rally free of the embarrassing moments that attract media attention.

Gone are the days of candidates facing down hecklers or reacting to distractions like, the man who donned a chicken costume and pestered George H.W. Bush in 1991 after he balked at Bill Clinton’s invitations to debate.

Anthony Corrado, a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution, said ticket-only events are an effective tool for rewarding legions of volunteers who work the phone banks, raise money and build support.

“In my view, the Republicans did a much better job of linking field volunteers with their schedule and events,” Corrado said. “I had never seen it done to the extent it was on 2004 on the Republican side. And my guess is we’ll probably see a lot more of it all.”

After all these years, these cases ares still in the courts.

.

MoveOn announces a presidential endorsement vote, by @Gaius_Publius

MoveOn announces a presidential endorsement vote

by Gaius Publius

To go straight to the vote, click here.

Things like this can matter. Like DFA before it, the multi-million member organization MoveOn will hold a vote of its members to determine a possible 2016 presidential endorsement. Note that the vote starts Thursday, January 7 and runs through essentially midnight on Sunday, January 10 (technically, through 2:59 am Monday ET, 11:59 pm Sunday PT).

That’s a very narrow window, so if you’re a member, you want to get your vote in now. Also, note that for an endorsement, a candidate must win a super-majority, or two-thirds, of the votes cast. So if you care about this, tell your friends. Full details below.

MoveOn to Launch Presidential Endorsement Vote on Thursday

By Nick Berning. Tuesday, January 5 2016


Vote open to full MoveOn membership will begin at noon Eastern on Thursday and run through 2:59 a.m. Eastern Monday morning; vote continues MoveOn’s history of putting members in driver’s seat on key decisions.

WASHINGTON, DC — MoveOn.org Political Action announced today that it will hold a formal vote of its membership to determine whether the organization will endorse a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination prior to the first caucuses and primaries.

In order for a candidate to earn MoveOn’s endorsement, she or he must win at least two-thirds of the vote in a four-way ballot between Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, and a “do not endorse” option. The vote opens at noon Eastern on Thursday and will run until 2:59 a.m. Eastern Monday morning.

“A key reason MoveOn exists is to elevate ordinary people’s voices in our democracy, which has been rigged by the undue influence of big money and powerful interests—and that’s exactly what this vote is about,” said Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action. “This vote gives millions of MoveOn members across the country a chance to weigh in on the presidential race prior to the Iowa caucuses, and if there is substantial alignment among our membership, MoveOn will endorse and work to elect the candidate MoveOn members support.”

In 2004, MoveOn declined to endorse any Democratic candidate for president during the primaries after a vote of the membership showed Howard Dean leading with 44 percent, but no candidate meeting the endorsement threshold. In 2008, shortly before the Super Tuesday primaries, MoveOn members endorsed Barack Obama with a vote of 70 percent and then raised funds and mobilized volunteers to support him.

If MoveOn members vote to endorse a candidate now, MoveOn will mobilize to help that candidate win. And regardless of whether MoveOn members endorse a candidate during the primaries, after the Democratic National Convention this summer, MoveOn plans to go all out to keep a Republican out of the White House—in line with what members around the country have called for.

The rules for MoveOn’s 2016 endorsement vote follow.

Rules:

  • Voting is open to anyone who has been a MoveOn member prior to the start of the voting period. While any person may cast a ballot, only the votes of MoveOn members prior to the start of the vote will be counted.
     
  • You may change your vote as many times as you like, but only your final vote will be counted.
     
  • Members will be asked to choose between endorsing Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, and making no endorsement.
     
  • Voting opens Thursday, January 7 at noon ET / 9 a.m. PT and closes at 2:59 a.m. ET Monday, January 11 / 11:59 p.m. PT Sunday, January 10. 
     
  • This is a big decision, and one thing we’ve heard loud and clear from MoveOn members is that it’s important for us to stand together. To win the 2016 presidential endorsement of MoveOn members, a candidate must earn a supermajority—67%, or, technically, 66.67%—of votes cast. If no candidate hits that threshold, we won’t endorse in the Democratic presidential primary.
     
  • If an endorsement is made, we’ll run a 100% positive campaign for that candidate.
     
  • No matter who’s endorsed in the primary, if members choose to make an endorsement, we’ve heard loud and clear that MoveOn members of all stripes want us to work to support the Democratic nominee in keeping a Republican out of the White House–and we’ll do that.

We’ll announce the results on Tuesday, January 12 after a secure confirmation of the ballots cast.

How to vote (from the same link):

HOW TO VOTE:

If you already regularly receive emails from MoveOn.org, you are a member and eligible to vote. You will receive a ballot via email when voting starts.

If you are not sure if you are a member or know you are not yet a member and would like to become one prior to the start of voting, simply signing any MoveOn Petition or filling out the “your email*” box on the MoveOn.org homepage and then clicking the “Join MoveOn” button will ensure that you are added as a member and that you will receive a ballot.

The direct vote link is here. If you’re a member, do vote. A member-driven endorsement from an organization this size can matter.

If you wish to become a member, click here and look on the right, just below the banner, for a text field with the words Your email* and a blue button that says “Join MoveOn”. (The asterisk means the email field is required.) Fill in the email field and click Join.

Side note: If I’m not mistaken, there’s another, similar organization — PCCC — that so far has not followed the MoveOn and DFA lead. Are you a member of that one too? Maybe they need to be asked, politely of course, when they plan to allow their members to vote on a presidential endorsement. There a nice PCCC Contact page here that seems designed for that purpose. Do use it if you have the same question I do.

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.

Pushing back the crazy in North Carolina by @BloggersRUs

Pushing back the crazy in North Carolina
by Tom Sullivan

There is enough crazy (and crazies) in NC to fill several wildlife refuges. Still, Gov. Pat McCrory is rated one of the most vulnerable Republican governors seeking reelection this fall. With state agencies allegedly dragging their feet over complying with federal voter registration laws, activists are not sitting around waiting for Bernie or Hillary to swoop in and save the day. The North Carolina NAACP and Democracy North Carolina are mounting a multi-pronged get-out-the-vote effort across the state. Rev. Dr. William Barber, president of the state NAACP and leader of the Forward Together Moral Monday Movement came to Asheville, North Carolina this week to promote the “It’s Our Time — It’s Our Vote” campaign. The coalition announced the campaign on December 1, the 60th anniversary of Rosa Parks’ protest on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. Mountain Xpress reports:

“Others have had their time over past few years to vote on regressive policies. It’s our time now,” Barber commented. “In North Carolina, we have been fighting the worst voter suppression law in the country.” In partnership with other organizations, the NAACP has challenged new voting laws passed in 2013, including voter identification requirements, the elimination of same-day voter registration and the elimination of out-of-precinct voting. Barber asked attendees to spread the word about a July 2015 change in the North Carolina General Assembly statute which allows voting without ID in the case of a “reasonable impediment” to obtaining identification.

“Go and vote,” urged Barber. “The law has not been fully adjudicated. They had to water it down because they knew what they had passed was totally unconstitutional. That came from our efforts and those of our partners.”

Indeed, with what has been passed, rolled back (in advance of a federal lawsuit), or held up in the courts it is confusing enough even to North Carolina activists to know what rules will be in force during the March primary or in November:

“We must educate voters with a message,” said Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina, “that regardless of all the confusion and all the complexity, you can vote. In fact, you must vote.”

Barber elaborated this week:

Initiatives planned for the campaign include a voter registration campaign from Dec. 1 to Feb. 19, a Mountain Moral Monday event in Asheville on Jan. 25, a statewide rally in Raleigh on Feb. 13, a voter guide detailing statewide candidates’ stands on issues of concern to NAACP and its partners and a Freedom Summer II statewide youth initiative. Barber said the coalition will be conducting get-out-the-vote efforts in 90 North Carolina counties, with intensive efforts planned for 55 counties. The campaign will organize moral marches to the polls during early voting and on election day. “We intend to have a thorough, organized effort throughout the state,” explained Barber.

The February 2014 Moral March on Raleigh drew an estimated 80,000 people. Few in the media took notice. Maybe this time.

“Health care is on the ballot. Public education is on the ballot. Living wages are on the ballot. Black Lives Matter is on the ballot. If you care about that issue, remember that sheriffs, judges and district attorneys are elected. Chiefs of police are appointed by elected officials. You can’t even sit on a jury unless you are registered to vote,” Barber said. Oh, and minor little health women’s health and privacy issues are on the ballot.

The North Carolina Democratic Party is not idle. It is providing trainings around the state for county organizers. One way people waste their votes in presidential years is by showing up to vote for president and then neglecting down-ballot races. One way Democrats in our county won 36 of 36 races in 2008 is by fielding an army of poll greeters. So it’s great to have Barber emphasizing down-ballot races. It’s not only the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court at issue this fall.

Jeb hedges big time

Jeb hedges big time

by digby

I have often felt that the Republican establishment would do everything in their power to stop Trump, with all that that implies.

Trumpie’s QOTD

Trumpie’s QOTD

by digby

On Rubio’s controversial footwear:

“Well, I can’t quite, I don’t, you won’t see me wearing them. I don’t know what to think of those boots. It helps to be tall. I don’t know, they’re big heels. They’re big heels. I mean, those heels were really up there. But you know, it’s almost like, it doesn’t matter too much. Probably he would have been better off not going that route. Would you say? I noticed he’s taken a lot of hits. I just hope it works out fine for him.”

He’s such a lovely fellow.

Can I just say upfront that I think those boots are awesome? I have a pair just like them. And no, that’s not a knock on Rubio’s masculinity. His boots are a unisex style and if you don’t like it take it up with these guys:

“He is the most insincere human I have ever met, flat-out”

“He is the most insincere human I have ever met, flat-out”

by digby


Journalist Tom Junod gave an interview to Esquire
to talk about the three longform pieces he’s done over the years about Hillary Clinton. It’s very interesting and worth reading. But his final couple of comments about Trump are just devastating:

EC: Speaking of Trump, he came across as a decent guy in your 2000 profile of him. Have you looked back on that piece and wondered, What the hell was I thinking?

TJ: I thought about right after it came out. The thing about that piece was that my mom was very sick at the time. That’s why I was down in Florida, visiting her, and which is why I could go spend some time with Trump. His mom was sick too. And we kind of bonded over that. At least I thought we did. I got the feeling that underneath it all he was trying to be a decent person.

I saw him a couple of months later at a party held at the Esquire apartment. [Editor in chief] David Granger had invited him. I walked up to Trump and said, “Hey, how you doing?” And he didn’t blow me off so much as make clear he was going to hang around with my boss instead. That it was much more important for him to be with the person in the room who could do him the most good. I’d written the story. I was done for him, I was over. I had thought that underneath his bullshit there was a germ of sincerity, but I knew that moment at the party that he is the most insincere human I have ever met, flat-out.

EC: Was your ego bruised?

TJ: It wasn’t so much my ego. I’m not like Larissa MacFarquhar of The New Yorker—she’s my favorite writer over there, and she’s always made it clear that she’s there to report a story as an observer. She doesn’t exchange emotion with her subject. For me, the stories I like to write are the ones where I feel like a real human transaction has taken place. I mean the pieces where you spend a considerable amount of time with people and you risk a few things, like when I risked telling Trump that my mother was sick and I was worried. I can’t say that I’ve stayed in touch with everybody I’ve written about, but in a lot of ways I think there is something real that happens between me and the person I’m writing about. I thought he was one of those guys. And I then realized he was not one of those guys. That it was really much more of a transaction. I think the only thing sincere about Trump is his need for attention. What’s insincere is everything else.

I think that’s what his followers like about him. He plays to win by any means necessary. You cannot be sincere and do that.

I have always thought that this Village trope about “authenticity” was nonsense. Trump proves it.

.

Ted Cruz heartless jerk

Ted Cruz heartless jerk

by digby



Tough luck kid. You should have chosen different parents.



He comes right out and says that kids must pay for the sins of their fathers. Nice guy, big Christian:



“You were brought here illegally, and violating the laws have consequences.”




I love watching a conservative use the example of other countries’ laws to make their case.  If anyone else tries to do that — say, a Supreme Court justice — they are accused of being UnAmerican. 


Apparently The United States is only allowed to be “exceptional” when it comes to our devotion to enabling the wanton killing of innocent people here at home and our freedom to ignore any international laws we choose.  Good to know. 


.

Republicans had better hope their party doesn’t go the way of the California GOP

Republicans had better hope their party doesn’t go the way of the California GOP

by digby

I have a piece in Salon today about how the California Republican party committed suicide and how Republican voters there and elsewhere refuse to learn from its mistakes:

It’s been a while since anyone said “As California goes, so goes the nation” and that’s probably since that moldy old saw was never very accurate to begin with. Sure, newspaperman Horace Greely’s “go west young man” was once a common exhortation and from the time of the gold rush through the “Mad Men” era, California was seen as a place for cutting edge social change. Its politics were often in the vanguard too from leftwing Upton Sinclair’s run for governor in the 1930s to the right wing Ronald Reagan’s run 30 years later. Howard Jarvis passed Proposition 13 in California in 1978 setting off a national crusade to cut taxes and drown the government in the bathtub which continues to this day.

But in a country that is dramatically polarized between blue and red, the only thing deep blue California leads these days is fellow travelers. Still, there are some lessons to be learned by Republicans from California’s recent experiences in one specific area: immigration. If there’s one thing the golden state knows about it’s Republican politicians scapegoating undocumented workers for political gain — and what happens when Latino voters decide to fight back.

You may recall that 1994 was a big Republican year nationally. For the first time in decades, the GOP gained a majority of seats in Congress, largely running on a doctrinaire conservative message as illustrated by Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. When the cycle started, California Republican Governor Pete Wilson was far down in the polls with little chance of recovery. But California Republicans in 1994 were a lot like Trump voters all over the country are today. That is: They were utterly convinced that a vast wave of immigrants from Mexico were pouring over the border to obtain free medical care, welfare benefits and schooling, even as they stole all the good paying jobs from real Americans. They allegedly did all this while stubbornly refusing to learn English.

The Republicans were so worked up, they put an initiative on the ballot now known as the notorious Proposition 187. The initiative was officially called SOS for “save our state,” and the opening words of it read:
The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.
The initiative was draconian, even requiring police to verify citizenship of anyone they detain and forcing school districts to verify citizenship of all students and their families. Pete Wilson ran an ad supporting it that has become one of the most famous political ads in history, in which an ominous voiceover intoned: “They keep coming: 2 million illegal immigrants in California,” over grainy black and white footage of figures scurrying across the screen like insects exposed to the light.

Prop 187 won overwhelmingly with 59 percent of the vote. And Pete Wilson won re-election handily, as did Senator Dianne Feinstein who had run on a promise to crack down on immigration when she got back to Washington. It seemed to be a rousing success.

But while Republicans were high-fiving each other over their great victory, the court issued an immediate stay of the proposition and the Latino community in California began to protest and organize. And they also began, in great numbers, to vote Democratic. The fallout from Prop 187 and a few subsequent anti-immigrant proposals decimated the Republican Party in California. In 1994 the GOP held 26 of 52 (50 percent) U.S. House seats in the California delegation. Today they hold just 15 of 53 (28 percent). The Republican nominee has not won California in the last 6 presidential elections.

Read on to see how that happened in California and the implications for today. They are profound.

.

The “O” Bomb

The “O” Bomb

by digby

Wait, what?

BILL O’REILLY (HOST): On the other side, the NRA and gun owners should be reasonable. The FBI should background check anyone buying a firearm in America. The FBI should background check anyone buying a firearm in America. That just makes sense. If you are paranoid and believe the government is stockpiling information so they can come to your house and take your guns, that’s your problem, your problem. But the government has an obligation to enhance public safety.

I’m thinking that H-bomb test was actually the sounds of Wayne LaPierre’s head exploding.

.