Skip to content

Month: March 2016

A Real Leader

A Real Leader

by digby

He’ll hand him the rope:

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) reiterated Tuesday that he would support Donald Trump if he wins the GOP nomination, even as the Speaker called on the party’s front-runner to tone down his rhetoric amid a spate of violence at recent campaign rallies.

For a second day in a row, Ryan condemned “people on the left” who have tried to disrupt Trump events. But he also made clear that presidential candidates have a responsibility for the type of environment they create at their campaign events.

“All candidates have an obligation to try and provide an atmosphere of harmony, to reduce violence, to not incite violence, and to make sure we are appealing to people on their best ideals,” Ryan told reporters at a news conference at the Republican National Committee’s headquarters. 

“We are going to unite the country around ideas that unite the country, so that we can actually fix our country’s problems,” he added.

Yeah. That’ll happen.

Most of the conservative movement true believers are supporting Cruz and they hate Ryan. Maybe he knows that and is rooting for Trump for that reason. It doesn’t matter though. Every time these guys “condemn” Trump’s rhetoric and then say of course they’d vote for him, they are telling their rank and file that it’s ok. I’d guess that deep down, as far as they’re concerned, it is.

.

Trump’s Semi-Super Tuesday

Trump’s Semi-Super Tuesday 

by digby

Yes, I wrote about it today for Salon. Sadly, it’s not going to be over soon regardless of who wins.

So here we are on Semi-Super Tuesday. The GOP nomination looks to be coming closer to my personal prediction of a Trump/Cruz race, but there is still plenty of room for the Romney Gambit to succeed.
(For those not following it all that closely, the Romney Gambit was supposed to be Senator Marco Rubio winning the big home state of Florida, Governor John Kasich winning his big home state of Ohio and the combination hopefully denying Trump enough delegates to win on the first  ballot at the convention.)
It doesn’t look as if Rubio is going to be able to fulfill his end of the bargain. Trump is so far ahead in Florida he abandoned it and planted himself in Ohio over the last few days where Governor Kasich has been showing a lead. Everyone assumes that Trump will come out ahead tonight, perhaps by quite a lot, but there is still more than one road to the nomination and it’s not yet settled.
Nate Cohn of the New York Times explains the state of play:
[T]he party has ruled that states holding their primaries on March 15 and later are allowed to award their delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Two of the largest states voting on Tuesday have chosen to do this: Florida and Ohio. Whether Mr. Trump can win the 1,237 delegates necessary to avoid a contested convention could easily turn on whether he can win one or both of these states.
So far, Mr. Trump has won about 42 percent of delegates — a share that has offered some consolation to his beleaguered opponents. But going forward, Mr. Trump could easily win 60 percent of the remaining delegates between now and June — enough to win the nomination — without doing any better than he has done so far.
Consider last Tuesday’s contest in Michigan. Mr. Trump won by a margin of 37 to 25 percent over Ted Cruz, enough to claim 42 percent of the delegates. That same margin would have given Mr. Trump all of the delegates if Michigan had winner-take-all rules, or 80 percent of the delegates if it were a winner-take-all system by congressional district. The district system is used by some big states coming up, like California, Indiana, Wisconsin, Maryland and Missouri. The last is one of the five states holding a contest on Tuesday.
On the other hand, according to  polling expert Sam Wang, a Kasich win may just be what the doctor ordered.
[The] scenario, in which Rubio drops out and Kasich stays in, may be Trump’s best option. Perhaps counterintuitively, it is worse for Trump to win Ohio since that would likely cause Kasich to withdraw. In this scenario, Trump would be left in a one-on-one matchup with Cruz. National surveys from ABC/Langer and NBC/Wall Street Journal show Cruz leading Trump by 13 and 17 percentage points. A two-candidate race might not only leave Trump far short of a majority of delegates but also open up the possibility of Cruz ending up with the most delegates.
Even in this two-candidate scenario, Trump still has a shot at the nomination. Despite his record of racist, sexist, and inflammatory statements, culminating in the proto-fascism and violence of his rallies, many Republicans regard him as the lesser of available evils. Some Republican insiders see the ascendancy of Cruz as more damaging to their party in the long run.
We are therefore left with an odd situation. Many Republicans who oppose Trump and Cruz are desperately hoping for Kasich to win Ohio, an outcome that Kasich himself certainly wants so that he can stay in the race. But Trump also should hope Kasich wins Ohio, since a decision by Kasich to keep fighting keeps the field divided, offering Trump himself the best chance of getting a majority of delegates and ultimately winning the nomination.
Both of those articles, as well as this rundown by Harry Enten at Five Thirty Eight, will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about the GOP primary rules, delegate math and various paths to the nomination.
In case you were wondering if Trump’s condoning and celebration of violence over the past couple of days has changed the trajectory of the polls, it has — in his favor.
Monmouth University was in the middle of polling when the events of last Friday night in Chicago took place, and they asked GOP respondents if it affected their views of Trump; 88 percent said it either didn’t change their minds or made them like him more. For every one person who was repelled, two viewed Trump more favorably. If he does well tonight, it’s possible that it will be because the Trump campaign’s violence and potential for mayhem was partly responsible. That’s something to ponder, isn’t it?
Last night on Fox news, the right-wing rationalization of these events was already in full flower, with none other than Newt Gingrich leading the charge.  He explained to Sean Hannity that the violence at the rallies has all been perpetrated by “left-wing fascists,” and that it was “frankly disturbed that people are blaming Trump.” Hannity agreed and pointed put that “Soros-funded” groups like Move On had been orchestrating protests throughout the campaign. So Hannity and Gingrich have it all figured out.
As I predicted, members of the establishment are starting to come around. This is mostly because they’ve seen the writing on the wall (just ask Roger Ailes), but it’s also a reflexive reaction to being accused of bad deeds. They simply turn it around on “the left” and say they had no choice but to defend themselves.
But whether Trump more or less wraps it up tomorrow or the drama goes all the way to the convention, our democracy has already been damaged. We won’t know for some time just how badly. As political scientist Brendan Nyhan explained in a series of tweets last night, there is likely to be some moderation in Trump’s rhetoric and actions but that will not change the fact that something very dangerous has already happened.
Nyhan points out that we have known for decades that there is a subset of people who “have authoritarian tendencies and that hatred toward outgroups is often widespread.” And he expresses shock that so few elites are “defending the norms of public debate and restraint from violence that Trump is bulldozing.”  Norms are fragile and hard to restore once they are gone. He’s dubious that all the analysis out there showing that Trump’s rise is a result of economics or racism is really valid. As he notes, nothing specific has changed in that regard. What has changed, in his mind, are the institutions of American politics. They have failed, and are continuing to fail.
And Nyhan issues a warning that everyone would do well to think a little bit about:
A major party nomination is a powerful thing. Millions of people will instinctively support Trump. Many/most GOP pols will back him.
General elections can be won and lost on chance swings in the economy or foreign policy crises. There are no guarantees at that point.
And even if Trump loses, the exits he could prompt from the party could leave his sympathizers with control of a major party going forward.
Trumpism may yet be revealed as cult of personality with no staying power. He has no factional base or issue to realign party over long term.
But no one should be comforted about the point we’re at with Trump or what it has revealed about the health of our political system.
The genie is out of the bottle. Regardless of where Trump ends up tonight or over the next few months, American politics are unlikely to ever be the same.

I love a challenge by @BloggersRUs

I love a challenge
by Tom Sullivan


Photo by Tom Hagerty via Creative Commons

They say write what you know. So let’s do that. I love a challenge.

It’s primary day in North Carolina. Except for congressional candidates. Oh, and supreme court justice candidates. Court actions have postponed those contests until June 7. State Republican leaders are on a losing streak where election changes are concerned. Turnout in early voting has been high.

Confusion abounds here about primaries and court-ordered redistricting. In 2010, I was in one western NC congressional district. In 2011, I got drawn into the next district east. After courts last month forced Republicans to redraw two racially gerrymandered districts downstate, the remapping cascaded down to the state’s other 11 congressional districts. The new map showed me back in the district where I started. Unless the court rejects the new map and makes Republicans draw it again. Don’t get me started on judicial retention elections.

Of course, by the time the courts ruled in February, the state had already printed ballots for the March 15 primary. So if there is a congressional primary in the district you were in (but might not still be in), that race will be on your ballot and you can vote in it today. Of course, those races have been postponed and your vote in those particular races won’t count. Not to worry. You’ll get to vote in them again on June 7, but maybe for a different set of congressional candidates in a different district than you are in. Or were in. This is your state on T-party.

Are you with me so far?

Let’s move on to voter ID:

A strict voter ID law will be in effect for the first time in Tuesday’s primary in North Carolina, where an estimated 218,000 registered voters don’t have the identification they’ll need to vote. Two other presidential battleground states, Florida and Ohio, also vote Tuesday and have restrictions in place.

There have already been voting problems in North Carolina, especially in student-heavy areas, according to reports. Student IDs aren’t accepted under the law, and neither are out-of-state driver’s licenses. One senior at UNC Chapel-Hill who voted in the 2012 presidential election said he showed his Pennsylvania license and was forced to cast a provisional ballot, which may not be counted. His was one of numerous anecdotes to emerge in recent days of North Carolinians prevented from voting.

Not just students. Richard Burr, senior Republican United States Senator from North Carolina, is up for reelection this fall. When Burr, senior Republican United States Senator from North Carolina, went to early vote last week, he discovered he lost his ID. (Had the dog eaten it?) Thanks to the state’s strict voter ID law passed through the Republican legislature in 2013 with the aid of Burr’s freshman Senate colleague, Thom Tillis, Burr was forced to cast a provisional ballot. But don’t worry, Dick. All you need to do for your vote to count is:

(1) fill out a form to explain a “reasonable impediment” for why you don’t have an acceptable ID; and
(2) write in your birth date and last 4 digits of your Social Security number; or show a registration card, current utility bill, pay stub, bank statement, or any government document with your name and address.

Hint: Your U.S. Senate lapel pin doesn’t count.

This whole thing sounds mighty suspicious, right? An open invitation for the dead to vote. Someone had better alert Hans von Spakovsky and the voter fraud squads to be on the alert for scores of shuffling zombies presenting themselves at the polls as Richard Burr-AINS!

BTW, there is also a presidential primary here today. Unless North Carolina goes the way of Michigan, Hillary Clinton is expected to win today.

That old time conservative movement

That old time conservative movement

by digby

The old guard (except Phyllis Schafly, oddly) are all in for Cruz. But they sound like something from another era. It’s not that they don’t have clout, they do. And I suspect they’ll make their peace with Trump if he wins the election. But a good part of the right is no longer interested in listening to a bunch of gibberish about “capital gains taxes” and “entitlement reform.” They want to Make America White Again. They heard the dogwhistles from these leaders all those years and the country just got browner and black people started gaining power and women got more uppity. Trump’s talking about putting everything back the way it was by brute force — walls, deportation, banning immigration, law and order.

It’s not that the conservative movement doesn’t want all that stuff too. But they worked so hard to try to create a coherent ideology to back up their primitive loathing that they can’t stand to see it destroyed:


OPEN LETTER TO AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES and PATRIOTS:

Donald Trump’s growing delegate count should focus the mind of every conservative on exactly what a Trump nomination would mean to each of the three legs of Ronald Reagan’s conservative coalition, and to our new 21st Century conservative coalition partners of the Tea Party and liberty movements.   A group of longtime conservative activists and leaders have come together to sign this most important letter, and ask you to join them on this urgent mission and vote for Ted Cruz.

On March 15, just a few days from now, the states of Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and the Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands will vote; their votes will allocate 367 delegates and could put Donald Trump – or principled limited government constitutional conservative Senator Ted Cruz – over half way to the 1,237 delegates required to win the Republican nomination for president.

The possibility of a Trump victory in the March 15 primaries should convince conservatives that unless we coalesce behind Ted Cruz, the conservative agenda will be stalled for at least another decade.

Cultural conservatives in particular should recognize that the nomination of Donald Trump would mean Republicans would field one of the most thoroughly secular candidates for President ever to represent either of America’s major political parties.

Trump is the poster boy for the kind of Big Business – Big Government cronyism that stacks the deck against new market entrants and uses pay-to-play politics to protect and give advantages to those who are prepared to buy influence with politicians – as Donald Trump has regularly bragged he does.

Likewise, Donald Trump’s views on national security and national defense should give pause to every conservative. While Trump’s testosterone-fueled rants to “knock the Hell out of ISIS” sound conservative to the establishment media, they bear little resemblance to Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” philosophy and policies.

Ted Cruz is everything we conservatives have been waiting for in a candidate for President. We urge you to pull out all the stops to inform your conservative friends, contacts in your network of associates, newsletters, press appearances, etc. about Donald Trump’s record and policies and to do everything possible to ensure that Senator Ted Cruz comes away with the most delegates from the March 15 Republican primaries and from this effort we build a solid and united conservative movement behind him going forward to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

We, the undersigned, with great respect for those with divergent views on the strengths of any one candidate, with an urgent sense of purpose for the future of our constitutional republic that may be permanently and irreparably harmed unless we act, and with thought and prayer for guidance from Almighty God, urge all conservatives to unite with us behind the only candidate for the Republican nomination who stands a chance of defeating Donald Trump — and that candidate is Ted Cruz.

Here’s just a sampling of the names:

Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

Dr. James Dobson, Founder, Family Talk Radio

Rebecca Hagelin, Board of Directors, FamilyTalk; Secretary, Council for National Policy

Morton Blackwell, Chairman, Conservative Leadership PAC

Ken Cuccinelli, Former Virginia Attorney General

Jerry A. Johnson, Ph.D., President and CEO, National Religious Broadcasters

Frank Gaffney, President, the Center for Security Policy

Erick Erickson, Editor of The Resurgent

Sandy Rios, Director of Governmental Affairs for AFA

Barbara Ledeen, Jews for Cruz

Tim Macy, Chairman, Gun Owners of America

Brian S. Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage

Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness

Penny Nance, CEO and President, Concerned Women for America

Jenny Beth Martin, Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, Chairman

Terry Schilling, Executive Director, American Principles Project

Dr. Rick Scarborough, President, Vision America Action

Kelly Shackelford, Esq. President/CEO, First Liberty Institute

These people are very upset that all their years of brainwashing didn’t really take. It was always about the hate.

.

They love him even more

They love him even more

by digby

The Washington Post reports:

Monmouth University was polling Republicans in Florida as the events in Chicago unfolded, and so they added a question to their survey. “As you may know, Donald Trump cancelled a rally in Chicago Friday night where protesters and his supporters got into confrontations,” Monmouth asked. “Does what happened there and Trump’s response to it make you more likely or less likely to support Trump, or does it have no impact on your vote for the Republican nomination?”

The responses? Eighty-eight percent of those who replied said it either made no difference or made them support Trump more.
[…]
The events of the past few days and Trump’s open embrace of violence on the campaign trail have restored the ability of some in the political observer class to be amazed that Trump never seems to pay much of a political price, no matter what he does. Dartmouth’s Brendan Nyhan outlined that amazement in a series of tweets Sunday night.

.

QOTD: Hunter S. Thompson

QOTD: Hunter S. Thompson

by digby

This is actually part of a must read post by Ed Kilgore:

For the next two hours I was locked in a friendly, free-wheeling conversation with about six of my hosts who didn’t mind telling me that they were there because George Wallace was the most important man in America. “This guy is the real thing,” one of them said. “I never cared anything about politics before, but Wallace ain’t the same as the others. He don’t sneak around the bush. He just comes right out and says it.”

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the racist Wallace voter sounds exactly like a Trump voter. Because we know Trump’s appeal is really all about economics. Still, it’s interesting. 

What he says about women

What he says about women

by digby

I suspect this ad by a conservative PAC will actually gain Trump as many voters as he loses but it’s still something people should hear:

If you don’t spend your time in the fever swamps as I do you may not be aware of the horrifically repulsive misogyny that still exists in our country.  I’d guess that what Trump has said in public is nothing compared to what he says in private. His fans are far, far more … pungent. And they aren’t the only ones. It’s enough to turn your stomach, really.

Trump attracts a lot of women too, all of whom don’t mind at all that he thinks of women as one step above animals whose only true function is sex or motherhood:

The Guardian conducted interviews this week with 18 women at four Trump events over 48 hours, including one hosted by John Wayne’s daughter and another where Palin was unveiled as the magnate’s new sidekick. The female supporters – including undecided voters – expressed views consistent with what the former vice-presidential candidate and the billionaire frontrunner agreed is nothing less than a “movement”: anti-establishment, unapologetic and, it turns out, gender-neutral. Not one mentioned that she was turned off by his anti-women remarks.

These are qualities not fully reflected in the very polls Trump holds up as signifying his lead over the Texas senator Ted Cruz and a field of 10. Which is to say, the polls do not tell the whole Trump story. And such conversations offer a window into why Trump could be more popular than anyone ever thought possible.

“I believe it’s a non-gender issue,” said one woman of her choice. “I don’t see any issues about gender relations,” said another, adding: “I don’t even see that as being a problem in America.” As for anyone upset by Trump’s vulgar talk, or – dare a reporter ask it – thinking about a vote for Hillary Clinton instead: those women, the Trumpophiles say, are just trying to make America fail again.

“He’s sick and tired of things, and so am I,” exclaimed Judy Haines of Trump at the event in Norwalk. “You’re not allowed to say what you think.”

Live Trump seeks Florida knockout as Kasich battles for Ohio upset – campaign live
With five states voting in nominating contests on Tuesday, Sanders hopes to maintain midwest momentum while Rubio could be facing his last stand

Nancy Young, a recently retired farmer from Arispe, Iowa, agreed. “This political correctness nonsense is causing us more harm than anything you can imagine,” she said on Tuesday in Winterset, from under the shadow of Wayne’s cowboy hat at his birthplace. “We have the freedom of speech in this country. Well, we can’t! You’re censored for everything you say.”

Trump’s call-it-as-you-see-it approach can seem relatively harmless to the masses, as when he uses it to poke fun at the “low energy” of Republican rival Jeb Bush. But in quiet conversation its effect takes on a severe afterglow.

After bemoaning the loss of free speech, Young went on to say she might have voted for Florida senator Marco Rubio but does not think he’s “eligible” for president, since his parents came from Cuba; she does not believe Barack Obama was born in the US; and while she initially liked the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, she has changed her mind after seeing how his campaign has been managed.

It kind of breaks my heart but they do have agency and you have to take them seriously. They are soldiers in Trump’s army too. And there are millions of them.

Nationally, he’s not so popular among women. But it pretty much breaks down by party. It just so happens that Democrats have a lot more women in their party than Republicans do. An ad like this is likely to help get out the vote for the Democratic party in the fall. But GOP women will stick with Trump.

Trump’s big week-end

Trump’s big week-end


by digby

I wrote this for Salon this morning:

This past week we saw an escalation in the building of Donald Trump’s authoritarian campaign for president. After a tumultuous week in before in which he won big after having refused to disavow the KKK, he appeared on the debate stage noticably subdued and everyone assumed that he had turned over a new leaf. But it was not to be. Last week his rallies took yet another dark turn with the typical ugly rhetoric beginning to be matched by some very ugly violence. Even his own campaign manager was implicated in an assault on a conservative reporter.

By Friday tensions were running very high at a St Louis rally with protesters facing off against rally attendees outside the event which featured bizarre taunts from Trump supporters like this:

Hey, fuck Islam, Allah is a whore, Jesus is the most high God, and you bitches are done! (makes gun-fingers) Fuck you!

Trump had recently said on television, “Islam hates us” so perhaps this was just one of his passionate supporters “fighting back” as Trump exhorts them to do.

But the “passionate” rhetoric that people are protesting isn’t just the derogatory language about Muslims. He call immigrants rapists and plans mass deportation. He extols “law and order” and openly years for days when he says it was acceptable to beat protesters, many of whom happen to be African Americans. In recent days the campaign had begun removing them from the rallies without them having said a word. Get ’em out!

All this provocative language, over the course of many months, finally culminated in a confrontation on Friday night in Chicago where for possibly cynical reasons Trump planned a rally at a University populated with many ethnic and racial minorities. Some students decided to stage a large organized protest and Trump cancelled the rally after everyone was inside the event venue. There are many different accounts of what started what appeared on TV as a a melee on the floor. Trump said the police told him it was unsafe but they denied they ever told him that leading to some informed speculation that Trump had planned for such an altercation to provoke an uprising for publicity purposes.

It’s hard to imagine anyone being quite that Machiavellian, even Donald Trump, but he’s a master media manipulator so who knows? He certainly has no regrets. In fact, even after endless recitations of his many incitements to violence, he claims he has said nothing wrong.  On Meet the Press yesterday he had this to say for himself:

 TODD:You will not call for ratcheting back the rhetoric? You will not call for it?

TRUMP: Well, I haven’t said anything that– I’m just expressing my opinion. What have I said that’s wrong? I mean, I talk about illegal immigration, I talk about building a wall, I say Mexico’s going to pay for the wall, which they will. And all of these things. I mean, what have I said that’s wrong? You tell me. The fact is, they’re really upset with the way our country is being run. It’s a disgrace.

He then said he was contemplating paying the legal fees of the North Carolina man who cold-cocked a protester last week and then later said “we might have to kill him.” He is clearly not ratcheting down the rhetoric.

To those of us who have been closely watching his speeches from the beginning, none of this is unexpected.  It’s obvious even through the television that the energy at his rallies is both ecstatic for Trump and hostile toward minorities. There have been numerous examples of protesters being beaten and manhandled going back at least six months. (Plug “Trump protest” into Youtube to see just how many incidents there are.) And Trump has encouraged it every step of the way.

It’s unlikely that Trump planned all this out in advance.  But he is a deeply instinctive politician and his steps in the last couple of days show a serious understanding of the Republican psyche. When it was reported that MoveOn had been involved in some of the planning for the Chicago protest and that local Bernie Sanders supporters had been involved it took him no time to parlay that information into a conspiracy theory and feed it directly to the right wing lizard brain. He began to taunt the protesters at his subsequent rallies admonishing the “communist” Sanders to “get your people in line, Bernie.”

There is no evidence at all that the Sanders campaign had anything to do with the Chicago protest and there has not been even the slightest violent rhetoric or behavior at any Sanders events.  Nonetheless, in the rightwing media the protesters are now called “infiltrators” and “outside agitators” and a narrative is taking shape of normal political protests being acts of sabotage against Trump to deprive him of his constitutional right to free speech.  (The fact that every TV news network has covered his every utterance all day every day since last June should mitigate the offense but so far that doesn’t seem to have been considered.)

This is a very old tactic. As David Neiwert explained:

Never mind that Trump has specifically encouraged the violence, telling reporters at a press conference that “we need a little bit more of that.” 

The story we’ll be fed as at least “the other side” will be Trump’s: that the leftist “thugs” were responsible for the violence. And we all can see where this is going: As justification for further and more intense violence. 

There is a long history of this with the fascist and proto-fascist right. Indeed, martyrdom at the hands of the “violent left” was a cornerstone of early Nazi propaganda…

He goes on to tell the tale of Horst Wessel, a violent Nazi street fighter, who was turned into a martyr to the cause when he was killed, allegedly by Communists. His death was used by the Nazi propaganda machine to great effect to portray the enemies of the Party as the real violent criminals. This victimization narrative was a major element of Nazi recruitment.

Neiwert takes the story back even further to the post Civil War south and the origin of the phrase “waving the bloody shirt”: “the demagogic practice of politicians referencing the blood of martyrs or heroes to inspire support or avoid criticism.” Trump doesn’t have a literal bloody shirt to wave … yet. But it’s probably just a matter of time.  The violence is escalating. At some point one his “his” people will get hurt.

Here’s Ann Coulter laying the groundwork:

(Reagan did say that although he refused to believe he’d actually said it until a tape of his remarks were played back to him. That’s what you call “accidentally saying what you really think.”)

Tea Party founder Judson Phillips (and Ted Cruz supporter) put it this way:

This riot last night shows the fundamental difference between real Americans and the radical left. Trump supporters do not crash Clinton or Sanders rallies. Neither to Cruz supporters or other conservatives and Republicans. 

This summer is going to be a long hot summer.  The left is on the move. Bernie Sanders is calling for a revolution.  It isn’t just a political revolution the left wants. They want a violent political revolution.

“This has to be crushed … I don’t care whether these goons don’t like what the candidates are saying.   I don’t believe we should have to shut down just to keep the peace…. The goons need to back off and they need to be silenced.  Not the people on the side of law and order,” 

And what of the media?  Will they play along? At first they did seem to be shaken by the events of the last couple of weeks as the violence began to escalate at the rallies. But they’re settling back into their usual “both sides do it” groove which is exactly what Donald Trump is hoping for. Last evening on CNN Poppy Harlow presented the story this way:

The presidential campaign today just took another twist on the Republican side frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders used the Sunday morning talk shows to day to take swipes at one another. At issue Trump’s claims that the Sanders camps is responsible for the escalating violence and protests at Trump rallies over the week-end. Sanders puts the blame squarely on Trump’s shoulders.  

People have been wondering how Trump could possibly pull the Republican coalition back together if he ends up with the nomination. If he can get the media to help him make the case that he is a victim at the hands of “the left”, if only to those who traditionally vote Republican, it might not be as hard as it seems. It may seem obvious at the moment that Trump is creating this violent atmosphere with his incendiary rhetoric and his policies of hate and division. But if he plays his cards right, a few months down the line he might very have succeeded in muddying that reality enough to have most Republicans blaming Democrats for what he started.

P.G. Sittenfeld or Ted Strickland: Climate or Coal? by @Gaius_Publius

P.G. Sittenfeld or Ted Strickland: Climate or Coal?

by Gaius Publius

Climate champion P.G. Sittenfeld is the one choice for the U.S. Senate from Ohio

I’ve been watching the Ohio Senate primary contest between former governor Ted Strickland and progressive P.G. Sittenfeld with interest. I keep having to remind myself that Strickland is actually a Democrat and that the race is still in the primary phase. The first is a lie (Strickland is a “Democrat” only, not a real one), and the second is an opportunity (we can replace him on the Democratic ticket).

For those keeping count, pretend-anti-TPP Sen. Rob Portman is the incumbent Senator and a Republican. You may not know, even if you live in Ohio, that Portman was a Bush-appointed U.S. Trade Representative:

Portman spent significant time out of the United States negotiating trade agreements with roughly 30 countries, visiting Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, France, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.[32] During his tenure, Portman also helped to win passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.[59] Portman utilized a network of former House colleagues to get support for the treaty to lift trade barriers between the United States and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Honduras.

That’s a lot of countries to screw over American workers with. Portman was busy. After that, he went into lawyering:

On November 8, 2007, Portman joined the law firm of Squire Sanders as part of the firms transactional and international trade practice in Cincinnati, Ohio. His longtime chief of staff, Rob Lehman, also joined the firm as a lobbyist in their Washington, D.C. office.[73][74]

Another self-serving “public” servant who make money negotiating rotten trade agreements, then made money representing corporations that benefit from them.

Portman is considered a vulnerable Republican senator this year, which is why it’s so important to defeat him. Portman is also one of the reasons that neither Obama nor McConnell will bring TPP to Congress until the lame duck. If it comes up before the election, Portman, to save his seat, will have to pretend to care about Ohio and vote No. After the election, win or lose, he can vote his wallet, his history, and aggrandize his possible future as a lobbyist.

The candidate Ohioans choose to replace Portman is the question, since the seat is winnable — thus the importance of the Democratic primary between Sittenfeld and Strickland.

Sittenfeld or Strickland — Climate or Coal?

The virtues of these candidates on a number of issues have been discussed in these pages — corruption, gun violence, and so on. Each comparison shows Sittenfeld the clear winner. (If you like, you can help him here.) But a comparison that has not been well covered is coal, the environment, and the climate.

Put simply, a vote for Strickland is a vote for coal in Ohio (and frankly, for a neo-Stone Age life for your great grandchildren, not that Strickland cares). A vote for Sittenfeld, on the other hand, is a vote for a carbon-free future.

The following piece from The Hill illustrates the first point well. As you read, note the main idea — that candidate Strickland is distancing himself from Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” and instead, returning to his first love, coal (my emphasis):

Strickland’s coal policies dust up possible Senate bid

Ted Strickland,
Democrats’ top prospect to take on Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (R), is facing a litany of questions about his ties to the clean-energy industry that could weigh heavily on coal-country voters.

To prepare for a possible Senate bid, the former Ohio governor quietly stepped down last week from a senior role with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank and advocacy group that has promoted a shift away from coal.

Critics are tying him to the group’s environmental policies and to Carol Browner, the former architect of President Obama’s climate policies, who is a distinguished senior fellow at CAP. “CAP has people like Carol Browner right down the hall from him in the office, and we can’t in the industry trust someone whose ties to the war on coal go that deep,” said Christian Palich, interim president of the Ohio Coal Association, a GOP-leaning group.

Strickland tried to inoculate himself from attacks shortly before leaving by touting the think tank’s new report calling for reform of coal subsidies to help Appalachian coal compete
with cheaper Western coal.
He argues that Western coal producers enjoy an unfair advantage because their royalty rates have not increased in 40 years.

The apparent move to rebuff the possible damage is a sign that coal politics could figure prominently in the Ohio Senate race next year. Strickland, however, said 2016 was not a motivating factor.

“I care about Ohio. I care about coal communities,” he said, according to The Associated Press, “long before there was any talk of me entering a political race of any kind.”

If you read this too quickly, you’d think that the Strickland deception was to pretend to distance himself from Obama’s plan. But that deception hides this — that Strickland has a genuine and longstanding love of the carbon extraction industry, including coal mining and fracking for oil and methane (“America’s natural gas”).

For example, in Congress Strickland was a strong supporter of coal subsidies, and also voted multiple times to prevent increases in fuel economy standards. He voted No on amendments like these:

  • HR 2520, House Vote 337, 7/15/93 — An amendment to cut $50 million in funding for coal research and development, and to then transfer $25 million to energy conservation research and development and the other $25 million to deficit reduction.
     
  • HR 4602, House Vote 271, 6/23/94 — An amendment that called for cutting $27 million from funds earmarked from coal R&D.
     
  • HR 4, House Vote 311, 8/1/01 — An amendment to increase fuel economy standards by closing the light-truck loophole for fuel economy standards.
     
  • HR 6, House Vote 132, 4/10/03 — An amendment that would reduce the amount of oil consumed by U.S. automobiles by five percent by 2010.

And many others like them. Strickland was quite consistent. Do Ohioans want to replace Rob Portman with Ted Strickland, a reliable coal, oil and gas industry representative? Ohio can do much better.

Sittenfeld Understands — We Must Eliminate Carbon to Survive

Sittenfeld is more than just an up-and-coming face in the strong, progressive Bernie Sanders mold. He understands that the future of America, and the future of the world, does not lie with the carbon industry. If you believe that a carbon-free future is essential for your children and grandchildren, P.G. Sittenfeld is your candidate and Ted Strickland is the opposite — your enemy.

Goal Thermometer

I’ve reached out to the Sittenfeld campaign on this issue. Here’s Sittenfeld on carbon and the climate (emphasis mine):

I have endeavored to be a leader wherever and whenever possible on climate change, including my early and unwavering opposition to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. I firmly believe we can and should do what it takes to entirely decarbonize the U.S. economy as soon as possible.

You can’t get much clearer than that.

If you believe in a carbon-free future, here are two things you can do now. First, please help P.G. Sittenfeld in his fight for the U.S. Senate. Second, if you’re a voter in Ohio, by all means, vote in the coming primary.

Do it for the children.

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

GP
 

.