Skip to content

Month: March 2016

Simply the best #TheDonaldneedsnoseriousadvisers

Simply the best

by digby

The Donald doesn’t need to consult with anyone but himself, we know that. He has a very good brain. But he apparently does have a few people he bounces ideas off of on foreign policy. From TPM:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump finally released at least a partial list of the people (other than himself) he says are advising him on foreign policy, the The Washington Post reported Monday.

The list of five men includes no heavyweights from any of the main schools of foreign policy thought.

Trump had been promising for months to make such a list public, but had delayed it repeatedly. He provided the list in a meeting with the Washington Post’s editorial board.

Trump’s admittance that he’s receiving advice on foreign policy comes in advance of a scheduled speech Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference.

Here’s who Trump told the Post was advising him:

Walid Phares, who you probably know. Ph.D., adviser to the House of Representatives. He’s a counter-terrorism expert. Carter Page, Ph.D. George Papadopoulos. He’s an oil and energy consultant. Excellent guy. The honorable Joe Schmitz, [was] inspector general at the Department of Defense. General Keith Kellogg. And I have quite a few more. But that’s a group of some of the people that we are dealing with. We have many other people in different aspects of what we do. But that’s pretty representative group.

Trump said he’d be releasing more names of his advisers. He had said just last week when asked who his advisers were that he was speaking to himself “number one.”

Right Wing Watch fills us in on the first person mentioned on his list:

It shouldn’t be that surprising that an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist like Trump is taking advice from Phares, who believes that the Obama administration is “being advised and suggested to by Muslim Brotherhood either fronts or advisers or sympathizers” and “has decided to quit the ideological confrontation” against terrorist groups.

Adam Serwer reported back in 2011, when Phares signed on as an adviser to Mitt Romney, that Phares “was a high ranking political official in a sectarian religious militia responsible for massacres during Lebanon’s brutal, 15-year civil war” and worked as “a close adviser to Samir Geagea, a Lebanese warlord.”

In 1978, the Lebanese Forces emerged as the umbrella group of the assorted Christian militias. According to former colleagues, Phares became one of the group’s chief ideologists, working closely with the Lebanese Forces’ Fifth Bureau, a unit that specialized in psychological warfare.

That ideology, some experts say, helped rationalize the indiscriminate sectarian violence that characterized the conflict. “There were lots of horrendous, horrendous atrocities that took place during that civil war, in part fueled by that fairly hateful ideology,” says a former State Department official and Middle East expert.

It’s almost fitting that Trump would select a person with ties to a militia group that committed atrocities, as the GOP frontrunner has pledged to order the military to commit war crimes if he’s elected president.

But don’t worry. Everyone says he’s really an isolationist so it’s all good. All that bellicose bombast about making the rest of the world stop laughing at us and building up the military and “bombing the shit out of ’em” is just talk.

And by the way, a reminder that his alleged Iraq war opposition is total bullshit. As the war was starting, Trump was quite excited about the financial prospects:

Trump, (March 21, 2003): Well, I think Wall Street’s waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they’re obviously taking it a little bit for granted that it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you’re going to see after the war is over.

Cavuto: What do you mean?

Trump: Well, I think Wall Street’s just going to go up like a rocket even beyond and it’s going to continue and – you know we have a strong and powerful country and let’s hope it all works out.

Cavuto: … Why are you so optimistic?

Trump: Well, I think a couple of things. I really feel that the key is that interest rates — beyond the war interest rates are going to have to stay stable and low. That’s going to be very important. And if you really look at Wall Street, Wall Street’s come down thousands and thousands of points over the last number of years. So really, I remember when we were sitting here saying two years ago that Wall Street is going to be double what it was two years ago and a lot of people didn’t believe that and I didn’t believe that, but there were plenty of very intelligent people who said yes. I think that Wall Street will be going up and the market will be going up and there’s great confidence in this great country.

Cavuto: You know there is a feeling abroad, Donald, that the French don’t like us, the Germans don’t like us. There were protests abroad still continuing around the globe today from Asia to Africa and that there’s going to be hell to pay that maybe some of these same people will prove their wrath by not investing in this country, by doing all sorts of nasty things, do you buy that?

Trump: Well, the I guess the French never liked us much except when we were bailing them out, to be totally honest with you. But certainly were going to have to work on our public relations because there’s no question there are a lot of countries right now that aren’t too fond of us. I think that can be solved and probably pretty quickly. The main thing is to get the war over with and just make it a tremendously successful campaign and it will be very interesting to see what kind of weapons they find.

Spoken like a true isolationist populist. You can see why so many people think he’s “a different kind of Republican.”

Update: At Trump’s “press conference” yesterday he said today that unlike him, Hillary Clinton doesn’t know anything about foreign policy and his “prognostications” have all been right.

.

Trumpification and terrorism

Trumpification and terrorism

by digby

Ted Cruz is literally saying it’s time to stop being progressive and enlightened:

We Can No Longer Surrender to the Enemy Through Political Correctness 

Today radical Islamic terrorists targeted the men and women of Brussels as they went to work on a spring morning. In a series of co-ordinated attacks they murdered and maimed dozens of innocent commuters at subway stations and travelers at the airport. 

For the terrorists, the identities of the victims were irrelevant. They –we—are all part of an intolerable culture that they have vowed to destroy. 

For years, the west has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either. 

Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods. 

We will do what we can to help them fight this scourge, and redouble our efforts to make sure it does not happen here. 

We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence. 

We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized. 

We need to secure the southern border to prevent terrorist infiltration. 

And we need to execute a coherent campaign to utterly destroy ISIS. 

The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we can be are at an end. Our country is at stake.

He can try to out-Trump Trump but it won’t work.  TV networks immediately called him to get he juicy comments and Trump he immediately started talking about torture.

He also boldly exploited the event for his own purposes:

Beat that, Ted.

You might want to save that tweet in a folder for the next time some wingnut accuses you of “politicizing” something.  It doesn’t get anymore nakedly political than that. Sadly, there are plenty of people who will vote for him because they are afraid and for primitive reasons that make sense will think they’ll be safer if a puerile megalomaniac is in charge.

Trump on “these people”:

.

Brussels attacked by @BloggersRUs

Brussels attacked
by Tom Sullivan

Reuters cites a Belgian Public Broadcaster VRT in reporting that a suicide attack rocked the airport in Brussels this morning killing 13 and severely injuring 35 as of this writing. The blasts hit just before 8 a.m. local time. Several news outlets report that explosions also occurred at the Maalbeek Metro station near the EU buildings in Brussels. No deaths reported there at this time. Others say 10 killed at Maalbeek. Early reports tend to be inaccurate.

The security presence at London’s Heathrow airport has been stepped up. France has deployed an additional 1,600 police to its borders.

From Reuters’ live news blog:

The Belga agency said shots were fired and there were shouts in Arabic shortly before the blasts at the airport. Pictures on social media showed smoke rising from the terminal building through shattered windows and passengers running away down a slipway, some still hauling their bags.

The blasts at the airport and metro station occurred four days after the arrest in Brussels of a suspected participant in November militant attacks in Paris that killed 130 people. Belgian police had been on alert for any reprisal action.

British Sky News television’s Alex Rossi, at the airport, said he heard two “very, very loud explosions”.

“I could feel the building move. There was also dust and smoke as well…I went towards where the explosion came from and there were people coming out looking very dazed and shocked.”

The Independent has this report (5:55 EDT):

Witnesses said the airport blasts happened shortly before 8am local time (7am GMT) in the departure hall near the check-in desks for American Airlines and Brussels Airlines.

Little over an hour later, another explosion was reported at the Maalbeek (Maelbeek) station, near the European Council headquarters and other EU buildings. The capital’s entire public transport system was being shut down.

Our prayers for the victims and the people of Brussels.

If a woman does it it’s obviously not worth as much

If a woman does it it’s obviously not worth as much

by digby

Why do you ask?

Women’s median annual earnings stubbornly remain about 20 percent below men’s. Why is progress stalling? It may come down to this troubling reality, new research suggests: Work done by women simply isn’t valued as highly.That sounds like a truism, but the academic work behind it helps explain the pay gap’s persistence even as the factors long thought to cause it have disappeared. Women, for example, are now better educated than men, have nearly as much work experience and are equally likely to pursue many high-paying careers. No longer can the gap be dismissed with pat observations that women outnumber men in lower-paying jobs like teaching and social work.

A new study from researchers at Cornell University found that the difference between the occupations and industries in which men and women work has recently become the single largest cause of the gender pay gap, accounting for more than half of it. In fact, another study shows, when women enter fields in greater numbers, pay declines — for the very same jobs that more men were doing before.

Consider the discrepancies in jobs requiring similar education and responsibility, or similar skills, but divided by gender. The median earnings of information technology managers (mostly men) are 27 percent higher than human resources managers (mostly women), according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. At the other end of the wage spectrum, janitors (usually men) earn 22 percent more than maids and housecleaners (usually women).

Once women start doing a job, “It just doesn’t look like it’s as important to the bottom line or requires as much skill,” said Paula England, a sociology professor at New York University. “Gender bias sneaks into those decisions.”

She is a co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies of the phenomenon, using United States census data from 1950 to 2000, when the share of women increased in many jobs. The study, which she conducted with Asaf Levanon, of the University of Haifa in Israel, and Paul Allison of the University of Pennsylvania, found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography

But hey, I’m sure there’s nothing important going on here. Never mind.

.

Warren on the offensive

Warren on the offensive

by digby

This feud between Elizabeth Warren and Trump is getting really good. It started last week with the Facebook post above:

A week ago, Warren took to Facebook to try stirring up Trump opponents to speak out.

“Donald Trump is a bigger, uglier threat every day that goes by — and it’s time for decent people everywhere — Republican, Democrat, Independent – to say No More Donald,” she wrote.

Trump poked back in an interview with New York Times writer Maureen Dowd in a column that appeared in Sunday’s newspaper.

Trump said of Warren’s criticism, “I think it’s wonderful because the Indians can now partake in the future of the country. She’s got about as much Indian blood as I have.”

“Her whole life was based on a fraud,” he added. “She got into Harvard and all that because she said she was a minority.”

This was the Facebook post:

She started up on twitter today:

A reporter asked trump about this latest salvo at this bizarre infomercial/press conference earlier today and he said “the Indian? you mean the Indian”?  
He then went on to wring his tiny hands about civility and said that Elizabeth Warren had better get her act together and stop dividing the country. (He did add that he would probably have to do that too so that’s good.)
You cannot make this stuff up.
.

A thousand years of changes

A thousand years of changes


by digby

This shows the changes in Europe’s border over the course of a thousand years. I’m not putting it up to make a specific point about our current borders here or any kind of policy.  But it’s important to remind ourselves from time to time that many things we think of as written in stone … aren’t. Including countries and borders:

Just look at the last 25 years …

And read this about the possible changes to come.

.

Commie agitators.

Commie agitators

by digby

The wingnuts are on a roll. This landed in thousands of GOP emails this morning. It’s the new meme about protesters, which is just getting started:

Over the weekend far-Left “protesters” again tried to disrupt Donald Trump’s campaign events, but were thwarted by effective policing and Trump’s event security which is getting better at handling the attempted disruptions.

But the silence from the remaining candidates in the GOP field was deafening and the Republican Party’s national chairman, Reince Priebus, managed to take a sideways swipe at Trump’s campaign for failing to use Trump rally disruptionkid gloves in ejecting a protester who had returned to an event after being thrown out.

What the Republican establishment and the other candidates (except Ohio Governor John Kasich who is supported by the disrupters’ chief funder, Nazi collaborator George Soros) don’t seem to get is that this isn’t a few high spirited college kids who will see the light upon graduation, set aside their youthful follies, become capitalists and join the country club.

This is a well-thought-out attempt by a well-organized and well-funded revolutionary group to use violence to influence the political process in our country – and that’s the textbook definition of a revolution.

As our friend (and Trump supporter) Diana West has pointed out, “Nothing, but nothing, Donald Trump has said from his podium about protestors disrupting his rallies (punch him in the face, get him out of here, beat the crap out of anyone that throws tomatoes at me, I’ll defend you in court — the works) drives the anti-USA agendas of these Leftist groups; nor did it inspire them to organize the mobs that ‘successfully’ interrupted the democratic process last week in Chicago.”

Nor did it inspire them to organize the mobs that blocked traffic in Phoenix and rioted outside Trump’s rally in Salt Lake City.

Below is a list of the groups and persons that helped organize or participated in the “protest” in Chicago, a city collected by West, who said she was surprised to find, that the groups are nearly as Hispanic as they are black. Blacks comprise 32.9 percent of Chicago’s population. “According to the U.S. census,” the Chicago Tribune reports, “28.9 percent of Chicago’s population identify as Hispanic. About 21.4 percent are from Mexico.” More than one in five Chicagoans are from Mexico? No wonder there were Mexican flags flying over the anti-Trump throngs observed West.

Diana West says her list was cobbled together from the LA Times, Daily Caller, the Chicago Tribune, Politico, and her own research. It is probably not complete she says, given that Chicagomag.com estimated that some 60 groups and 100 student organizers put the shutdown together. Incomplete or not, however, the revolutionary Leftist agenda of the groups couldn’t be clearer concluded West, and we couldn’t agree more.

1) The Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights,

2) La Raza Chicago

3) Black Lives Matter Chicago

4) League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Illinois

5) Bill Ayers

6) Congressman Luis Guttierez (best pals with Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan we might add)

7) MoveOn.org (which has endorsed Bernie Sanders). Note: the MoveOn.org petition for the Stop Trump event was written by self-described “undocumented” and “queer” UIC graduate student, Jorge Mena Robles, a member of Mijente (below).

8) University of Illinois Chicago’s Prof. Amallia Pallares,

9) Black Student Union

10) Muslim Student Association

11) The Fearless Undocumented Alliance (“which,” as the LA Times PC-puts it, “advocates for immigrants in the country illegally”)

12) Assata’s Daughters (named for escaped-to-Cuba Black Panther murderer Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard)

13) International ANSWER Chicago

14) Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (Chicago DSA)

15) SEIU Local 73

16) The Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression (as reported by “Fight Back News: News and Views from the People’s Struggle”)

17) Mijente

18) Centro Sin Fronteras

19) Chicago Aldermen George Cardenas (12th), Raymond Lopez (15th) and Gilbert Villegas (36th), as reported by Progress Illinois

20) Revolutionary Communist Party USA

No, the GOP won’t confirm a Supreme Court justice in the lameduck session

No, the GOP won’t confirm a Supreme Court justice in the lameduck session

by digby

I wrote about the GOP’s history of being unimpressed and unmoved by election results for Salon this morning:

Last week’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia sparked another round of speculation about whether or not the Republicans were on the verge of sobering up and becoming responsible leaders who will perform their duties as prescribed in the Constitution. President Obama has offered them a man of the highest integrity who by all accounts is extremely well-liked by members of both parties. And although he is seen as a member of the center left, he is known to be a moderate in judicial temperament and very respectful of precedent. Republicans could never have expected a more congenial choice from a Democratic president. And it doesn’t matter one little bit.  Despite the wistful hopes of commentators and establishment Democrats everywhere, they will not confirm him.
This isn’t entirely surprising, of course. This is one of “their” seats, which they believe is ordained by their Creator to be a hardcore rightwing zealot. And it is true that appointing a moderate to the “Scalia seat” will change the balance on the court. That’s the sort of thing that tends to happen when presidents are elected from the same party all but eight years out of 24, which can legitimately be seen as a referendum on the two parties’ judicial philosophy.  They’ve been lucky this didn’t happen sooner.
But lifetime appointments are always a dicey matter of timing, so we have normally held to the idea that whomever the people last elected as president is still fully endowed with the power of the office. This includes nominations to the Supreme Court, at least until he is officially a lame duck after the election in November. In practice it would not have been surprising for the Republicans to make a great show of deliberation in assessing the merits and qualifications of a president of the opposing party’s choice of a Supreme Court justice in an election year. No one would have been shocked if they had tried to game out a way to allow the seat to be a motivation for their voters in the hopes a new president more in line with their philosophy would have the privilege of making the nomination.
One might have expected them to slow-walk the process over the course of months, perhaps hold long and laborious hearings and then even allow one of their members to stage a filibuster over the vote. We could have hoped they would do all this while at least paying lip service to the longstanding processes of the Senate in order to preserve a belief that despite our differences over politics and policies, we still maintain a healthy respect for the rules and norms which allow us to function even at times of partisan polarization.  But that’s a foolish hope. Those days have been gone for a very long time.
Back in 2006, Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann wrote a book, called “The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America,” about our dysfunctional government in an age of partisan polarization. They identified much of the problem at that time as being a result of the strong majority party leadership that began under Newt Gingrich and the breakdown of the system which featured a more diffuse power center under committee chairmen. They revisited the subject six years later with a sequel called “It’s Even Worse Than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism,” which specifically places the blame for our increasingly impaired democracy squarely on the Republican Party.
They call our current dilemma “asymmetric polarization” and describe the GOP of this era as “an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited and social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise,unpersuaded by conventional  understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” They discussed the recent obstructionism and hostage-taking born of over-promising and a winner-take-all mentality. And they analyzed at great length the unwillingness of these extreme politicians to confirm President Obama’s nominees, which they correctly characterized as “blocking nominations even while acknowledging the competence and integrity of the nominees, to prevent the legitimate implementation of laws on the books.“
This is the Republican party that is now getting ready to nominate an unqualified megalomaniac for president. And yes, the “establishment,” to the degree it exists at all, is struggling to find its way out of the problem they have been allowing to metastasize for decades.  It’s only getting worse. The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader can barely rouse themselves to condemn their frontrunner for refusing to disavow the KKK. 
Confirming Judge Garland in the lame duck session once an election has been held, which is the latest idea circulating among observers in the beltway, would be a sharp departure from their usual strategy. Recall that, in 1998, Republicans sought to overturn a presidential election by impeaching the president over a sexual indiscretion. And they were undeterred despite losing very badly in a midterm, which was widely assumed to be a referendum on the impeachment. The architect of the GOP’s slash-and-burn strategy, Newt Gingrich, lost his speakership over it, but it did not stop them. They went ahead and the nation was only spared by the two-thirds requirement for conviction in the Senate.
More recently, when the entire world economy was crashing in 2009, the new president had to beg just to get a small handful of Republicans to sign on to a stimulus package everyone knew was necessary to prevent further catastrophe.
House passage on the package came on a 246-183 vote—with no support from Republicans. Senate action followed on a 60-38 roll call that stretched for five hours in a near-empty chamber as Sen. Sherrod Brown flew back on a government plane from his mother’s wake in Ohio.
Three Republican moderates—Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania—voted for the bill. But with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass) ill with cancer, Brown became the needed 60th vote, forcing him to shuttle back and forth between Washington and Ohio where his mother’s funeral is Saturday.
The reason the Democrats needed 60 votes was because the Republicans filibustered a vital economic bill.  This happened just days into President Obama’s first term after winning an electoral college landslide. Lets just say, they don’t let mere elections get in the way of their agenda.
This piece by Ian Millhiser at Think Progress shows they have not changed their ways:
McConnell offered this unusual view of the confirmation process during an interview with Fox News Sunday. In response to a question from host Chris Wallace, who asked if Senate Republicans would consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court after the election if Hillary Clinton prevails, McConnell responded that he “can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.”
The Majority Leader’s statement is significant for several reasons. For one thing, it suggests that his previously stated position that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” is a sham. Simply put, it’s unlikely that the NRA or the NFIB will change their position on a nominee just because Hillary Clinton is president and not Barack Obama.
Anything’s possible, of course. Perhaps if things don’t go their way in the fall they will be so chastened by their losses that they’ll sober up and decide they need to govern like responsible leaders again. But I’ll believe it when I see it.