Skip to content

Month: May 2016

Trump wants to burn us up

Trump wants to burn us up

by digby

Nothing to see here, folks. It’s not as if anything bad will happen if he wins or anything:

The New York billionaire said he is “not a big fan” of the Paris climate accord, which prescribes reductions in carbon emissions by more than 170 countries, and would want to renegotiate it because it gives favorable treatment to countries like China.

A renegotiation of the pact would be a major setback for what was hailed as the first truly global climate accord, committing both rich and poor nations to reining in the rise in greenhouse gas emissions blamed for warming the planet.
[…]

Turning to the economy, Trump said he planned to release a detailed policy platform in two weeks that would propose dismantling nearly all of Dodd-Frank, a package of financial reforms put in place after the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

“Dodd-Frank is a very negative force, which has developed a very bad name,” Trump said.

That cimate change comment is so fucking stupid I don’t even know what to say. He’s going to kill us.

.

Benghazipalooza fizzle

Benghazipalooza fizzle


by digby

Well hell. Right Wing Watch reports that Trey Gowdy had to make a little confession today:

A central element of conservative conspiracy theories spread in the aftermath of the September 11, 2012 attack on our diplomatic facility and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, has been the myth that the military could have responded to the attack more quickly and therefore saved lives. 

In the most outlandish version of this story, President Obama or Hillary Clinton ordered the military to “stand down” rather than come to the aid of the Americans who were under attack. 

Earlier this week, a letter from two House Democrats to Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who is chairing the select committee investigating the Benghazi attack, revealed that the GOP’s own chief investigator acknowledged during the investigation that nothing “could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi.” 

In an interview on Fox News today, Gowdy responded to this newly released information by acknowledging, “Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that — they couldn’t.” 

They’ve spent nearly seven million dollars on this ridiculous investigation.  And this obvious fact, known from the beginning, is where we have landed.

It will never be fully resolved because conspiracy theorists live in a world of their own. And unfortunately, much of our politics is not nothing more than a bunch of shrieking conspiracy theories. So I won’t hold my breath for this to be over. Still, if there’s any hope of a return to reason this sort of thing might come in handy as we try to sort out the crazy.

Wifely pride

Wifely pride

by digby

Melania Trump assured America about her husband’s good qualities. She said, unequivocally, “he’s not Hitler. He wants to help America. He wants to unite people. They think he doesn’t, but he does.”

Well ok then.

By the way, I can say unequivocally that my husband isn’t Hitler either. I just felt like I should get that out there.

.

Paul Ryan’s debasement continues apace

Paul Ryan’s debasement continues apace

by digby

And he’s fine with it:

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Tuesday said he agrees with a new poll showing that GOP voters trust Donald Trump rather than himself to lead the Republican Party. 

“I hope it’s Donald Trump. He’s getting the nomination,” Ryan, the highest-ranking elected Republican in the country, told reporters at a news conference. 

An NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll released Tuesday morning showed that nearly six in 10 Republican voters “trust” Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, to lead the party. Only four in 10 voters say they have more faith in Ryan, the 2012 vice presidential nominee, as the party’s leader. 

Asked directly if he believes Trump is the leader of the Republican Party, the Speaker replied: “Good Lord, I hope it is, because the person who is getting the nomination is the person to lead our party.”

That’s very generous. And genuinely very embarrassing.

.

Hey, Mussolini had his good points!

Hey, Mussolini had his good points!

by digby

Oh fergawdsakes:

As Democrats portray Donald Trump as a dangerous leader for his party, most of them barely acknowledge he could be president. But some centrist Democrats say they’re ready and willing to work with the business mogul should he defeat their party’s nominee.

“The people will have a chance to vote. If Donald Trump is elected president there will be a great opportunity to sit down and have a conversation about what that agenda looks like,” explained Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), who has long backed Hillary Clinton. “If he’s president, we’re going to have disagreement. But we’d better all figure out how to come up with an agenda for the American people.”

Getting ready for a potential Trump presidency in their home states may just be good politics for moderate senators such as Heitkamp, Jon Tester of Montana and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin. They’ll be top targets for Republicans in 2018, a midterm year that could favor the GOP if recent trends of lower turnouts in nonpresidential elections continue. And it’s a good bet that they’ll need Trump voters to keep their jobs.

Trump should easily win North Dakota and neighboring Montana this fall if past is prologue: Montana went to Bill Clinton in 1992, while North Dakota hasn’t gone Democratic since 1964. He’ll also certainly win West Virginia and be favored to win Missouri as well: Both states have been in the GOP column since 2000.

For Democrats in those states, ignoring Trump’s political success, and by extension his supporters, would be a risky move. So some Democrats say they can see some opportunities for working together during a hypothetical Trump presidency, given that the Republican front-runner has based his campaign on being a deal maker — unlike any other prominent GOP candidate this cycle.

Take Tester, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, whose job description calls for retaking the Senate by relentlessly linking incumbent Republicans to Trump in purple and blue states this year. But should Trump shock the pundits and win, Tester acknowledges that there are “for sure” things he can come together with Trump on, “as long as they’re good deals for America.”

Sure, I might have a few differences with good old Benito, but I’m sure we can work together on making the trains run on time, amirite?

None of these people are up for reelection this year. There is no good reason for them to even hint at some kind of common cause with the fascist demagogue Donald Trump when even Republicans are desperately trying to run away from him. To treat him as a normal politician is a betrayal.

.

GOP suffering from Koch withdrawal

GOP suffering from Koch withdrawal


by digby

I wrote about the Koch’s latest shocker for Salon this morning:

Over the past few years the wealthiest and most famous political activists in the world have been a couple of multi-billionaires by the name of Charles and David Koch, who most people just refer to as a single entity “the Koch brothers”.  Their names became a household word as they poured hundreds of millions into initiatives all over the country, helped finance the Tea Party takeover of the GOP. They were the most important Republicans in America.

A year ago it was assumed that the Kochs would be spending massive sums in the presidential election as well as down-ballot. However, as Yahoo news reported at the time, there were signs of strain as the brothers exerted more and more influence on Republican party functions and the party didn’t know how to respond:

The Republican National Committee’s data arm last year called it a “historic” occasion when it struck a deal to share voter information with the Koch brothers’ rapidly expanding political empire. 

It was an uneasy détente between the party committee, which views itself as the rightful standard-bearer for the GOP, and the behemoth funded by Charles and David Koch, which is free of the campaign finance restrictions that bind the RNC and plans to spend almost $900 million in the 2016 election cycle to elect a Republican to the White House.
Party leaders, including the current chief digital officer for the RNC, hailed the deal as an important step forward in the GOP’s attempt to modernize itself. 

But after the fall midterm elections, the deal was allowed to expire without being renewed. Since then, relations between the two sides have soured, turning into what one Republican operative described as “all-out war.” Interviews with more than three dozen people, including top decision-makers in both camps, have revealed that the Kochs’ i360 platform for managing voter contacts — which is viewed by many as a superior, easier-to-use interface than what’s on offer from the RNC — is becoming increasingly popular among Republican campaigns. 

The RNC is now openly arguing, however, that the Kochs’ political operation is trying to control the Republican Party’s master voter file, and to gain influence over — some even say control of — the GOP.

Jane Mayer’s book “The Dark Side” came out shortly thereafter and validated what many had assumed; it appeared at the time that the brothers were making a play to create a parallel party in order to control the agenda from the top down.

Mayer’s book laid out the story of how the Kochs, having spent decades funding think tanks like the Cato Institute to educate elites and the public about their libertarian philosophy had made a shift to electoral politics in the 2000s and it was paying off. By 2008 their secretive yearly seminars attracted billionaires by the dozens ready to bankroll any project the Kochs endorsed to stop Barack Obama’s nefarious leftist agenda. The mid-term of 2010 turned  over the congress and ushered in the era of hostage taking and government shutdowns. 2012 was a disappointment but once again the 2014 midterms were a right wing triumph. They were the Kings of the GOP, hated by liberals and loved by Republican politicians.

And then came Trump. Throughout this bizarre primary campaign people have been wondering where in the world the Kochs and their massive electoral apparatus, Americans for Prosperity, were. It seemed ridiculous that these master strategists weren’t doing anything to stop this populist demagogue. It had been assumed early on that they’d back one of the usual suspects —  Scott Walker or Marco Rubio were mentioned most often. But after an early feint toward Walker which had to be quickly walked back when the Wisconsin neophyte committed a final clumsy gaffe endorsing a ban on all legal immigration. From that point forward they continued to invite candidates to audition but never showed their hand.

Yesterday the world found out why when the National Review published a blockbuster scoop revealing that the Kochs have decided to withdraw from national politics. The 900 million dollars they’d planned to spend in this election cycle has been reduced to around 40 million on “educational” campaigns. They will continue their work at the state and local level (which is significant) but they are no longer much interested in electoral campaigns on the federal level. (There was some indication they plan to remain engaged in certain congressional campaigns although the scope of it was unclear.)
Evidently, this first came to light last February when a group from Americans For Prosperity went to the Wichita headquarters to present a Stop Trump plan. They were greeted by the brothers and representatives from the corporate side of Kochs empire who put the kibosh on the project. Apparently, the suits have been worried for quite some time about the toll the high political profile has been taking on the company’s prestige. At the same time, the Koch brothers themselves have come to believe that their own legacy is in danger. They have devoted many decades to philanthropy and charitable work and have never thought of their political work as being extreme, even though it is.

TNR reports that they took this very seriously:

The brothers had been warned about this image problem as early as January 2014, when they brought on a new public-relations team led by long-time communications guru Steve Lombardo. There were mounting concerns about damage to the Kochs’ corporate brand, and soon after Lombardo’s hire, Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to call them “un-American.” The brothers didn’t need much convincing that a rebranding effort was necessary.  Pained by the attacks hurled at them, and upset by the revelation in their post-2012 autopsy that Americans viewed wealthy conservatives as uncaring for the poor, they set out to soften their image. 

The immediate result was “We are Koch,” a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign featuring smiling minority employees and cinematic sequences of Americana. But the seeds had been planted for bigger changes. Employees have devoted more and more time to social-welfare projects in the two years since. AFP has increasingly steered resources to its “foundation” wing, and in particular to the Bridge to Wellbeing program, which organizes free instructional seminars on everything from proper nutrition to personal budgeting to time management. In May alone, nearly two dozen such seminars were held across three states. The LIBRE initiative, meanwhile, regularly holds free classes on English proficiency, tax preparation, and GED certification. It handed out free turkeys in Florida last Thanksgiving. (Naturally, all of these efforts come with a dash of free-market evangelism.)

But this isn’t just a PR effort. They have reorganized the whole political operation. Top executives have left and they have shuttered some of their most important political divisions. The radical chopping of the budget is the most important signal of all. This move away from national electoral politics is real.

But the story reveals something else about their motivation for doing it. It’s not just that they are worried about their legacy, although that’s undoubtedly part of it.  They are getting on in years and one can imagine a sort of panic at becoming a nationally known villain that late in life. But this observation shows what’s really behind the move:

Charles Koch provided a window into his own thinking in an interview last month with ABC’s Jonathan Karl.  

“When you look back over the years, over the last several cycles, hundreds of millions of dollars in electoral politics, what have you gotten for that?” Karl asked. “What’s been the return on that investment?”  

“Well, I’ve gotten a lot of abuse out of it,” Koch said. “What have we gotten for it? Well, I think there have been some good things, particularly at the state and local level.”  

“At the federal level,” he added, shaking his head, “we haven’t in any way changed the trajectory of the country.”  

Karl suggested it hasn’t been a very good investment. “No, no it hasn’t,” Koch replied. “It’s been disappointing.”

He sounds like one of those sad Tea Partyers you see complaining that their congressman didn’t unilaterally repeal Obamacare.

As Theda Skocpol’s work has shown, the Tea Party was as much a bottom up as a top down movement. The Kochs certainly helped out with logistical help, and were as motivated by the election of President Obama (and in particular the passage of the health care reforms) as any activist wearing a tricorn hat and waving around the Gadsdan flag. And like so many other Tea Party activists, Charles Koch is deeply disappointed that his congressional victories in 2010 and 2014 didn’t result in his agenda being enacted immediately.

It’s unsurprising that the first time activists inspired by their horror at Obama’s election didn’t understand that a couple of mid-term congressional victories were unlikely to “change the trajectory” of the country. But who would have guessed that someone as mature and experienced as Charles Koch could be so naive?

Skocpol’s research showed that the Tea Party wasn’t made up of the kind of conservative “reformers” the Kochs probably thought they were anyway:

[T]he views of both grassroots Tea Party activists and of many other Republican-leaning voters who have sympathized with this label do not align with free-market dogmas. Research by political scientist Christopher Parker at the University of Washington reinforces our conclusion that ordinary Tea Party activists and sympathizers are worried about sociocultural changes in the United States, angry and fearful about immigration, freaked out by the presence in the White House of a black liberal with a Muslim middle name, and fiercely opposed to what they view as out of control “welfare spending” on the poor, minorities, and young people. Many Tea Partiers benefit from Social Security, Medicare, and military veterans’ programs, and do not want them to be cut or privatized. About half of Tea Party activists or sympathizers are also Christian conservatives intensely concerned with banning abortion and repealing gay marriage.

They sound an awful lot like Trump voters, do they not?

So perhaps we can be grateful that the Kochs are true doctrinaire libertarians and are taking their billions and going home rather than following the constitution loving Tea Partiers into to their new phase as right wing populist Trumpies. Not that their efforts at the state and local levels are benign by any means.  But at least they won’t be helping a crazy man get a hold of the nuclear codes. That makes them patriots by today’s Republican standards.

.

Transparently crafty by @BloggersRUs

Transparently crafty
by Tom Sullivan

It boggles the mind to watch voter ID proponents stand before the cameras with their hands over their hearts and their flys unzipped and announce how they truly are defending democracy by designing ways to make it harder for minorities, students, and the elderly to vote. As if false earnestness can mask what they are really up to. Everybody’s wise to Eddie except Eddie.

Talking Points Memo reports on testimony in a case challenging Wisconsin’s voter ID law:

The former staffer to a Wisconsin state Republican senator who went public last month with accusations that the state’s voter ID law was passed by GOPers looking for a political advantage elaborated on the claims in federal court Monday and identified the previously unnamed legislators he said were gleeful over the law.

Todd Allbaugh, testifying in a case challenging the law, named then-Sens. Mary Lazich, Glenn Grothman, Leah Vukmir and Randy Hopper as being “giddy” in a 2011 private caucus meeting about passing the bill, the Journal Sentinel reported. Allbaugh previously confirmed to TPM that Grothman, now a U.S. congressman, was among the state legislators who cheered the political implications of the voter ID requirement — which opponents say disenfranchise minorities and lower income people — after Grothman told a local TV station it would help Republicans win the state in 2016.

According to Allbaugh’s testimony Monday, Grothman said at the 2011 meeting, “‘What I’m concerned about here is winning and that’s what really matters here. … We better get this done quickly while we have the opportunity.”

“They were talking about impeding peoples’ constitutional rights, and they were happy about it,” Allbaugh testified Monday. Other Republicans in the room were “ashen-faced” over the discussion, according to Allbaugh.

In testimony, Allbaugh said Grothman contacted him after he went public to correct the former staffer’s memory on the meeting, WisPolitics.com reports. “Here’s the thing. I fundamentally believe that Democrats cheat, and I don’t believe our side does, and that’s why we need this bill.”

A lot of people fundamentally believe a lot of things. That has now become an acceptable basis for public policy.

Jay DeLancy, leader of North Carolina’s Voter Integrity Project, committed a Kinsley gaffe during recent comments on North Carolina’s ID law, carolinacoastonline.com reports:

DeLancy, in an interview on Viewpoints, a call-in show on WTKF-FM, which is owned by Carteret Publishing, Tideland News’ parent company, discussed the ruling upholding HB 589. He advised proponents to be vigilant, even in the face of success. DeLancy acknowledged that challenges would continue and that if North Carolina were not careful, it could end up like Virginia, “a blue state,” he said, meaning, if people are allowed to vote, Democrats would win. Host Lockwood Phillips quickly questioned DeLancy on the comment. DeLancy backtracked, claiming the Voter Integrity Project is “nonpartisan,” but he also said that he believed it is Democrats who are behind cases of voter fraud.

It’s fundamental: the only plausible explanation for Republicans losing elections is their opponents must have cheated.

Scamming for America

Scamming for America

by digby

I’m having a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who send money to a scammer pretending to be a Donald Trump PAC. After all, anyone thinks he’s donating money to Trump is, by definition, someone who wants a fascist president who believes in torture, mass deportation and potentially a nuclear war.

As Donald Trump rushes to start collecting the $1 billion expected to be necessary to compete for the White House, one of his biggest challenges may come from those claiming to support him.

An increasing number of unauthorized groups are invoking the presumptive GOP nominee’s name to raise money, suggesting that they’ll use the cash to support his campaign, even as some appear to be spending most of their money on contracts with favored consultants.

Trump’s campaign and its allies worry that the groups are doing little to help the campaign and may be doing more harm than good by siphoning off cash that would otherwise go to the campaign’s fledgling fundraising effort. The campaign has disavowed several of the groups, demanding they stop using the candidate’s name in fundraising appeals and calling at least one super PAC founded by a Trump adviser a “big-league scam.” But appeals keep coming from other groups, with more now joining the scrum, and rival groups accusing one another of being scams.

Legal changes and technological developments have paved the way for an explosion of political nonprofit groups, including super PACs, which have rushed to raise money with very little oversight of how they spend it, leading to charges and countercharges of profiteering.

While conservative operatives in recent years have worried that a surge in so-called “scam PACs” has become a scourge on their efforts, the threat they pose to Trump is especially acute. The billionaire real estate showman mostly self-funded his primary campaign, boasting that — unlike his competitors — he wasn’t dependent on donors, and mostly eschewing efforts to create a fundraising operation. His supporters, many of whom are new to political giving and neither well-versed in election law nor attuned to the fine print of political solicitations, may be uniquely susceptible to fundraising appeals from unauthorized groups run by operatives with spotty reputations.

More than two dozen unauthorized groups have formed claiming to support Trump, and they’ve raised a total of $3.7 million this cycle, according to the most recent Federal Election Commission filings. But only six of the groups have actually bought ads supporting Trump.

Good. Line your pockets snake oil salesmen! Nobody’s going to feel sorry for your victims in this one. In fact, if you put some of the money toward a good cause — doesn’t have to be political — you might even be considered a hero.

.

How much abuse can a woman candidate take? #primaryqualificationforthejob

How much abuse can a woman candidate take? #primaryqualificationforthejob

by digby


This is from a New York Times article about all the character assassination and slime Trump is openly promising to throw at Clinton.

She has decades of experience and qualifications, but it may not be merit that wins her the presidency — it may be how she handles the humiliations inflicted by Mr. Trump.

Of course it is. A gal’s got to show she can take a beating or she won’t be respected, amirite?  Isn’t that how it works? And a narcissistic fascist demagogue who slept through school after the 5th grade will not be judged on his fitness or his qualifications either but rather how skillfully he degrades the first woman nominee for president. And his decades of treating women like chattel, sexually harassing them at work and boorishly behaving like a demented throwback to something out of “Mad Men” are a cause for celebration, apparently:

“I will comment on this in the spirit of Reince Priebus,” Mark Halperin said, “If that’s the best they got on these issues and Donald Trump, Donald Trump should be celebrating that story.”

Right. There’s nothing even slightly creepy about this comment about his baby daughter Tiffany, when asked what she inherited from her parents:

“I think that she’s got a lot of Marla, she’s really a beautiful baby,” Trump said. “She’s got Marla’s legs. We don’t know whether or not she’s got this part yet but time will tell,” he added, holding his hands in front of his chest to represent breasts.

Nah, nothing weird about a man who cannot even see his own baby daughter as anything but a sex object.  Perfectly normal. Nothing to see here, let’s get on with the national ritual humiliation of that horrible Hillary Clinton.

God this is going to be awful.  I’m already sick to my stomach.

.