Skip to content

Month: August 2016

Trump’s revenge

Published by digby on August 10, 2016

Trump’s revenge


by digby

I wrote about the inevitable result of the “rigging” accusations for Salon today:

Back in the early 1980s Republicans convinced themselves that the Reagan Revolution had ushered in a thousand year reign. It was unimaginable that any Democrat could possibly be president now that the glory of Ronald had been bestowed upon America.  So when Bill Clinton won in 1992 they simply refused to believe it. Republican leader Dick Armey openly declared that Clinton was not his President. In his 2003 book “The Natural” Joe Klein wrote:

From the beginning of his presidency, there was indeed the sense – radiating from the Gingrich wing of the Republican Party . . . that the new President was a usurper who had managed to hoodwink the American public.  He was to be opposed at every turn, by any means necessary, and, if possible, destroyed.

They nearly succeeded. In fact, it was that belief in Clinton’s fundamental illegitimacy that propelled the scandal machine that dominated the era with the ultimate goal to force his resignation. They ended up impeaching him (and raising his approval rating to the high 60s in the process.)

However when George W. Bush assumed the office under very dubious circumstances, they rejected all complaints from Democrats about the legitimacy of his presidency with a dismissive “get over it.”  9/11 pretty much put an end to any such complaints. Democrats rallied around the flag and that was that.


Nonetheless, the Republicans didn’t miss a beat when Barack Obama won the election with a decisive 7 point victory in 2008 and they picked up right where they left off. Their approach was different but the intent was the same. Instead of ginning up phony scandals to undermine his legitimacy they ran an underground whisper campaign suggesting that Obama was a secret Muslim who was not born in the United States. GOP congressional leaders casually announced from the beginning that their primary goal was to ensure he only had one term. They believed that obstruction and non-cooperation was the best way to do that and they worked hard to make it happen.  But as with Clinton their efforts failed and Obama was re-elected in 2012. 
Now we are in the midst of another presidential election and if the polling holds up it looks as though the Democrats are going to do what Republicans still believe is impossible and win the White House once again. And we are already seeing the contours of their latest attempt to make that victory illegitimate. Donald Trump has announced that he believes the election results will be invalid if Clinton wins.  He told Sean Hannity that “November 8th, we’d better be careful, because that election’s going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or it’s going to be taken away from us…I’ve been hearing about it for a long time.” 
Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich explained the whole nefarious plan to the Fox News audience. Hannity drew upon the complaints by Bernie Sanders that the Democratic primary was rigged by the use of Superdelegates (it wasn’t, Clinton would have won without them) and made some wild charges about the election being stolen from Mitt Romney in Philadelphia back in 2012. (Those charges were thoroughly refuted by a Philadelphia election inspector.) Gingrich answered without directly accusing Clinton of rigging the vote by using  Trumpish weasel words saying, “if you assume that she’s a crook, as he says, if you assume that she lies, as he says, why would you expect her to have an honest election?” 
CNN’s Brian Stelter took issue with Hannity’s handling of the issue rightly pointing out, “suggesting an election is going to be stolen? This is third-world dictatorship stuff.” Indeed it is. But then the voter fraud myth has been flogged by the right wing for decades now despite no evidence that it exists. Trump has begun building up his argument based upon recent court rulings against certain onerous Voter ID laws — laws that actually are “rigging” elections by suppressing Democratic votes. 
He has every reason to believe he can convince GOP voters that the election was stolen from him. After all, he was the King of the Birthers in 2012 and a vast majority of his followers believe that Obama is a secret Muslim and an illegitimate president largely due to his handy work. He’s got a track record. At this point 69 percent of North Carolina Trump voters think that the only way Trump can lose is if the Democrats steal it. There’s no reason to think Trumpies are any less gullible in other states. 
Clearly he’s personally just setting up an excuse for when he loses. But there are some serious consequences to our democracy if a large number of Trump’s supporters truly believe the election wasn’t legitimate. After all, these are people who are already convinced that Clinton should be in jail for using a personal internet server. With Trump “joking” about “Second Amendment people” taking matters into their own hands, anything might happen. 
Unfortunately, even if there are no violent consequences to Trumps reckless comments, a lot of damage will have already been done. It’s possible that the GOP defections in the presidential race will result in the Republican Party finally sobering up and becoming a mature governing party once again but it’s unlikely. There is no evidence that they have finally decided that a Democrat can legitimately win the presidency and with at least half of their constituency being mad as hell that their man was cheated, there will be tremendous pressure on the establishment to keep after the criminal usurper president in any case. The obstruction and investigations will continue.
So basically, Trump’s “rigging” argument comes down to this: “Nice little government you’ve got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it.” Sadly it’s almost certain that if he doesn’t win his followers and the GOP will do everything in their power to ensure that Clinton and the rest of us pay a heavy price for it. That’s pretty much what they’ve done for the past 24 years and there’s little reason to think they’ve changed.  They simply refuse to believe they can lose. 

.

Somebody needs to be disciplined by the medical board

Published by digby on August 10, 2016
Somebody needs to be disciplined by the medical board

by digby

Fox’s in house doctor team who usually have the sense to stay our of politics just ruined their reputations:

Disgusting. Who are these quacks to demand to see her neurological files? Whether its emails or her medical files or anything else, Hillary Clinton is allowed absolutely no privacy because a bunch of right wing conspiracy theorists want to rummage around in her personal life. They are character assassins, aided and abetted by a prurient press corps that just can’t quit digging for juicy pieces of gossip.

By the way, the picture on the stairs is of her walking up icy steps in a pair of fucking high heels in February. Let’s just say you don’t need to have a brain tumor to slip.

.

Police blotter acid @BloggersRUs

Published by Tom Sullivan on August 10, 2016

Police blotter acid
by Tom Sullivan


Photo by Tony Webster via Creative Commons.

The desperation of some people. I cannot recall how many versions of the “Clinton Body Count” chain email arrived in my box during the 1990s, but I’m sure they arrived, as most did, after multiple, non-blind-copied forwards from one list of wingnuts to the next, as many as 75 email addresses all ripe for spamming by Nigerian princes.

All things old are new again. While front pages everywhere rail against the latest Trumpian outrage — he suggested in Wilmington, NC that “Second Amendment people” could put a stop to Hillary Clinton’s agenda if she wins the presidency — the Clinton “Body count” is back.

David Mikkelson writes, “We shouldn’t have to tell anyone not to believe this claptrap,” and it’s especially embarrassing to see lefty friends trafficking in it, but there we are.

Washington, D.C. may not be the deadliest of America’s cities, but neither is it idyllic. People get shot there. A teacher’s assistant was shot in Alexandria in late May after coming upon a crime in progress after 2 a.m. Seven were shot and two died in late July in one night of attacks between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. But when a Democratic National Committee staffer was killed while walking in D.C. just after 4 a.m., well, that’s somehow mysterious. Hillary Clinton’s assassins must be responsible. Let the hunting of the next president begin.

Not to worry, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is on the case:

Seth Rich was killed last month in Washington D.C. in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this and Snopes has issued a comprehensive debunking of the premise itself (Rich is only 27 and has only worked at the DNC since 2014 so is unlikely to be in possession of information that might take down Clinton, he was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time of the shooting and she hasn’t reported any FBI meeting, there have been a string of robberies in the area, an FBI rendezvous at 4 a.m. only happens in movies, the whole thing is batshit crazy, etc.).

The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month’s WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. In an interview on Tuesday that was picked up by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, Assange seemed to lend credence to the idea that Rich had been retaliated against.

Wikileaks has offered a reward for information on Rich’s death. Townhall (sorry, not linking to it) has jumped in with additional similarly “mysterious” deaths of people within six degrees of separation from Hillary Clinton. The New York Post has jumped in as well, hyping the “conveniently timed” death of a former UN official.

Damn, she’s good.

Lyin’ Wimmin

Published by digby on August 10, 2016

Lyin’ Wimmin

by digby

This comment by Fox News’ and Roger Ailes’ personal private eye Bo Dietl is sadly far too common even today:

“Knowing [Roger], I can’t believe these allegations,” Dietl said, stating that the deluge of accusations felt like “the old pile-on,” and that “political correctness takes a big play on what goes on” with most sexual harassment workplace lawsuits.

“Too often, it’s like a shakedown, like extortion,” he continued, dismissing a majority of cases as “so minimal.”

“Look, if someone looks really great in a dress, and you say, ‘You look really great!’ or ‘You’ve been working out, you look great!’ [what’s wrong with that?]” he asked, rhetorically. “I love women… but I think political correctness has gotten to a level that… if someone says something they construe as… being a sexual manner, right away it goes into a sexual lawsuit, and if they’re not happy with their job,” he added, they then pursue legal action.

“My experience in investigating [cases like] these is 98 percent of these are bullshit,” Dietl declared.

Everybody knows that women are notorious liars, amirite?

Dietl sounds an awful lot like someone else, doesn’t he?

Trump was asked about Fox News’ Roger Ailes resignation earlier this week afterGretchen Carlson’s bombshell harassment lawsuit and after over 20 other women reportedly came forward alleging sexual misconduct from Ailes.

Trump’s response to the question was simply jaw-dropping. Trump stated that he felt “very badly” for Ailes (not for the women, though). Trump also praised Ailes as a “very, very talented person,” applauding the way he built Fox News into a media powerhouse.

Then Trump started attacking the women who had come forward. “I can tell you that some of the women that are complaining, I know how much he’s helped them,” he said.


Think about that comment for a moment. Trump is basically saying that since Ailes had helped these women with their careers, the alleged sexual harassment was okay because it was the price to pay for his help.

And then Trump did what he has done for years—he attacked the female victims as liars: “I can tell you that some of the women that are complaining … when they write books that are fairly recently released, and they say wonderful things about him.

“And now all of a sudden they’re saying these horrible things about him.”

The worst thing about this disgusting defense of an alleged serial predator is that it’s hardly the first time Trump has used it.

In 1992 when Trump was asked about his good friend Mike Tyson being convicted of raping Desiree Washington, Trump defended the boxer and maligned the rape victim. He in essence blamed Washington for being raped: “You have a young woman that was in his hotel room late in the evening at her own will.” And then Trump— even though Tyson had already been convicted by a jury—despicably questioned whether Washington was even raped, noting that a video after the incident showed her “dancing with a big smile on her face, looked happy as can be.” Trump then added, “It’s my opinion that to a large extent, Mike Tyson was railroaded in this case.”

I wish I thought these men were unique.

.

A little trip down memory lane with Trump and Charles Bronson

Published by digby on August 9, 2016

A little trip down memory lane with Trump and Charles Bronson

by digby

I wrote about Trump and his vigilante fantasies last fall:

On the stump last week-end, Donald Trump entertained his followers in the wake of the massacre in Oregon with colorful fantasies of him walking down the street, pulling a gun on a would-be assailant and taking him out right there on the sidewalk. He said, “I have a license to carry in New York, can you believe that? Somebody attacks me, they’re gonna be shocked,” at which point he mimes a quick draw.

As the crowd applauds and cheers, he goes on to say “somebody attacks me, oh they’re gonna be shocked. Can you imagine? Somebody says, oh there’s Trump, he’s easy pickins…” And then he pantomimes the quick draw again.

Everybody laughs. And then Trump talks about an old Charles Bronson vigilante movie and they all chanted the name “Death Wish” together. Keep in mind that this sophomoric nonsense took place just two days after a disturbed man went into a classroom and shot 17 people.

Go to 2:20 to see him get the crowd to chant the words “death wish, death wish!”

.

Direct democracy in California

Published by digby on August 9, 2016

Direct democracy in California

by digby

Full legalization is on the ballot in California

There’s been a whole lot of talk about “democracy” this campaign season among activists and first time voters. “This is what democracy looks like” was a rallying cry among Sanders voters in the primary and Trump has already laid the groundwork for his possible defeat by saying the election has already been rigged against him.

In California democracy looks like a ballot that forces citizens to make important detailed decisions on many matters they do not understand. This November we have 17 measures on matters as mundane as plastic bag regulation to drug prices to banning of ammunition and the death penalty. Many of these are on the ballot because wealthy people and corporations paid money to get them there in the hopes that the people would be bamboozled by misleading advertising into voting against their self-interest. Others are genuinely grassroots initiatives and important philosophical issues that are rightly decided by a direct vote of the citizenry (like the death penalty.) It’s very difficult to know which is which and people (including me) often end up voting for or against things based on an instinctive reaction to the language of the measure or a general belief that it’s best to vote no on everything.

It doesn’t work out well for either party a good part of the time. Proposition 13, for example, destroyed the tax base. Or Proposition 187 which destroyed the Republican Party in California.

Anyway, if you live in California, here’s a good brief analysis from the LA Times of what’s on the ballot this fall. You’d better start reading about it now because it’s the longest list we’ve had in decades. Oy.

.