Showing posts with label attack politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attack politics. Show all posts

Saturday, July 07, 2018

Democrats - This Is NOT The Time For Civility

Recently, some Trump officials have been bothered while eating out in a restaurant. One (Sarah Sanders) was even asked to leave by the owners.

This has spiked a huge discussion by the talking heads on cable TV about how Democrats are not being civil to Trump supporters. They seem to be equating these minor incidents with the activities of the right -- the mocking of the disabled and dying American heroes, the caging of immigrant children separated from their parents, the support for racists and white supremacists and nazis, and other things too numerous to list.

These talking heads want Democrats to be silent in the face of the viciousness from the right (and from the current presidential administration). That's ridiculous. Fighting intolerance with tolerance or incivility with civility is tantamount to surrender. The right has made the rules of the current political war very clear, and we must fight fire with fire.

Here is just a part of an excellent article by Amanda Marcotte at Alternet.org on this subject:

With the country slouching towards fascism, it's important to note what the national news media considers a majority priority for coverage: Scolding the left for being too upset about the white nationalist agenda of the White House and trying to drum up intra-Democratic drama. Unfortunately, too many leaders on the Democratic side are falling for this, which can be easily avoided by a simple strengthening of backbone.

Endless amounts of column inches and cable-news airtime are now devoted to two propositions: That the left is getting too rowdy in their opposition to Trump's racist agenda, and that Democratic leaders have a responsibility to scold left-wing activists about the importance of not resisting authoritarianism too sternly. In some cases, this takes the form of getting the vapors at progressives who are "uncivil" by protesting Trump officials in public places like restaurants. In others, it's about scolding those who support supposedly radical notions like the abolition of ICE, even though similar lectures are not directed at conservatives who supporting far more radical proposals to abolish the IRS.

The typical structure of these arguments is that of a concern troll: The person telling progressives to simmer down will inevitably cast himself as a concerned party who wants Democrats to win, but believes these tactics are only hurting that agenda and believes the best path forward for the party is to maximize internal sniping over nonsense. . . .

As Simon Maloy at Media Matters notes, this argument rests on a presumption that is beyond laughable, which is that moderating one's views will cause Trump and the Republicans to tone down the demagoguery. . . .

I'll take this argument a step further and note that not only does trying to placate Republicans never work, history shows that it will often backfire. For one thing, it gives political opponents ammunition to paint Democrats as hypocrites or as secret saboteurs of the progressive agenda. 

We see this happening with Obama now. The deportations he authorized to pander to House Republicans are now being exploited by conservatives who want to use a "both sides do it" argument to excuse Trump's family separation policy. This argument is based on deliberate lies, of course, but there's just enough truth to it to confuse the issue: Obama really did deport a lot of people before abandoning that strategy, after it became clear it wouldn't soften Republican opposition to immigration reform. Furthermore, there are still a number of self-proclaimed socialists out there ready to amplify any argument, no matter how badly sourced, that equates Democratic policies with Republican ones and argues that the two parties are no different. . . .

I'm generally fond of Nancy Pelosi, who was an effective House speaker and has been a strong progressive voice throughout her career in Congress. But this past month, she's been letting the concern trolls get to her, first by scolding Rep. Maxine Waters for calling on people to protest Trump officials in public and then for seemingly being salty about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beating Democratic incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in a New York primary race. (To be fair, Pelosi's comments about Ocasio-Cortez appear to have been exaggerated by journalists eager for any hint of intra-Democratic conflict.)

This is just bad politics on Pelosi's part. Giving into pressure to rebuke members of her caucus, on any level or for any reason, will do nothing to persuade Republicans to curtail their hysterical claims that Pelosi is a secret Marxist who is coming for your children. It only helps fuel anger and distrust and gives rise to a thousand clickbait articles championing the intra-Democratic conflict narrative.

This was an easy trap to avoid, if only by demurring. When asked about Waters or Ocasio-Cortez or whoever the media wants to paint as some kind of leftist radical, the correct response is, "I'm proud of our diverse coalition and I support our caucus in their efforts to resist Trump's dangerous agenda." Rinse and repeat, and they'll give up soon enough. The same goes for ambitious young Democrats who are invited by reporters to dis Pelosi in public: Offer noncommittal compliments and move on.

None of this is to say that every Democrat needs to adopt the same exact platform or that legitimate policy debates are out of the question. But if decisions are being guided by an urge to seem "moderate" in order to appeal to Trump voters or placate Republicans, remember this basic rule: Republicans can not be placated, but progressive voters can be alienated. And that's something Democrats absolutely cannot afford.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

The Shameful Effort By Republicans To Cover For Trump


The latest movement among congressional Republicans has been to attack the integrity of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller (pictured) -- and therefore, his investigation into Donald Trump and his dealings with Russia and other possible criminal behavior.

The propaganda arm of the Republican Party, Fox News, has accused Mueller of leading a partisan effort to undermine the presidential administration of Trump. They have even gone further by calling the FBI a corrupt organization. They say it amounts to a coup against the U.S. government. And taking their cue from Fox, a growing number of congressional Republicans have joined in the demonization of Mueller, his investigators, and the FBI.

It is time for some truth. Mueller is not part of a partisan plot. He is a Republican, and he was appointed to do his investigation by a Republican. But regardless of his party affiliation, Mueller has a reputation of putting his job first, above party politics. And his regard for seeking the truth is impeccable. When he was appointed, members of both parties echoed that.

Why have Fox News and congressional Republicans now turned on Mueller, and spend their time demonizing him? The answer is obvious. They are afraid. They have seen indictments and convictions of men close to Trump, and the investigation is surely going to produce more of those. The investigation has now gotten into the White House, and moves closer to Trump every day.

They keep claiming Trump is innocent of collusion or criminal conduct, but their behavior indicates otherwise. If they truly believed in Trump's innocence, they wouldn't be attacking mueller and the investigation. They would be cheering it on. They know Trump is guilty, and that's why they are demonizing one of their own -- Robert Mueller.

Their aims are two-fold. First, to provide cover for Donald Trump if he tries to fire Mueller to stop the investigation. Second, to provide cover for themselves when they refuse to impeach Trump after the investigation reveals his nefarious and criminal conduct.

This is a shameful effort to cover for a corrupt president, and to cover for their own malfeasance. There is no honor or respect for ethics and decency left in the modern Republican Party.

--------------------------------------------------------

Trump's (and Republican's) effort to denigrate the FBI is not working the chart at the bottom shows the public has a much more positive view of the FBI than Trump (or the Republican Party). It is from the new NBC News / Wall Street Journal Poll -- done between December 13th and 15th of a random national sample of 900 adults, with a 3.27 point margin of error.


Monday, June 26, 2017

Democrats Should Stop Attacking Nancy Pelosi

(This caricature of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is by DonkeyHotey.)

During the Georgia special election, Republicans ran an ad saying the Democratic candidate supported the liberal Nancy Pelosi and her California friends. It was a silly ad that Republicans loved, Democrats hated, and Independents ignored (because they were voting for a House member from Georgia -- not Pelosi).

But some Democrats are now trying to say that the Georgia special election was lost because Pelosi is the House Minority Leader -- and as long as she remains in that position, Democrats will continue to lose elections.

It's hogwash! Georgia's 6th congressional district is a very red district, and Democrats never really had a good chance to win that district. Those in that district were going to elect a Republican to represent them (no matter how bad that Republican was or how good the Democratic opponent was -- or whoever was the House Minority Leader). If you want to blame Pelosi for that loss, then you also must give her credit for the Democrats doing better there than in the last four decades. But neither is true. A safe Republican district elected another Republican, and that's all that happened.

If Pelosi was to be replaced as Minority Leader, how long would it take for the Republicans to start demonizing her replacement (no matter who that replacement was)? Probably less than 24 hours. That's just what Republicans do. They try to demonize their opponents and other Democrats (especially Democratic leaders). Are we going to replace every Democratic leader that is demonized by the right-wing Republicans? If so, then we would be continually replacing our leaders, and our leadership would look like a revolving door.

Democrats need to stop attacking our own party leaders. When we do so, we are just playing into the Republican's hands, and doing their job for them. Nancy Pelosi is an honest, experienced, and competent legislator and party leader -- and we should be grateful to have her leadership. She is also a good progressive, but a realistic one. She knows what can be accomplished and what can't -- and she gets done what she can right now, while never giving up on what else can be accomplished in the future. That's not a bad thing -- but good politics.

Most of the attacks on Pelosi (just like the Democrats attacking Hillary Clinton) are coming from party extremists on the left. They want to replace Pelosi (and other party leaders) with people who will move the party far to the left. While I wouldn't mind seeing this whole country move toward leftist politics, I think moving the Democratic Party to an extreme leftist party will just ensure defeat after defeat -- because most American voters, like it or not, are moderates. They want change, but they want that change to be done in moderate steps.

Some will point to the national polls to say Pelosi is viewed unfavorably by the public. The truth is that ALL congressional leaders of both political parties are viewed unfavorably by the public (see the chart below). That's because the public views Congress unfavorably as a whole. They see Congress as thinking it's more important to argue ideology than to compromise for the good of the country -- and they don't like it. But changing any of the congressional leaders won't improve the public's view of Congress (or either party in Congress). That can only be improved by congressional representatives willing to compromise for the good of the country -- and that's not likely to happen soon.

If you, as a Democrat, feel the need to vilify any politician, then direct that at Republican politicians. They have earned it -- Pelosi hasn't.


Chart is made from information in a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between June 18th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,277 registered voters), with a 3 point margin of error.

Friday, June 09, 2017

"America Alone Is Not America First"

(This image of Donald Trump is from CNN Money.)

The following is an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News. It was written by Robert Hutchings -- professor of national security at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas (Austin). He writes:

President Donald Trump's tweets and foreign policy moves have made him a laughingstock, but the damage they have done to our standing in the world and to our own interests is no laughing matter.

Trump is not the first American leader to lecture the Europeans about military spending, just the least informed. It is a fundamentally flawed position. Europeans don't spend for defense the way we do, but not because they lack seriousness or political will, or because they are free riders who refuse to shoulder their share of the defense burden. They spend less on defense because they do not agree with the over-militarized approach to foreign policy that they see from the United States, whose military spending is already larger than that of the next eight highest-spending countries combined.

We would do well to study rather than condemn the European approach to foreign policy. And the American public needs to understand that more spending for defense does not mean more security. As the Afghanistan and Iraq misadventures have demonstrated, the exercise of military power can make us less secure. I made this point more than a decade ago when I was chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, warning (all too accurately) that Iraq under U.S. occupation would prove to be the breeding ground for the next generation of terrorists.

I take Trump's crude remarks on Germany personally. In 1989-92, I was part of the diplomatic team under President George H.W. Bush that helped negotiate German unification and the collapse of the Soviet empire. We and the Germans forged the closest possible partnership, and our successful management of the end of the Cold War enabled the U.S. to draw down its huge military presence in Europe, leaving it to our allies, led by Germany, to take the lead in Europe.
The Germans stepped up to the task, even while maintaining the historic partnership with the U.S. that Trump is throwing this away. He seems to think there is another "deal" out there and that this one can be discarded. No, President Trump: There is only one NATO, only one trans-Atlantic partnership, the work of more than a dozen U.S. administrations before you. If you throw these achievements away, we are left with nothing.What is needed is not America-first bluster or infantile tweets but a sustained effort to reinvigorate and modernize the alliance. Here's a start: We should restore and then increase the budgets for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development, and we should signal our readiness to re-enter the Paris agreement. In return the Europeans should step up their timetable for meeting the agreed commitment to increased defense spending.
The trans-Atlantic alliance, the strongest and most enduring in history, is much more than a defense pact. It has endured despite periodic disputes because it is built on the solid foundation of shared values and common interests. Alliances, like marriages, prosper when both sides respect that their partners have different priorities and when they understand that compromise and adjustment are keys to a successful relationship.

The alliance is also more than an arena for economic competition. The global trading system, with the U.S.-European trade relations its driving force, has been an enormous benefit to America's prosperity and well-being. Of course, we, like Germany, will defend our own economic interests and protect our citizens, and we have ample means of doing so — most of them domestic measures that have little to do with trade imbalances. Instead, Trump is focusing on things he can do with the stroke of a pen — like backing out of the Paris agreement and the Pacific trade pact — with disregard for the consequences. This is not leadership. This is not strength.

We are at a turning point in our nation's history. There are few signs that Trump will change, so we must place our hope in America's institutions and look to the enablers — his foreign policy team, which has gone along with too much already, and Republicans in Congress — to show some political courage by putting America first.

Saturday, June 04, 2016

Trump Crossed The Line In His Attack On The Press

Up until now, the media has been giving Donald Trump a free pass. Most have not called him on his lies or name-calling, and have acted like those were actually fair campaign tactics. They have also given "the Donald" more press coverage than any other presidential candidate on either political party.

But that free ride may be over now. This week he viciously attacked the press for just doing their job. He was upset when the media questioned his foot-dragging on making donations to veterans groups (as he had promised to do when raising money for them months ago).

He could have just explained why it had taken so long to disburse the funds to those organizations, but he chose to attack the media instead -- making it very obvious that he's far too thin-skinned to hold the office of president.

And even many conservative media outlets are upset now over Trump's ridiculous accusations. A good example is the following editorial from the Waco Tribune (certainly no bastion of liberal philosophy). They wrote:

Leave it to an entrepreneurial blowhard who has disparaged U.S. prisoners of war as “losers” and who himself didn’t serve in the military to take umbrage at being held to account about the millions of dollars raised for veterans under his aegis — and a day after this nation paid solemn homage to its war dead, some of whom died as “losers,” that is POWs.
Apparent Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sure didn’t protest when the national news media publicized his much-ballyhooed declaration that he would boycott a Fox News debate and instead headline a fundraiser to benefit veterans in January. How dare the Fourth Estate then hold him accountable for money supposedly raised at this event?
Why all the confusion? Don’t blame the news media. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told The Washington Post that Trump’s event raised $4.5 million — far less than the $6 million that Trump himself earlier claimed — because some donors reportedly didn’t follow through. Then Trump contradicted Lewandowski and said the total was actually higher than that. As of Tuesday, the tally was supposedly $5.6 million.
And the questions are relevant, especially given the scandal surrounding such groups as the Disabled Veterans National Foundation a few years ago. The fact that Trump himself failed to donate $1 million to veterans groups as he claimed months ago — that pesky Washington Post had to remind him of this too — should concern veterans who believe they can actually trust him.
Indeed, veterans should question Trump’s obvious ploy to use them as unwitting political pawns. While smooth politicians routinely profess to champion the armed forces and veterans’ causes, some seek only to manipulate our veterans for cheap political gain.
In this case, Trump shouldn’t have waited for the press to call him out; he should have provided regular updates on how much was raised and what veterans organizations had to do to qualify for some of the cash. Instead, he dithered, allowed festering concerns by veterans, the public and the press to mount, then voiced outrage when at last held accountable.
If only all this ended there. We’re stunned at Trump’s almost maniacal lashing out at anybody and everybody who challenges him. Lately, besides blasting the news media, he also attacked William Kristol, whose uncompromising brand of conservatism apparently will not allow him to back Trump, and a federal judge presiding over a civil fraud case against Trump University. At one point, Trump noted the American-born judge was a “Mexican.” No dog whistles there, right?

While it now looks as if Trump is begrudgingly making good on his fundraiser benefiting veterans, Americans should tremble at the prospect of a man so quick to lose his temper and vow vengeance ever becoming commander in chief.
(NOTE -- The cartoon image of Trump above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Is Bernie Sanders Becoming A "Bernie-Bro" ?

(Cartoon image of Bernie Sanders is by Gavin McNeil in the Idaho Mountain Express.)

You might think that title for this post is silly. I don't. While Bernie Sanders started this campaign on a positive note, many of his supporters (Bernie-Bros) did not. They have engaged in all types of dirty campaigning, including dredging up and re-distributing old Republican lies about his opponent. Recently, Bernie has abandoned his positive campaigning in favor of political attacks (many of them untrue) on his opponent. In short, he is becoming more like his most vicious supporters (i.e., turning into a Bernie-Bro).

Here is how Paul Krugman describes it in his New York Times column:

From the beginning, many and probably most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues — including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform — he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking. And his political theory of change, his waving away of limits, seemed utterly unrealistic.

Some Sanders supporters responded angrily when these concerns were raised, immediately accusing anyone expressing doubts about their hero of being corrupt if not actually criminal. But intolerance and cultishness from some of a candidate’s supporters are one thing; what about the candidate himself?

Unfortunately, in the past few days the answer has become all too clear: Mr. Sanders is starting to sound like his worst followers. Bernie is becoming a Bernie Bro.

Let me illustrate the point about issues by talking about bank reform.

The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.

Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn’t seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board.

You could argue that policy details are unimportant as long as a politician has the right values and character. As it happens, I don’t agree. For one thing, a politician’s policy specifics are often a very important clue to his or her true character — I warned about George W. Bush’s mendacity back when most journalists were still portraying him as a bluff, honest fellow, because I actually looked at his tax proposals. For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself.

But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.

It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted her positions, a case the campaign has never even tried to make. But recent attacks on Mrs. Clinton as a tool of the fossil fuel industry are just plain dishonest, and speak of a campaign that has lost its ethical moorings.

And then there was Wednesday’s rant about how Mrs. Clinton is not “qualified” to be president.

What probably set that off was a recent interview of Mr. Sanders by The Daily News, in which he repeatedly seemed unable to respond when pressed to go beyond his usual slogans. Mrs. Clinton, asked about that interview, was careful in her choice of words, suggesting that “he hadn’t done his homework.”

But Mr. Sanders wasn’t careful at all, declaring that what he considers Mrs. Clinton’s past sins, including her support for trade agreements and her vote to authorize the Iraq war — for which she has apologized — make her totally unfit for office.

This is really bad, on two levels. Holding people accountable for their past is O.K., but imposing a standard of purity, in which any compromise or misstep makes you the moral equivalent of the bad guys, isn’t. Abraham Lincoln didn’t meet that standard; neither did F.D.R. Nor, for that matter, has Bernie Sanders (think guns).

And the timing of the Sanders rant was truly astonishing. Given her large lead in delegates — based largely on the support of African-American voters, who respond to her pragmatism because history tells them to distrust extravagant promises — Mrs. Clinton is the strong favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the “Bernie or bust” crowd, walking away if he can’t pull off an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the White House? If not, what does he think he’s doing?

The Sanders campaign has brought out a lot of idealism and energy that the progressive movement needs. It has also, however, brought out a streak of petulant self-righteousness among some supporters. Has it brought out that streak in the candidate, too?

Friday, April 08, 2016

Sanders Desperate - Says Clinton Not Qualified To Be Prez

(This illustration of Sanders is by Drew Lerman and was found at vice.com.)

“She has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote-un-quote, not qualified to be president. Let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton, I don’t believe that she is qualified. . ."

Those are the words of Bernie Sanders speaking to a crowd of supporters in Pennsylvania. But there is a problem with that statement. Hillary Clinton never said he was unqualified. The headline write got it wrong (something not rare in the newspaper business).

Does Sanders get his news just from headlines these days? Did he bother to read the story? Does he just accept what some aide tells him about his opponent? Those are troubling questions, because he should have checked out the story before reacting like a petulant child to it.

Or maybe this is just more of the nasty campaign tactics he has been using lately. He's been repeatedly lying about Hillary Clinton, even though he had promised to run a positive campaign -- a campaign based on the issues.

Reporters repeatedly tried to get Clinton to respond to Sanders silly statement in kind, but she wouldn't take the bait. Instead, she took the high road -- saying she would choose Sanders over Cruz or Trump anytime. Instead of apologizing (which he should do), Sanders chose to continue his path on the low road -- by trying to justify his remarks because of some policy differences with Clinton. That won't work. He may not like some of her policy positions, but that doesn't disqualify her to be president.

I think Bernie Sanders is just starting to get desperate, and is lashing out. With each passing state, he sees his chances of becoming the party's nominee getting slimmer and slimmer. I expect we will hear more vicious attacks coming from Sanders now (and from his supporters, who have raised gutter campaigning to an art form).

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Bernie's Broken Promise (To Run A Positive Campaign)

When Bernie Sanders announced his run for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, he promised to run a positive campaign -- a campaign based on the issues, not personalities. And for a while he did that. But then he started falling behind in the delegate chase, and he morphed into a different candidate -- one not adverse to using GOP-style attack politics.

Here is how Peter Daou at Blue Nation Review describes the change:

Bernie Sanders has done many things right in this race — and one thing very wrong. It is the wrong decision that I believe partially accounts for his poor showing on March 15th.
Let’s start with what’s right about Bernie’s message: he is a passionate purveyor of core progressive principles who has activated and energized millions of young voters. He speaks with conviction about crucial issues and he has helped bring those issues to the fore in 2016.
Here’s what’s wrong, terribly wrong: He caved to the pressure from his campaign manager Jeff Weaver and top aide Tad Devine to ride the ever-present wave of Hillary hate and to go after her character, impugning her honesty and insinuating that she is untrustworthy.
As I’ve argued repeatedly, Bernie’s Wall Street dog whistle is a barely concealed attempt to accuse Hillary Clinton of corruption, despite the fact that he lacks a scintilla of evidence to support that claim. No matter how lofty and inspiring his message, it is deeply unjust – and frankly, reckless – to run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s character through false innuendo. Especially when Democrats are facing a dangerous opponent like Donald Trump in a general election.
At some point in late 2015, Bernie’s campaign message and the behavior of his supporters became less about something and more against someone. Bernie’s campaign team determined that his path to victory runs right through Hillary’s integrity.
Tad Devine, Jeff Weaver, Cornel West, Killer Mike, and other Bernie aides and surrogates have led the charge against Hillary’s character, calling her honesty into question with no justification or evidence.
It has been a grave mistake for his candidacy, perhaps fatal. You can’t spend 2015 promising to run a positive, issue-driven campaign, then pivot in 2016 to a full-bore character attack against Hillary Clinton.
Going forward, it would be unwise for Hillary’s supporters to pressure Bernie to drop out, despite the prohibitive delegate math. All we should ask is that he drop the character attacks and stay positive.
(The image of Bernie Sanders above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Friday, September 11, 2015

The Hillary-Bashers Have A Sisyphean Struggle


I am continually disgusted by the Hillary-bashers -- the people who keep spreading lies about Hillary Clinton, even after those lies have been disproven (Benghazi, e-mails, etc.). These people have no interest in debating the issues that are important to the American people. They just want to smear Clinton's good name -- either out of a sick hatred, or because they fear their own preferred candidate is unable to compete against her in a fair campaign.

That's why I enjoyed this post by Peter Daou and Tom Watson at Hillarymen.com. They titled their post "The Sad, Sisyphean Struggle Of Hillary Haters".

Writing for Politico, Jack Shafer explains why he thinks “Being a Clinton apologist is a hard life.”

Which got us thinking: what must it be like to be a die-hard Hillary hater? Obsessing over one of the most accomplished and resilient public figures on the planet? How depressing and demoralizing is it to latch onto fabricated scandal after fabricated scandal, only to have every one fade away?

How frustrating is it to expend so much time and mental energy bashing, bashing, bashing, only to have Hillary come back stronger than ever?

And how awful is it to be on the wrong side of women’s history, to help reinforce the gender barrier that prevents women and girls from realizing their full potential?

We’re not talking about fair-minded critics and principled political opponents. They have every right to disagree with Hillary and to dislike her if they're so inclined. We’re talking about haters, people who have a pathological need to savage Hillary. People who make an industry of their hate.

Think of the self-righteous rants on Morning Joe, the seething vitriol of Maureen Dowd, the feverish swamps of rightwing trolls. Think of the reporters and pundits who mindlessly repeat Rove-funded frames and narratives, hoping to taint Hillary’s public image, to sully her character. Think of the Republican and conservative operatives who have tried in vain for more than two decades to silence her.

Read the terms they use to describe her, which we've chronicled in painful detail:

“Machiavellian, Lovecraftian, slithering, monstrous, imperious, musty, petulant, paranoid, stale, scornful, regal, devious, deceitful, abnormal, acting all innocent, disingenuous, egregious, crafty, sketchy, seamy, Faustian, robotic, queenly, suspicious, unsavory.”

Then look at this beautiful and happy picture of Hillary (see photo above) and understand why we pity those who devote their lives to verbally assaulting someone who never did anything to harm them and whose biggest sin is simply being who she is, a woman of pride, joy and power.

It must be a miserable thing to be driven to demean and diminish a woman who has achieved so much and who has fought for human rights, justice, equality and fairness.

Perhaps it is because Hillary has come to represent every woman that she is the target of so many who are threatened by the power and promise she embodies.

Whatever the reason, we are proud to be on Hillary’s side and not on the side of those who are consumed by envy and hate. 

Friday, August 28, 2015

Why Do Some Leftists Insist On Repeating Right-Wing Lies?

(This photo of Hillary Clinton is from ABC News.)

Before this campaign for president started, progressives were united in their effort to expose right-wing lies. But it seems that has changed. Now some, many of those who support Bernie Sanders, are perfectly willing to accept right-wing lies about Hillary Clinton -- and even pass them on to their friends (and anyone else who will listen).

Understand, I am NOT accusing Bernie Sanders of this. He (and Clinton) have both kept their campaigns on the issues -- and both are to be congratulated for that. It is refreshing to see that.

But while Sanders has taken the high road, that is sadly not true of too many of his supporters. They seem perfectly willing to pass on right-wing lies about Clinton. I am talking specifically about the so-called "e-mail scandal".  I can understand why the right wants to spread the lie that somehow Clinton has done something wrong by using a private e-mail server. They know they would have little chance to defeat her in a general election, so they are doing everything they can to smear her (which is the normal way of campaigning for the GOP).

But it is disappointing to see progressives engaging in this same kind of campaigning. I had thought my progressive brothers and sisters were better than that. Could it be that they realize that Clinton and Sanders are very close on most issues, and they now think their candidate cannot win on the issues? Do they think, like the Republicans do, that the only way to beat Clinton is to smear her good name by repeating right-wing lies about her?

Let's make one thing very clear. Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong by using a private e-mail server. She did not break any laws (or even any Obama administration rules). She did not expose classified information on the private server. And she did nothing that Secretaries of State have not done in the past.

The truth is that the Democrats have two great progressive candidates -- and both are to be congratulated for running clean campaigns. It is time for their supporters to do the same. Smearing opponents with lies is not a tactic that any Democrat should engage in. It is a tactic that Democrats (and progressives in general) have always opposed. It is time to live up to our principles -- regardless of which candidate we support.


Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Is This Fair Campaigning - Or Just Gutter Politics ?


I have had this meme pop up on my Facebook page more than once now. It attacks Hillary Clinton for supporting Barry Goldwater in 1964 -- when she was still in high school. And it infers that she is somehow not a good progressive for that (something that happened 51 years ago).

I don't blame Bernie Sanders for this. He has kept his campaign on a high level, discussing the issues and avoiding personal attacks on Clinton. But some of his supporters don't seem to have the high ethical standards of their candidate.

This meme suggests we should all be judged by mistakes of our past. I was also a Goldwater supporter in 1964, when I was also in high school. I then went to college and did some growing up, becoming a progressive. Hillary Clinton did the same. And both of us have been good progressives for well over 40 years now. Why must we be judged for something that happened 51 years ago. Can't people change? Are we not as good as someone else because we have been progressives for 45 years instead of 51 years?

I have said several times on this blog that I think we have two great Democratic candidates this year, and we progressives (and Democratic moderates) should vote our conscience in the primary. I also believe we should avoid personal attacks, and keep the campaign on the issues (as both Hillary and Bernie are  doing).

This image above is a personal attack -- and a very unfair one at that. It's gutter politics, and reminds me of the type of campaigning that Republicans love to do. At least they have a reason for doing it (being on the wrong side of nearly every issue). Democrats don't need to do this, and it's embarrassing to see progressives climbing down into the gutter to support their candidate. I don't like it -- and I doubt that Bernie would like it either.

Friday, March 06, 2015

In Defense Of Hillary Clinton

(This caricature of Hillary Clinton is by the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

Hillary Clinton is not yet a candidate for any political office, and won't be until at least next month (if not later), but that hasn't stopped her political enemies from trying to tear her down. In the last couple of weeks, they have come up with new accusations that they hope will make her look like an evil and conniving person.

Right-wingers are engaging in this character assassination because they know that none of their potential candidates currently stand a chance of beating Clinton in a head-to-head battle for the presidency -- and some on the left have joined them (primarily those still begging Senator Warren to enter the Democratic race for president).

Last week, they accused Clinton of receiving funds from foreign governments, and particularly pointed to a donation of about $500,000 from Algeria (not generally viewed as a friend of the United States). The implication was that Clinton was selling her influence to foreign countries to advance her own interests.

They might have had a case, if Clinton had used any of those funds for her own enrichment or to further her political career -- but she didn't. Every penny of that money went to the Clinton Foundation -- a charity that tries to help people around the world. The money from Algeria was for the earthquake victims in Haiti, and that's exactly where all of it went.

Charities can't be too particular about who donates to them, because that funding is too hard to get -- and even if it comes from an unsavory source (like the government of Algeria), they know it can be put to good use helping people. In addition, the Clinton Foundation has been very open about who is contributing to them. I think Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe put it best when he said:

"If the biggest attack on Hillary's going to be that she raised too much money for her charity, okay, I'll take that. No one's alleging anything beyond that she raised money and people gave her money and foreign governments gave her money. At the end of the day, that's fine. It went to a charity. It helped a lot of people."

When that charge fizzled, Clinton detractors came up with a new charge this week. They accused of her using her own private e-mail account rather than a government account while she was Secretary of State. The implication was that she was trying to hide something nefarious by using a private account, because the public didn't have access to that account -- and some even implied she may have broken the law by using a private account. That's pure horse-hockey. Here are the facts:

* Clinton was not the only Secretary of State to use a private e-mail account. Her predecessor, Colin Powell did the same thing.

* No law was broken, since the law requiring a government account be used was not passed and signed into law until 2014 -- about two years after Clinton left government service.

* Nothing was hidden, since all e-mails pertaining to government business was sent to employees using government computers and accounts (and they were all saved).

* The National Archives requested those e-mails, and received them -- more than 55,000 e-mails. Those were the e-mails that pertained to government business, and made up over 90% of the e-mails she sent while Secretary of State. Those e-mails are now available to anyone who requests them from the National Archives.

* The other 10% or so of e-mails pertained to her private family matters (like e-mailing her daughter on the flowers for her wedding). None of her critics, or anyone else, has the right to view those e-mails (anymore than they would have the right to view your own personal e-mails).

The truth is that there's neither smoke nor fire here -- just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong in either of these two cases. Her critics, on both the right and left, are going to have to do a lot better than this to bring her down.

Jeb Bush also used a private e-mail service when governor of Florida, and has bragged that he turned over all of those e-mails after leaving office. That's not exactly true. He turned over those relating to his government service, and withheld those pertaining to his family life -- exactly as Hillary Clinton did. Bush has been praised for his actions, while Clinton is being criticized -- and that is just wrong.

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

Perry Plays Politics With The Lives Of Refugee Children

In the last few months, a few thousand children from Central America have turned themselves in to Border Patrol agents on our southern border. These refugee children, trying to escape the violence and poverty in their own countries, pose no danger to Texas or the nation, and don't represent a significant influx of immigrants without documentation.

But that doesn't matter to Rick Perry. Perry has presidential ambitions, and he knows he can't get the GOP nomination unless he pleases the anti-immigrant racist teabaggers in his party's base. So, instead of taking a rational and humanitarian approach to these young refugees, he has decided to play politics -- and show the teabaggers that he can be as hard-hearted and ridiculous as they are.

As a Texan, I'm disgusted with Perry's recent actions -- and so is one of Texas' leading progressives, Jim Hightower (pictured here in a photo from tankriot.com). Here is what Hightower wrote on his own website:


Great news for you lovers of Wild West, shoot-'em-up, pulp-fiction tales: Rick "Rootie-Toot-Toot" Perry is making a one-man stand on the Texas-Mexico border!

A political stand, that is. He's been tongue-lashing Obama for not doing enough to seal the border by dispatching a human line of armed National Guard troops to protect America from… well, from what? Children, that's what. Nearly 60,000 terrorized, impoverished, and traumatized little ones have fled their hellish existences in Central America – where rape, murder, conscription into drug cartels, and hopeless poverty is their future –trekking all the way to the USA for a chance at something better.

No way, shouts Sheriff Perry. This guy routinely flaunts his Christianity for political purposes, but he seems to have forgotten that Jesus said: "Let the little children, come to me, and do not hinder them." Instead, the presidential wannabe bellows for their immediate deportation, claiming they'll commit crimes, bring diseases, and burden taxpayers with welfare costs.

Burden taxpayers? Perry's "Grand Stand on the Border" will cost taxpayers about $20 million a month to cover the state police and 1,000 National Guard troops he has deployed to the border. It's a political stunt cynically exploiting children trying to escape unspeakable violence and poverty. But it's not his money, so what the hell?

It is, however, his morality. He's so morally stunted that he's willing to militarize a humanitarian crisis and summarily send children back to their death. But it's not their future that concerns Perry. Rather, this whole show is about his own political future, for he's playing to the fear and loathing of tea party extremists who'll dominate the upcoming Republican presidential primaries.

Perry is not just callously ambitious, he's disgusting.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Rove's Attack On Hillary's Health Was A Political Blunder


Karl Rove was once hailed as a brilliant political strategist by his fellow Republicans. That was because he successfully engineered the election of George Bush in 2000 (by getting a majority of electoral college votes in spite of the fact that Bush lost the popular vote). But since Bush left office, Rove political expertise has come into question.

In the 2012 election, the super-PAC headed by Rove spent multiple millions of donor dollars to defeat President Obama. It failed miserably, and Rove looked like a whiner when he objected on nationwide TV to the networks calling Ohio for President Obama (even though they were later proved to be right). Now it looks like Rove may have made an even bigger political blunder.

A couple of weeks ago, Rove questioned the health of Hillary Clinton -- referring back to a fall she had in 2012, and insinuating that she may have suffered "traumatic brain injury". And considering her age, he thought this would be an issue in the 2016 presidential election if Hillary chose to run. Rove was trying to chip away at the popularity of Hillary Clinton to give the GOP nominee in 2016 a chance to be elected -- but it looks like his nefarious accusation has backfired on him. He may have helped Hillary instead of hurting her.

It turns out that two-thirds of the public disapproved of Rove's scurrilous attack on Hillary. That's what a new Washington Post / ABC News Poll found. The survey was done between May 21st and 25th of a random national sample of 1,017 adults (and has a margin of error of 3.5 points).

The chart above shows the result of that poll. Note that 66% of the general public (and 67% of registered voters) disapproved of Rove's remarks. And that feeling was much the same across all demographic groups -- regardless of age, education, income, race, gender, or region. Even a plurality of Republicans disapproved (with 46% disapproving and 45% approving).

Are Karl Rove's 15 minutes of fame as a political strategist over? Could be. He certainly can't afford to make another blunder of this magnitude.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Attacks OK Under Bush - Not Obama

During George Bush's first term, there were 27 people killed in three separate attacks on American embassies and consulates. Not a single Republican blamed Mr. Bush. And they didn't complain when another ii were killed during his second term as president. Why then are they loudly and incessantly blaming President Obama for the 4 deaths in Libya? Could it have something to do with politics? Surely the GOP wouldn't stoop so low as to play politics with the deaths of innocent American government employees -- would they?

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Public Didn't Like Willard's Mideast Remarks

The time since the party conventions has not been good for Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie). He got no bounce from his own convention, and had to watch as the president got a very nice bounce in the polls from the Democratic Convention. That would have been bad enough, but then Willard had to shoot himself in the foot by trying to make it look like he knew something about foreign policy.

When the embassies of this country were attacked in the Mideast (especially in Egypt and Libya, where Americans were killed), Willard was quick to jump in and try to score some political points from the tragedy by blaming the riots on President Obama. And he did this at a time when Americans should have been standing behind the president. Many people found Willard's attempt to score political points off the death of American officials to not only be inappropriate, but unpatriotic.

This is verified by a survey done between September 13th and 16th by the Pew Research Center. Only 26% of all Americans approved of Romney's remarks on the Mideast turmoil (which is even less than the number of Americans who self-identify as Republicans). In fact, as the chart above shows, all demographic groups disapproved of Willard's remarks except one -- Republicans, and even there only 58% approved. This was truly a gaffe that hurt the Romney campaign.

About the only good thing about this affair for Romney is that it was pushed off the media front pages after only a few days. Unfortunately for the Romney campaign, the story that pushed it out of the media's glare was another shot to the foot by Willard -- the video of his disdain for half of the American people. Willard seems to be just stumbling form one disaster to another right now.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Romney's Super-PAC "Attack Dog"

(The image above is from the website of Vanity Fair.)

The ridiculous decision made by the Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. FEC has had a profound effect on the American electoral process already. It allows candidates to get around the campaign donation limits (and even allows those donors to remain secret). It has also given the candidates some deniability regarding negative advertising.

This is especially true of Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie). His super-PAC has been very successful at raising money (most of it from Wall Street and big corporations). And that super-PAC, Restore Our Future, has acted as the campaign's "attack dog". It is responsible for nearly all of the negative attack ads done on behalf of Romney.

The Romney campaign has spent about $11.8 million on broadcast ads (12,817 spots), and almost all of them have been positive spots promoting Romney. But that does not mean Romney has waged a positive campaign. His super-PAC has spent about $36.1 million, and $35 million (96.95%) of that has been spent on negative advertising attacking his GOP opponents (Santorum and Gingrich).

Of course the Romney campaign (and some right-wing apologists) will claim that Romney has no control over what his super-PAC does, since it is against federal law for the two entities to be combined. If any of you really believe that, please give me a call. I've got some ocean-front property here in Amarillo that I'll sell real cheap. It takes nothing more than a wink and a nod for the campaign to control super-PAC actions.

And you can bet this will continue if Romney is the nominee in the general election. He will try to act innocent, while his super-PAC viciously attacks the president.