You won't see any of these at Ted's Shill shop or Juanita's beauty salon, after all, and the week is still young. There'll be many more.
And here's some "equal time" ...
And here's some "equal time" ...
I think it was a stupid thing to say if you’re trying to win an election.
[...]
Nice. Insult a big chunk of voters. I thought liberals were supposed to be caring people, people who often went the extra mile to engage people who have different points of view than they did, talk to people who have different attitudes than they have and, in a perfect world, find common ground, and go from there.
Another thing that occurred to me was that during the brutal Democratic primary it wasn’t unusual to hear Bernie supporters labeled as sexist and racist, so do we also belong in “the basket of deplorables”? Does Clinton really believe that all of her supporters are perfect, tolerant, compassionate, people? Pure as the driven snow? Does she really think that none of them are even a little bit xenophobic, a little bit “Islamaphobic”?
Lastly, the optics were awful, imo. There she was before a room full of rich people and she elicits laughter by mocking fellow Americans by insulting them en masse and publicly writing them off. Is that a wise thing to do when you’re in the process of interviewing for the job of representing all Americans?
I don’t think that it was wise, I think it was elitist and stupid. And it wasn’t helpful to a country on the edge.
Over at Twitter #BasketOfDeplorables (which has been trending all day) I saw a comment that hit home for me that said that’s what happens when you spend “all August fundraising with elites”. I agree with that conclusion.
You could not pick a worse, more inept, inexperienced or offensive joke of a presidential candidate than Donald Trump. The United States has become the butt of international ridicule over our very own “Kim Jong-Un.” Any candidate running against Trump from the opposing major party with a pulse ought to be beating him in the polls by double digits. But Hillary Clinton isn’t.
The Democratic nominee is barely ahead of “the most unpopular presidential candidate since the former head of the Ku Klux Klan,” and a recent CNN poll puts her at 2 percent behind Trump. Granted, it is only one poll, and several other recent polls have found her a few percentage points ahead. Still, no Democrat could ask for an easier Republican candidate to beat. In the history of American presidential races, it is likely we have never had a more comically unsuitable figure as Trump nominated by a major party. And yet Clinton is struggling to come out ahead.
The Democrat’s ardent supporters—those who have championed her from Day One—claim that we live in a sexist country and that her gender is what is standing in the way of most Americans embracing her. They assert that the media and her critics hold her to an unfairly high standard. But in a country where white women have benefited far more from affirmative action policies, how is it that we easily elected the nation’s first black president twice, only to stumble over a white female nominee?
The problem is not her gender. [...] Her refusal to even attempt to embrace bold progressive values and her inability to read the simmering nationwide anger over economic and racial injustice are the larger obstacles to her popularity.
In positioning herself first and foremost as what she is not—Trump—Clinton is picking only the low-hanging fruit. My 9-year-old son could make fun of Trump in clever ways, and does so routinely. For Clinton to fixate on Trump’s endless flaws suggests that her own platform has little substance. For example, in a recent speech she said of Trump, “He says he has a secret plan to defeat ISIS. The secret is, he has no plan.” While these kinds of statements might make for funny one-liners, Clinton’s main credential is that she once led the State Department, and she did so with such hawkishness that Americans who are weary of endless wars are not impressed by the experience. (Not to mention that she was caught telling lies about her private email server while secretary of state.) If she proposed diplomacy over war, a plan to exit Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria, a promise to withhold weapons from Saudi Arabia, a commitment to Palestinian human rights, etc., voters might sit up and take note.
Black voters tend to vote Democratic—a fact the party has taken for granted for decades. But if Clinton wants to earn those votes, she could take a page out of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s book and visit (or send a representative to visit) the ongoing occupation of Los Angeles City Hall by Black Lives Matter activists. BLM is calling on Mayor Eric Garcetti to fire Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck over a spate of killings by officers that has made his department the most violent of all departments nationwide. Instead, Clinton goes to Beverly Hills for a fundraiser to hobnob with wealthy donors and celebrities, including Garcetti.
Rather than reaching out to American voters on such issues, Clinton has been busy pandering to one particular community: the uber-rich. According to a New York Times article, she has made multiple trips to wealthy enclaves over the past month alone. In addition to Beverly Hills, she has visited Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons, rubbing elbows with celebrities and other rich elites. Just in August she raised more than $140 million through such fundraisers—easy fodder for the GOP to criticize in a new set of ads.
While making herself accessible to America’s upper classes, she has made herself almost completely unavailable to the press. Until Thursday, Clinton had not held a single news conference in 2016, inviting the unflattering comparison to President George W. Bush, who came under fire for avoiding interactions with the media. Bush was skewered for acting like he was hiding something, afraid the press might ask hard questions that would invite a blundering response. Clinton, one could argue, does not need to win over the press—most mainstream outlets already embrace her nomination and are pushing hard for her election. A recent article by Paul Krugman in the Times is a prime example. Ordinary Americans, however, continue to be unimpressed.
Perhaps Clinton feels that she can win without trying. After all, she has said publicly to her supporters, “I stand between you and the apocalypse.” She is positioning herself as a better option for president than the apocalyptic one. But that’s not saying much. And perhaps that is the point.
Maybe Clinton thinks she does not need to win over ordinary Americans. She knows she has the support of the Wall Street elite, the Pentagon war hawks and even a growing number of Republicans, one of whom implored his fellow Republicans to save the party by voting for Clinton.
And yet all of that may not be enough, as the polls are showing.
If Clinton loses this election, it will not be because Americans are dumb, racist misogynists who would cut off their noses to spite their faces in refusing to elect a sane woman over an insane man. It will not be because too many Americans “selfishly” voted for a third party or didn’t vote at all. It will be because Clinton refused to compromise her allegiance to Wall Street and the morally bankrupt center-right establishment positions of her party and chose not to win over voters. This election is hers to lose, and if this nation ends up with President Trump, it will be most of all the fault of Clinton and the Democratic Party that backs her.
Eight months before the next municipal election, Mayor Ivy Taylor is ramping up her re-election bid — shaking up her campaign and winning support of her former arch political rival.
Just a little over a year ago, things had become so strained between Taylor and mayoral challenger Leticia Van de Putte, a former state senator, that Taylor refused to shake her opponent’s hand after a debate broadcast on Texas Public Radio. But after Taylor won the bitter runoff election, hatchets were buried, fences mended and olive branches extended.
This week, the two stood side by side at a Taylor fundraiser in Terrell Hills that raised $180,000 for her re-election bid and where Van de Putte heaped praise on the mayor.
“I generally thought I was better suited to be mayor simply because of my experience and maybe the style of leadership I have. I knew Ivy to be a good administrator,” Van de Putte said in an interview with the San Antonio Express-News Thursday, describing what she said at the fundraiser.
“But she’s stepped up to the plate and she has shone. And so it is with those results that I wholeheartedly stand in support, and I said, ‘Voters got it right,’” Van de Putte said of her endorsement.
If Van De Putte can deliver the Latino vote to a token black anti-LGBT Republican with an ethics background that is totally shameful and who's in the lobby's fold, Latinos are in serious trouble. But the fact is she couldn't deliver it for herself, why should we think she can do it for Taylor. She's probably already lined up the city's lobbying contract for her and her Rino (Republican-in-name-only) friend Hope. At some point Leticia, it's time to move on and let the next generation of qualified and ethically responsible leaders step up and move the city in a transparent and accountable manner.
Van de Putte, who is now a lobbyist with former Secretary of State Hope Andrade, lauded the mayor for several accomplishments since she took over leadership of San Antonio, including ...
According to an email sent to a contributor, about 150 people attended the Wednesday fundraiser for Taylor that raised $170,000, nearly doubling what she had reported was left in her account on June 30. ...
The invitation to the fundraiser, obtained by the Express-News, shows scores of supporters contributing as much as $1,000 apiece. The list of 236 people, organizations and political action committees included dozens of well-known San Antonians, including (mega-auto dealer) Ernesto Ancira Jr., Louis Barrios, Bill Greehey, Gordon Hartman, Peter Holt, (former CEO of Clear Channel Communications, now iHeartMedia) Lowry Mays, Red McCombs, Gene Powell, (construction magnate) Bartell Zachry and (former General Motors chairman and former CEO of Southwestern Bell/ATT) Ed Whitacre.
[...]
In a campaign shakeup, Taylor replaced Justin Hollis, currently running a re-election campaign for U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, R-Helotes, with Christian Anderson, a veteran political consultant.
[...]
Taylor’s bid was notable because she entered the race late, having originally said she wouldn’t seek the elected position after being appointed to the seat in 2014, and was under-funded in the race that included Van de Putte, former state Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, and former Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson.
Taylor said in a statement that she would still work with Red Print Strategies, a Washington-based Republican consulting firm. But she said it would be Anderson running the local operations.
After months of what the military calls stand-off attacks, launched from a distance, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump finally met on the same stage Wednesday night for hand-to-hand combat.
Unfortunately for those seeking information on their respective military policies, they were separated by a half-hour, which meant there was plenty of unilluminating blather spewed by both candidates. That’s to be expected when neither has issued a detailed national-security blueprint or spelled out their plans to defeat ISIS with any specificity.
The candidates ran through their talking points—little they haven’t said before—set apart by stirring martial music, a “live exclusive” MSNBC logo on the screen, and nasal-spray and bladder-control advertisements. Of course, with each candidate limited to about 25 minutes, they couldn’t say much. Clinton spent much of her allotted time responding to questions over her lousy email security while serving as secretary of state. By the time a veteran asked her a serious question about defeating ISIS, moderator Matt Lauer jumped in, encouraging her to answer “as briefly as you can.”
Clinton said she would follow the plodding path blazed by President Obama. “We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again, and we are not putting ground troops into Syria,” she said. “We’re going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops.” Trump didn’t address the issue, except to confirm he would destroy ISIS quickly. “The generals have been reduced to rubble,” he argued of the U.S. military’s high command, their hands tied by an overly cautious White House.
But Trump, who said last year that he knew “more about ISIS than the generals do,” has suddenly done an about face and says he will order “my generals”—itself a jarring construction—to devise a plan to defeat ISIS. Obama, of course, has done that as well, and has decided on a go-slow approach to grind the caliphate into dust. Sure, the U.S. could steamroll into the Syrian city of Raqqa, crushing at least ISIS’s physical capital. “I’ve talked to some U.S. generals who are really frustrated,” retired Marine general Anthony Zinni told Time Aug. 31. “They could be in Raqqa in a week.” But that would only set off a new wave of problems, as the U.S. has learned, relearned, and learned again in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Trump dismissed such concerns. In a non-sequitur, he suggested that a Trump Administration would “take the oil” to end such turmoil.
She may have wanted to talk about why she is qualified to be US commander in chief, but she spent nearly a third of her time on the defensive about her emails.
She talked about classification "headers" and explained that there was "no evidence" her server had been hacked. She even said it may have been safer than those of the state department's, given that the government's (non-classified) system had indeed been breached.
When it came to handling classified information, she was unapologetic. "I did exactly what I should have done and I take it very seriously," she said. "Always have, always will."
For those keeping track at home, Mrs Clinton has gone from asserting that she never relayed classified information to that she never sent "marked" classified documents to that she never sent material with classified headers.
That's the rhetorical equivalent of rear-guard action that ends with your army pushed into the sea.
So Lauer didn't correct Trump on his record about Iraq?” The Washington Post’s Phil Rucker tweeted.
The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote that the forum was “an embarrassment to journalism,” while his colleague Paul Krugman wrote that “everyone knew this would happen,” but Lauer didn’t “have a follow-up planned” for Trump’s answer.
"I hate media-on-media violence, but Trump's support for the invasion of Iraq has been. .. rather well documented. No Lauer follow-up?” wrote Yahoo News’ Olivier Knox.
NBC News’ own political unit fact-checked Trump's claim later, calling it “false”.
To be sure, Lauer got credit for pushing Trump on his plan for defeating ISIS and confronting Trump with a tweet of his from 2013 on the thousands of unreported sexual assault in the military where Trump said: “What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?” Many also lamented the short amount of time allotted for each candidate, just 30 minutes including audience questions.
But that didn’t take away from what many journalists saw as a quick and easy fact check.
"How can someone like @MLauer not set the record straight on Trump's bogus claim of being against the war in Iraq?” wrote the Washington Post’s fact checker Glenn Kessler.
Trump [...] began by saying that it is a "massive problem" and that "we're going to have to come down very, very hard on that."
"The best thing we can do is set up a court system within the military," he said according to Time. "Right now the court system practically doesn't exist."
[...] Lauer quickly interjected to read a tweet from Trump three years ago. In May 2013, Trump said that sexual assault was to be "expected" when you put women in the military:
26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2013
After Lauer called Trump out on his 3-year-old tweet, Trump maintained saying, "It is a correct tweet. There are many people that think that's absolutely correct."
Lauer then asked if that means Trump would take women out of the military and the Republican nominee said, "No, not take them out, but something has to be happened [sic]. When you have somebody that does something so evil, so bad as that, there has to be consequences for that person. You should have to go after that person. Right now, nobody is doing anything."
The most dispiriting thing Wednesday night was the grim view of the world the candidates gave Americans, with their relentless focus on fighting and terror. That, in part, comes from candidates eager to court—some might say pander to—the military vote. There was scant optimism, reflecting the hunkered-down nature of U.S. politics since 9/11. The frontier spirit that made the U.S.—a national character trait for more than two centuries—was nowhere on the deck of the USS Intrepid, docked in the Hudson River.
More than 500,000 Americans have died on U.S. highways since 9/11. A U.S. resident is 1,000 times more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack. While the federal government has succeeded in reducing the number of vehicle fatalities, few blame the federal government for the asphalt carnage. But because such deaths are an everyday occurrence, they have become part of the white noise of American life.
You wouldn’t know it from listening to the candidates, but the world today is less violent than it has been in generations. If the candidates had focused on that Wednesday night, instead of heightening fears over relatively small threats, the evening could have been inspiring, as well as informative.
[...] Clinton and Trump will participate in a joint forum Wednesday sponsored by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and broadcast on NBC and MSNBC -- their first joint appearance of the campaign.
Clinton is also bolstering her national security push with a new television ad called "Sacrifice," highlighting Trump's criticism of Arizona Sen. John McCain's war-hero status and his fight with the Muslim parents of an American soldier killed in combat.
And her super PAC, Priorities USA, is launching a $5 million ad buy in the swing states North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire on Friday with a spot titled "I Love War."
Featuring a mushroom cloud, it touts Trump's hawkish remarks about war and nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, delivered a security-focused speech Tuesday in Wilmington, North Carolina, accusing Trump of flip-flopping on how the United States should handle the war in Iraq.
"He says whatever he feels like at any given time because you can do that when you're a TV star. But you can't do that when you're president of the United States," Kaine said.
"I just don't think she has a presidential look and you need a presidential look," Trump said of Clinton.
"I'm talking about general, by the way, she says things about me that are horrible," Trump said. "As an example, the single greatest asset I have according to those that know me is my temperament."
A lot of people don’t want to vote for a third-party candidate like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson because they believe their vote will be “wasted.” But they don’t apply the same logic to most other things in life, many of which involve setting yourself apart from the herd.
In an interview two days before a G20 meeting in China with U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders, Putin said it might be impossible to establish who engineered the release of sensitive Democratic Party emails but it was not done by the Russian government.
"Does it even matter who hacked this data?" Putin said. "The important thing is the content that was given to the public."
"There’s no need to distract the public’s attention from the essence of the problem by raising some minor issues connected with the search for who did it," he added. "But I want to tell you again, I don’t know anything about it, and on a state level Russia has never done this."
Donald Trump on Thursday night insisted on CNN that his recent comments about immigration reflect a "hardening" of his stance, but the Republican nominee refused to directly answer questions about his position on deportation.
"I don’t think it’s a softening," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper when the host noted that Trump actually said there could be a "softening" of his policy on deportation. “I’ve had people say it’s a hardening, actually.”
Throughout the interview, Cooper attempted to clarify Trump's stance on deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants, but with no success.
When he first asked Trump if he had a change of heart about deporting all undocumented immigrants, Trump launched into a rant about building a wall and said that he will give more details on his plan in a week. In addition to building a "great wall," Trump said he'll use "tunnel technology" and "all sorts of e-verify."
Trump reiterated that he will deport the "bad" undocumented immigrants, but suggested that he doesn't have much of a plan beyond that.
"After that, we’re going to see what happens," he said.
Trump dodged the question again when Cooper asked if there would be a path to legalization.
"You know it’s a process? You can’t take 11 at one time and just say, ‘Boom, you’re gone.’ We have to find where these people are," Trump said in response.