Huffington Post blasts Trump as 'racist, sexist demagogue'
(CNN)Huffington Post took a visceral and aggressive approach to Donald Trump's victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday night, blasting the GOP front-runner as a "racist, sexist demagogue."
The headline on the homepage, in bold, red, 72-point font, reads: "NH GOES RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC." The headline on the story: "A Racist, Sexist Demagogue Just Won The New Hampshire Primary."
The story, essentially an indictment of New Hampshire voters for choosing Trump, is in keeping with an editorial stance the website has had for weeks.
In late January, Huffington Post announced that all of its Trump-related articles would include an editor's note reading, "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S."
What's fueling the Republican fury
Peniel Joseph is the Barbara Jordan Chair in Political Values and Ethics and the founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is also a professor of history. He is the author of several books, most recently "Stokely: A Life." The views expressed here are his own.
(CNN)In accepting the Republican Party's nomination for president, Donald Trump's speech purposefully played to multiple layers of racial anxiety (ones that, alternately, cast undocumented Latinos, Black Lives Matter demonstrators and Muslims as foils straight from central casting) that perfectly captured the mood of the Republican National Convention.
Over the course of the week, speaker after speaker framed the upcoming presidential contest as nothing less than a civilizational clash between God-fearing, law-abiding, and Constitution-loving white Americans and radical black protesters, illegal Latino criminals and Muslim terrorists. Trump's speech served as a capstone to perhaps the most chaotic, angry and vulgar presidential nominating convention in modern American history. Make no mistake: People of color were the enemy, both spoken and unarticulated, standing in the way of Trump's promise to Make America Great Again.
The crux of Trump's speech might be summed up this way: White Lives Matter. Especially those feeling economic anxiety, racial fear and anger, and a creeping sense of a measurable loss of white privilege in a world that has lost manufacturing jobs, outsourced once reliable employment opportunities and elected a black man president.
Racial resentment, scapegoating and recriminations contoured the four-day affair, which took place against a national backdrop of Black Lives Matter demonstrations against police killings of black Americans and mourning over the recent deaths of eight law-enforcement officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. The convention's first day featured Rudy Giuliani, the race-baiting former New York City mayor, excoriating Black Lives Matter protests and attacking President Obama as being racially divisive.
After Giuliani's invective, the ironies continued over the next three days, with a litany of speakers painting a portrait of national decline, rising crime, rampant unemployment and racial division orchestrated by America's first black president.
Each in their own way, speakers throughout the week translated "Make America Great Again" — a Trump slogan that critics rightfully perceive as a threat — into an unapologetic cri de coeur for a restoration of white nationalism, an ideology that advocates defining national identity by racial categories and hierarchies. Trump's "Make America Great Again" traffics in explicit racial nostalgia. It goes back to the future and promises the restoration of a once invincible racial hierarchy.
Once Trump himself took the stage, the groundwork was laid for his acceptance speech to amplify -- to rousing cheers from the overwhelmingly white delegates -- the previous days' anti-black, anti-Muslim and anti-immigration fear-mongering.
"We cannot afford," observed Trump, "to be so politically correct anymore." He then proceeded to detail a parallel universe of rampant violence and lawlessness. Trump cited urban violence in Baltimore, Chicago, and the nation's capital as signs of social decay, pointed to rising deaths of police officers as exemplifying lawlessness, and criminal activities of illegal immigrants as a national scourge.
Reality check: Violent crime is down since its mid-1990s peak, as are assaults against law enforcement. And Trump's pledge to restore the postwar economic boom and racial homogeneity of Eisenhower-era America rests on magical thinking, economically and politically. He promises the kind of infrastructure investment no Republican Congress would ever pass and a reversal of trade deficits that no president could guarantee.
But it seems that reality doesn't interfere with the ability of Trump's time machine to blur historical eras in a mashup that made parts of the RNC reminiscent of the post-Reconstruction Democratic Party's efforts to "redeem" the South by restoring white supremacy in the aftermath of the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and other parts a throwback -- an explicit one -- to Nixon's 1968 "law and order" rhetorical strategy.
There are other, even more brutal, historical precedents for presidential candidates pandering to racial fears and winning elections by appealing to our worst racial impulses. In Reconstruction's aftermath, an era of lynching, Jim Crow and unprecedented racial violence, the presidency became the primary battleground for white Americans to resume control over black bodies. A similar era of political retrenchment followed the modern civil rights struggle, where the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts gave way to Nixon's Southern strategy that elevated racial division to a political art that would lead to the realignment of both major political parties. Southern Democrats, known as Dixiecrats, temporarily abandoned the party for George Wallace's segregationist campaign before finding a more permanent home in the Reagan Revolution.
But the genius of the Trump campaign's racial pandering -- on its most dazzling display in his acceptance speech -- is also part of its moral decay. To convince economically fragile whites that the road to prosperity can be achieved through the continued political, economic and cultural oppression and scapegoating of people of color at home and abroad, Trump portrays everyone from Black Lives Matter protesters to Syrian refugees and even NATO as existential threats to American citizens.
Having first stoked Americans' fears of demographic changes, Trump then presents himself as their champion. His promise to build a wall to prevent immigrants from entering American borders illegally is a perfect metaphor for his campaign and the RNC's full-throated embrace of white nationalism.
"My greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens," Trump said as he joined delegates in cheering "USA! USA!" Any American who is aware of the nation's long history of racial violence, division and recrimination heard Trump's message loud and clear.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio tells Christiane Amanpour why Hillary Clinton is his favorite candidate and slams Donald Trump's business record.
LOL....man....you are so "enchanted" with Donny that you seems not being able to see through the smoke mirrors...do you?..........
My eyes are wide open buddy.... I have watched, in horror and disgust, the RNC and I am now watching the DNC. And the more I think about it, the more separated I am from the GOP.
The GOP has turned into something that is worth to put in horror books or Quentin Tarantino movies. It is a public shape to the american people. And to this very day, I am extremely convinced that Donny "Dumb Grump" Trump is absolutely disqualified to perform the duties at the Oval Office. He has done zero, nothing nada, zip, to benefit the american people. The only thing he has done quasi-right, semi-right, half-right, is getting richer at the expense of the hard worker people.
Through his miserable life, and I use the word "miserable" because it is what best describes him, all he has done is womanizing, ripping others of their hard earned money, and brag about it.
He has not fought anyone, except suing folks that challenge his wealth, he has not done ANY humanitarian contribution to ANYTHING, and despite being so filthy rich, he has provided with crumps to charity.....shall we change his name to Donny "Dumb Grump Crump" Trump?....I think we should.
Common, there must be something worth to talk about Donny....but unfortunately, I have not found anything.
Donald Trump CNN Interview about Muslims ban
And if you think that there is nothing wrong about his taxes.....tell him to release them now....but he won't....he knows better than to do that....that is why he hasn't done it and he will not do it.
"You certainly are for the Crooked witch. You lie, you spread false stories.".........Then I am openly challenging YOU to prove me wrong. Go ahead, show me what significant contributions has he made to the american people, show me what humanitarian contributions has he made, show me in the name of what has he fought for before...(And Vietnam service don't count, we all know, including you, that he is a war dodger). Show me what innate qualifications he has, besides his self-depicted womanizing abilities as he has described in the past...
So common...show me something significant.
All I could see in the RNC was nothing but hatred, anger, division, in-fighting, and all the sort of things that are completely disgusting. During his speech,Donny did not laid the grounds to convince individuals like me, that he is a well qualified, well competent, well established american ready for the oval office. All he showed was that he was rising through the GOP using his anger, his hatred, his bigotry and his racism as a weapon. There was a guy in Germany back in 1940 who did the very same thing and we all know how it went in history and there is absolutely no difference with his doppelgänger called Donny "Dumb Crump Grump" Trump. The more I hear him talking the more convinced I am that he is a lunatic, power daydreamer who only wants power and wealth at the expense of the hard working american people.
But then there is that segment of the population who, like the germans back then, wanted and needed someone who could personalize and carry their anger against whatever they considered their enemy, and again, we all know how it went in history....
So common, bring it on !!
Kaine ties taxes to vets in bashing Trump
PHILADELPHIA — Sen. Tim Kaine went after Donald Trump on two of the Republican presidential nominee's favorite talking points: veterans and money.
During an appearance at the Virginia Democratic Party's Wednesday breakfast here in Philadelphia during the Democratic National Convention, Kaine, Hillary Clinton's pick for vice president, devoted much of his speech to knocking Trump as a tax-dodger who can't back up his claims that he would help veterans.
Over Trump's "whole life" he's used "every trick" to avoid paying taxes, Kaine said.
"That's why he's not giving out his tax returns because if he did you would see all the tricks and dodges he uses to not pay taxes," Kaine said, going on to pivot to veterans, another favorite subject of Trump's. Trump has promised to reform the Department of Veterans Affairs and create a hotline to help veterans.
"'But I would be great for the vets,'" Kaine said paraphrasing Trump. "Well look, by fighting to pay no taxes, who's funding veterans' programs? Who's funding veterans services?"
By avoiding paying taxes, Kaine said, Trump is showing he's "too big to have to fund our military, too big to have to fund our schools, too big to have to fund programs for things that we rely on, the things that makes this a great nation. The things that stick us together. I guess that's just for suckers to have to pay for the society have."
Democrats have been eager to hit Trump on his tax returns. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has released eight years of tax returns while the real estate mogul has not released any, citing an ongoing audit expected to end before the election in November. Trump said he would then "gladly" share his tax returns with the public.
Why Trump Fails—and Clinton Passes—the Commander-in-Chief Test
“I’m with her,” says one of America’s leading intelligence and special operations officials, because the GOP nominee’s views put the nation at risk.
Three months ago, my former boss and mentor, retired Defense Secretary Bob Gates, questioned whether Donald Trump has the temperament to be president. While I fully share Secretary Gates’ concerns about Trump’s disposition, I am equally troubled by the Republican nominee’s views on national security, which he laid out again at a news conference on Wednesday.
America faces three principal national security threats: from radical Islamists, who seek to terrorize Americans and overthrow the existing order in the Middle East; from a resurgent Russia, which seeks to reassert its dominance over the former Soviet Empire and overthrow the existing order in Europe; and from a rising China, which seeks suzerainty in Asia. In all three areas, Trump has shown a limited grasp of the nature of the threat and has proposed strategies that would make America less secure.
As a Green Beret, CIA operations officer and senior national security official, I have served under six presidents—four Republicans and two Democrats. The last was Barack Obama, and for four years in the White House Situation Room, I saw Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s sound strategic judgment first-hand—on the Afghanistan surge, the campaign to dismantle and defeat core al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal region, the raid to kill Osama bin Laden, and on lethal support for the moderate Syrian opposition. Secretary Clinton has the temperament, national security experience and strategic judgment to be an outstanding commander in chief. Donald Trump does not. I’m with her.
Throughout the Cold War and during much of the post-9/11 period, Republicans have generally enjoyed an advantage with the electorate in the area of national security. Yet at a time when threats to America are increasing substantially, the Republicans have inexplicably chosen as their nominee someone with less national security experience than any candidate since the 1940s. Indeed, the gap in national security qualifications between the two major party candidates is greater than at any time since 1952, when Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower ran against Adlai Stevenson.
Here is why I came to this conclusion.
Trump talks tough about destroying the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but his strategy for dealing with global jihadist groups is a poor one, focused almost exclusively on banning Muslims from traveling or immigrating to the United States. This would not only do little to diminish the threat posed by radical Islamists, it would feed the global jihadi narrative that we are at war with Islam. His alienation of Muslims at home and abroad, moreover, would make it extremely difficult to gain the intelligence and security cooperation we need to disrupt threats.
Trump’s strategy for dealing with global jihadist groups is a poor one, and he shows no understanding of what has actually worked well in counterterrorism strategy.
Our experience over two decades has shown unequivocally that the global terrorist threat cannot be contained. It must be defeated, and it cannot be defeated without strong, targeted and sustained offensive action. Trump rails frequently against the Iraq and Libya wars, but shows no understanding of what has actually worked well in counterterrorism strategy: intense and sustained Predator strikes, special operations raids and joint capture operations, and mobilizing tribal resistance. When he says that he would cede Syria to Assad, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah and Russia — a policy that would further alienate and weaken our Sunni allies in the region and allow global jihadis a continued sanctuary from which to plan attacks against the American homeland—he shows no appreciation for the larger strategic context in which counterterrorism strategy must operate in order to be effective.
Trump’s bluster about ordering our national security professionals to waterboard detainees and “more” is deeply troubling on multiple levels. Suffice it to say, were such an order to be carried out, it would end up only weakening American power and placing our professionals in grave legal jeopardy.
Trump’s ideas for handling the great powers are equally unsound. His Russia strategy seems to be little more than appeasement. He is doing Vladimir Putin’s bidding by rejecting lethal support for Ukraine and questioning the U.S commitment to NATO. He has yet to utter a peep about the Russian hybrid warfare threat—Putin’s use of proxy war and conventional military power to subvert and invade his neighbors. Trump is likewise silent on Russian covert political influence operations and cyberthreats.
His Russia strategy seems to be little more than appeasement. He is doing Vladimir Putin’s bidding …”
Trump’s China strategy seems to be about little more than trade. He shows no understanding of China’s development of military capabilities aimed at keeping the U.S. out of Asia. He likewise does not seem to understand the links between economic power and military power, or how his economic policies—adding an additional $10 trillion to the national debt, for example—would weaken American power. He talks about building up the American military but is silent on which capabilities will be needed to meet emerging threats.
Even more worrisome, Trump has so alienated Republican national security professionals that he will likely have great difficulty attracting top advisers to staff his administration were he to be elected. Presidents cannot make effective national security policy by themselves. The experience and judgment of their advisers is strongly correlated to their national security success.
To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term. But just as we needed an experienced and steady hand to guide us safely through the early years of the Cold War, we need an experienced and steady hand to guide us through the current challenges to American leadership and world order.
Only one candidate in this presidential race can supply that and is NOT Donald Trump.
How Dumb is Donny "Dumb Grump" Trump ?....A Lot Dumber than you think and below is the proof !!
Donald Trump confused Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, with former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, accusing one of them Wednesday of hiking taxes.
“Her running mate Tim Kaine, who by the way did a terrible job in New Jersey — first act he did in New Jersey was ask for a $4 billion tax increase and he was not very popular in New Jersey and he still isn’t,” Trump told a press conference in Doral, Fla.
Reporters corrected him and Trump acknowledged the gaffe.
“What? I mean Virginia,” Trump said.
Kean was the Garden State’s GOP governor from 1982 to 1990, but he’s best known as lead of the 9/11 Commission report.
Kaine, as governor, did in fact once propose a $4 billion tax increase in Virginia, according to fact-checking site PolitiFact.
Trump thinks @timkaine was a terrible governor of New Jersey pic.twitter.com/8JjtGuxEEn
— Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) July 27, 2016
MNTB71, I breezed through your 'in-depth' posts...every glance found BS and outright lies..here's a quick sample:
"In a nation founded on religious freedom, he says ban all Muslims, don't let certain people in because of how they pray." Total lie. Show me the quote.
Where Trump insists to the public that Republicans are unified, Clinton and her supporters showed that they are. False. open your eyes.
Will said his tax returns may show "he is deeply involved in dealing with Russia oligarchs." Bull. Tax returns shown nothing of the sort. this is the Clinton narrative trying to deflect the emails that are & will continue to come out, saying "it is the Russians" who are hurting Crooked Hilliary.You certainly are for the Crooked witch. You lie, you spread false stories.
In its results for the first half of 2016, Qatar-based Ooredoo said that its Iraqi mobile phone business Asiacell continued to be impacted by the security situation, the challenging economic environment and a decrease of customer purchasing power in Iraq.
Revenue stood at QAR 2.1 billion , down 15% compared with QAR 2.5 billion in H1 2015. EBITDA remained relatively stable at just over QAR 1 billion, a 3% decrease compared to H1 2015 and EBITDA margin improved to 48% from 42% in H1 2015 due to Asiacell’s successful cost reduction strategy.
Net Profit increased by more than 18% to QAR 74 million. Asiacell’s customer base remained relatively stable at 10.8 million, approximately in line with the previous year.
Asiacell continues to see an increase in data revenue following its launch of 3G services in 2015, in a market still largely driven by voice services.
During the period, Asiacell enhanced its sales channels to drive the penetration of data services and continues to make progress in recovering its network in liberated areas.
Post your commentary below.
Genel Energy has announced that the Taq Taq field partners have received a gross payment of $24.91 million from the Kurdistan Regional Government for oil sales during June 2016.
Genel’s net share of the payment is $13.70 million.
The payment reflects full settlement of the invoiced amount for June 2016 oil sales, and incorporates $20.82 million towards contractor monthly entitlement and $4.09 million towards recovery of historical receivables.
Gross oil sales from the Taq Taq field in June 2016 averaged 62,979 bopd. The average Brent price applicable for June 2016 was $48.34/bbl. A $5/bbl discount to Brent, including $4/bbl transportation and handling costs, is applied to arrive at the Taq Taq wellhead export netback price.
As agreed with the KRG, sales to the Bazian refinery during June 2016 were invoiced at the wellhead export netback price, in line with the payment mechanism announced by the KRG on 1 February 2016.
(Source: Genel Energy)
Post your commentary below.
By John Lee.
Iraq’s Ministry of Oil has announced the completion of five new oil wells at the Halfaya oil field.
Mr. Adnan N. Sajit, the director general of the Maysan Oil Company (MOC), said the drilling was done by two Chinese companies contracted by Petrochina, the main operator of the field.
Production at Halfaya is now more than 200,000 barrels per day (bpd), and is expected to exceed 400,000 bpd with the completion of the third stage of development.
(Source: Ministry of Oil)
Post your commentary below.
Kurdistan Regional Government Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani says education is the key to success and progress in Kurdistan.
Prime Minister Barzani says, development and prosperity are achieved through the advancement of Kurdistan’s education system.
Mr. Barzani made the statement during a special ceremony held on Tuesday in Erbil to honor top students for 2015-2016 academic year in the Kurdistan Region.
In a speech during the event, Prime Minister Barzani congratulated honor roll students and their families. He thanked teachers and the Ministry of Education for concluding a successful academic year.
In the ceremony, the Prime Minister awarded the honor roll students and wished them a continued success.
Post your commentary below.
U.S. and coalition military forces continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq on Monday, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported n Tuesday.
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Strikes in Syria
Attack, ground attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted seven strikes against ISIL targets near Manbij in Syria, striking five separate ISIL tactical units and destroying nine ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL house bomb.
Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 13 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
Near Habbaniyah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.
Near Hit, a strike produced inconclusive results.
Near Mosul, six strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, an ISIL weapons facility, an ISIL vehicle bomb factory and two ISIL media sites; destroyed an ISIL vehicle; and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.
Near Qayyarah, two strikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL mortar systems and an ISIL artillery piece and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.
Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit; destroyed an ISIL assembly area, two ISIL vehicles, five ISIL rockets and six ISIL rocket rails; suppressed an ISIL mortar position; and denied ISIL access to terrain.
Near Tal Afar, two strikes struck an ISIL checkpoint and suppressed an ISIL machine gun position.
Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group’s ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.
Coalition nations that have conducted strikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations that have conducted strikes in Syria include the United States, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.
(Source: US Dept of Defense)
Post your commentary below.
By John Lee.
The*Central Bank of Iraq (CBI)*has reported that 30 banks and 17 remittance companies took part in its currency auction on Wednesday.
A total of $154,161,114 sold at a price of 1182 Iraqi Dinars (IQD) per dollar.
(Source: Central Bank of Iraq)
Post your commentary below.
Ted Cruz’s Betrayal of Donald Trump Was Brilliant If his bet pays off, he'll be the presumptive frontrunner in the 2020 primary.
Going into Wednesday night, Ted Cruz intentionally left people wondering what the meaning and the subtext of his prime-time Republican National Convention speech would be: Would he endorse Trump? Come close to endorsing Trump? Or would he largely ignore Trump and talk about ideas he wants to see vindicated eventually in our politics?
In the end he did not endorse Trump, nor did he come particularly close. He did talk about some ideas (abstractions, mostly, but ideas nonetheless) that defined conservatism in the pre-Trump era. But none of these was his main objective.
Trump-skeptical Republicans have been despondent about the state of their party and their prospects for victory in 2016 for months now. It was no secret as the party convened in Cleveland that ambitious GOP up-and-comers would use the convention as a platform to increase their own profiles ahead of 2020, while also hedging their bets and endorsing Trump, in case he somehow wins in November.
Trump’s “Law and Order” Speech Was Full of Lies.
It Just Might Work.
Why the Republican nominee chose crime as his central theme.
Whether that dread crept up on Republicans at that moment, or at any point during Trump’s meandering, grisly, hour-long acceptance speech, it will catch up with them eventually. Whether they know it or not, this is what has happened to them.
An analogy to Iraq is useful for two reasons. The Iraq war was a terrible idea on the merits, but what made it a career-defining political blunder for its supporters is that plenty of people—members of Congress and regular voters alike—knew and said it was a bad idea, tried to stop it, and were ignored.
Perhaps there is a degree of collective absolution in universal error. If everyone makes the same mistake, they can all legitimately claim nobody was around to lead them down the righteous path. But that didn’t happen during the Iraq war debate, and it didn’t happen in the lead up to the Republican National Convention.
There’s a whole movement called #NeverTrump; there are members of Congress who are part of that movement; just 24 hours ago, the runner up in the Republican primary stood before the delegates, and 20 million TV viewers, and told them “vote your conscience.”
When Trump loses the election badly, after normalizing white ethnonationalism, leaving a destroyed Republican Party in his wake; or when he wins, and proceeds to damage the country in one of the many ways he’s intimated (by abandoning allies, or defaulting on the debt, or expelling a significant percentage of the workforce), not only will repairing the damage be a long and painful process, but for his enablers there will be political hell to pay.
Nobody understands what awaits them better than the Democratic Party’s nominee. But for her Iraq war vote, Hillary Clinton might well be winding down the second term of her presidency. But like many others in her party, she tarnished herself with poor judgment and cowardice, and it derailed her plans. Like #NeverTrump conservatives now, Barack Obama was there back then, to remind her and Democratic voters that not everybody had made such a grave blunder, and voters punished her for it.
If there’s solace for Republicans like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio in this analogy, it’s that many election cycles later, Clinton is again very well positioned to win the presidency. Perhaps they, too, will be offered redemption years down the line. But that will depend on how much damage they’ve just inflicted, in their moral laziness, on their party, the country, or the world. We don’t know the answer to that yet. But we’re about to find out.
Republicans Have Made a World-Historical Mistake
We’re about to learn just how dangerous Donald Trump is.When Donald Trump took the stage in Cleveland on Thursday night and said the words that sealed the deal—“I humbly and gratefully accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States”—I like to imagine that the Republicans in the room who endorsed him out of expedience experienced a familiar sense of dread. It’s the sense of dread Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, must have felt when he realized Melania
Trump’s keynote address was plagiarized. Or, on a more appropriate scale, the dread must have overcome pro-war Democrats last decade, when they realized that they’d tainted themselves forever with the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.
This particular kind of dread is familiar to every elementary school child. It’s defined by the realization not just that you’ve made a huge mistake, but that you knew you were making a mistake all along, and suppressed your courage or your conscience.
The Democrats Just Showed Republicans How It’s Done
The convention's first night proved the party's resilience and unity.
The Democratic National Convention gaveled into session Monday engulfed in a toxic fog of bad news and worse media incentives that threatened to stagger what was meant to be a well-planned and festive event.
Donald Trump’s real, sizable convention bounce, and the release by Wikileaks of hacked DNC emails that outraged Bernie Sanders supporters and forced chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign, provided a backdrop against which the chattering classes could draw an equivalence between Hillary Clinton’s opening night and the GOP’s bloody-shirt-waving kickoff a week ago.
The intra-Democratic repercussions were sizable enough to relegate to second-tier news status the fact that federal law enforcement officials believe Wikileaks obtained the emails from Russian security service hackers in order to bolster Trump’s candidacy.
For the first hour or two, pockets of Sanders delegates booed or heckled speakers, raising the unfathomable specter that headliners would be prevented from delivering their remarks uninterrupted. The storyline was tempting enough that media critics speculated cable networks were manipulating their audio pickups to make the booing sound louder on television than it did in the convention hall.
But by the end of the evening, the disarray story became impossible to credit. Reporting from inside the convention hall corrected the solidifying narrative of a party in shambles; and the basic competence, and occasional brilliance, of the stagecraft left no room for anyone other than the most partisan operatives to pretend the two conventions and parties are equally broken.
At no point Monday did anyone read plagiarized text. At no point did anyone say anything racist or blame anyone for anyone else’s death. None of the invited speakers called for Donald Trump to be imprisoned or encouraged the delegates to do so. Nobody told Democrats they had permission to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton. The convention organizers settled on themes, and then invited guests on stage who could speak to those themes without veering off topic—the disabled person who criticized Trump for mocking disabled people; the undocumented 11-year-old who worries that her mother will be deported.
Senator Cory Booker’s pre-primetime speech was the first to overpower the Sanders holdouts. Michelle Obama’s, by universal acclaim, will join the pantheon of great convention addresses. And Sanders himself spoke well past the 11 p.m. network TV cutoff point, in part because the delegates of both candidates interrupted his remarks with standing ovations over and over again. The range of talent on display was such that the keynote address, by Senator Elizabeth Warren—one of Hillary Clinton’s most effective surrogates and a trusted figure among Sanders supporters—largely disappeared behind the others. And it was a good speech, too.
In a different climate, clustering so many big draws into one night, when they could’ve been spread out more evenly, would have been an error. But not in this case. The coming three days will feature headline speeches by Bill Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine, Barack Obama, and Hillary herself. Packing the lineup on Monday night was simply a matter of necessity.
Trump doesn’t have a single surrogate of this caliber or integrity. His oratorically gifted ones (Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich) are corrupt and disliked figures, and he put the other one, Mike Pence, on his ticket. That just isn’t enough manpower to fan across swing states over the next three months to build up Trump’s base.
Clinton’s convention lineup wasn’t designed to contrast with Trump’s brigade of C-list celebrities and agitators, though it did do that. It was instead meant to serve as a demonstration that Clinton is widely respected in the Democratic Party, which is much less divided than a handful of Sanders delegates would have you believe. Where Trump insists to the public that Republicans are unified, Clinton and her supporters showed that they are.
Donny Trump, You’re No Richard Nixon
If the famous 1968 acceptance speech was the model for Thursday night's, Trump's speechwriters left out a few telling things—reality, for starters.
“If you go back and read,” Manafort said, “that speech is pretty much on line with a lot of the issues that are going on today.”
Well, last night I sat in person through the whole damned 77-minute hot mess, and I’m here to say: Mr. Trump, I’ve studied Richard Nixon. And you’re no Richard Nixon.
That 1968 speech was classic “new Nixon.” Manafort might have heard echoes of a Trumpian vision in its most famous, and best-remembered section:As we look at America, we see cities enveloped in smoke and flame.
We hear sirens in the night.
We see Americans dying on distant battlefields abroad.
We see Americans hating each other; fighting each other; killing each other at home.
And as we see and hear these things, millions of Americans cry out in anguish.
Did we come all this way for this?
And he must have loved the part where Nixon brilliantly granted racial absolution to his audience, especially the racists among them:And to those who say that law and order is the code word for racism, there and here is a reply: Our goal is justice for every American. If we are to have respect for law in America, we must have laws that deserve respect.
Try imagining those words coming out of Donald Trump’s mouth. Try to imagine them getting the warm, extended applause that they got from the Republicans of 1968.
When Trump got around to foreign affairs, you could certainly pick up echoes of Nixon’s plea that “all of America’s peacekeeping operations and all of America’s foreign commitments must be reappraised”—way too much foreign aid and military assistance for far too little in return. But Nixon didn’t justify this with absurd fantasies that America was on the verge of penury: He could grant that “we are a rich country, we are a strong nation.” Way too reality-based for Trump.
Here, Nixon doesn’t talk like a thug: America “does not seek domination over any country,” but would lead through the strength of “ideas, which should travel on their own power and not the power of arms.” America’s enemies were not the dehumanized monsters Trump summons; indeed, Nixon declared, “after an era of confrontation the time has come for negotiation,” because “there is no acceptable alternative to peaceful negotiation.” Yes, it was almost sappy: “We extend the hand of friendship to all people, to the Russian people, to the Chinese people in the world. And we shall work toward the goal of an open world”—Nixon’s voice veritably swoons—“open skies, open cities, open hearts, open minds.” Ideas! Hearts! Open! Take that, Paul Manafort. If only he had truly listened, and learned.
The crux of the similarity between Trump’s speech and Nixon’s was supposed to be its grand law-and-order theme. But in 1968, Nixon could reasonably speak of “unprecedented lawlessness” and “unprecedented racial violence” because these things were unprecedented. Nixon spoke four months after the riots following Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, including one in Chicago that burned two straight miles of Madison Street to the ground. Compare that to Trump followers cowering in terror at violence like last March’s in Baltimore, which left a single burned CVS in its wake.
Even when he talked “law and order,” Nixon gave lip service to liberal ideals: “not the order that suppresses dissent and discourages change, but the order which guarantees the right to dissent and provides the basis for peaceful change.” He could have easily gotten much, much more nasty than he did in 1968: After all, this was a year when the popular new activist slogan on the left was “Up against the wall, motherfucker!” He resisted that.
Nixon also resisted the temptation of a captive audience: He went for 32 minutes to Trump’s 77—really little more than 20 minutes if you delete the applause and the long (and gracious!) draught of political throat-clearing at the beginning. Nixon was a political pro, and he believed 20 minutes was the ideal length for a speech. In vivid contrast, Trump’s doughy bleats were piled one on top of the other, until his exhausted speechwriters had picked through every subject they could think of.
But the single most telling divergence between Trump’s acceptance speech and its Nixonian model, and the easiest to forget, comes down to this: Nixon never said it would be easy. Trump says nothing else. It was the theme of his convention. Nixon: “And so tonight I do not promise the millennium in the morning. I do not promise that we can eradicate poverty and end discrimination, eliminate all danger of war in the space of four or even eight years.”
Trump: “I have a message for all of you: The crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end.” (That was what the teleprompter said. Trump spontaneously added, “and I mean very soon.”) “Beginning on January 20th 2017, safety will be restored.”
Trump, again: “We are going to defeat the barbarians of ISIS.” (Again, that was the teleprompter version; he added, “And we’re going to defeat them fast.”) And then these words on the teleprompter—“we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror”—followed by his own hasty interposition: “Doing it now, doing it quickly, we’re going to win, we’re going to win fast!”
That was something. It was as if Trump couldn’t just leave the notion of relying on allies hanging out there, humiliatingly, as a possibility. For if Nixon speaks of collective effort, deploying the word “we” 76 times, Trump’s favorite locution is “I alone”; and it made its dutiful cameo by the halfway point. (“Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”) Trump is always alone, the solitary savior. In the speech he too said “we” a lot, but almost exclusively it was the royal “we,” referring to himself, accomplishing everything immediately, as if by magic.
But the spirit of magic pervaded everything: Trump, with his wand, making awesome things happen instantaneously. You had Jon Voight, narrating Trump’s biographical film, described Trump “helping a great city rediscover his soul”: him, alone. You had fellow developer Tom Barrack, prowling the stage like a Svengali, describing his friend’s life as “like a Michener tale, from businessman, to father, to celebrity, to president of the United States,” with the power “to make once upon a time this time.” Above all, you had Ivanka Trump, marveling at “a man who spent his whole life doing what other people said could not be done,” growing skyscrapers like mushrooms (“When my father says he will build a tower, watch the skyline”), ripping stories out of the paper about sad-sack New Yorkers and getting assistants to invite them to Trump Tower (“and they would leave his office, as people often do after being with Donald Trump, feeling that life would be great again”). Which was why he will make America again a place “where the impossible happens.”
Trump’s prepared text had even been massaged to make it more magical. It originally read, “On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced.” In the telling, this miraculous transformation occurs 24 hours earlier: “On January 20th of 2017, the day I take the oath of office.” Don’t ask how. Like the proprietor of Ash’s Magic shop in Chicago told my 8-year-old nephew: “If you ask how a trick is done, then it loses its magic.”
Richard Nixon, poor Richard Nixon, would despise this above all. Amid everything else, he was a grinder, obsessed with meticulous preparation, study, details, discipline, knowing your stuff. I almost wish I had a magic time machine so the Old Man could have watched the candidate who’s claiming his legacy. I wish I could hear the creative words Nixon would use. Because when he was not delivering soaring perorations, he sure knew how to call bullshit when he saw it.
Cecile Richards to Trump: 'Women are going to be the reason you're not elected'
Eighteen years ago, then Texas Gov. Ann Richards charmed the Democratic Party from the 1988 convention podium, as she taunted the new Republican nominee.
“Poor George, he can’t help it,” she drawled about George H.W. Bush, “he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
On Tuesday night, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Ann’s daughter, chided another Republican nominee for what she called his “deeply disturbing worldview.”
“Donald Trump has called women ‘fat pigs’ and ‘dogs’,” she said. “He wants to punish women for having abortions. And he says pregnancy is ‘an inconvenience’ for a woman’s employer. Well, Mr. Trump, come this November, women are going to be a lot more than an inconvenience. Women are going to be the reason you’re not elected to be president.”
She spoke of Trump’s opposition to services that Planned Parenthood provides directly, citing his pledge “to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade” and to cut funding that provides cancer screening and birth control. And Richards took aim at Trump’s silence or criticism on women’s issues in general: equal pay, affordable child care, paid family leave.
And she also remembered her mother. “Tonight, we are closer than ever to putting a woman in the White House,” she said. “And I can almost hear mom saying, ‘Well, it sure took y’all long enough.”
France to provide artillery support to Iraq to fight ISIS
Post your commentary below.
After defeat of IS, Iraq needs economic rejuvenation
Post your commentary below.
Madeleine Albright: Just by running for president, Donald Trump has 'already done damage'
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had a message for Donald Trump Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention: "Safeguarding freedom and security is not like hosting a TV reality show."
Because of her own time as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton "knows what it's like to step off that plane with the words 'United States of America' on it," Albright said. Securing freedom is "a complex, round-the-clock job that demands not only a steady hand and a cool head, but also a big heart," she added. "You are not just representing yourself, you are there for all of us. Hillary has displayed these qualities in every job she has ever had. Last week in Cleveland, we were reminded that her opponent possesses none of them."
Albright continued to rail against Trump, calling him out for his "strange admiration for dictators" and saying he has "already done damage just by running for president. He has undermined the fight against terrorism by alienating our Muslim partners. He has weakened our standing in the world by threatening to walk away from our friends and allies and by encouraging more countries to get nuclear weapons." If Trump wins in November, Albright warns it will be a "gift to Vladimir Putin, and given what we know about Russia's recent actions, Putin is eager to see Trump win.
That should worry every American. Take it from someone who fled the Iron Curtain; I know what happens when you give the Russians a green light."
Democratic congressman says Donald Trump 'cashed in' on 9/11
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) slammed Donald Trump during the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, accusing him of using the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to "make a quick buck."
Crowley, who lost his cousin on 9/11, said while serving as a senator in New York, Hillary Clinton "never gave up" on aiding first responders and was "there with us when the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act was finally passed. Where was Donald Trump in the days and months and years after 9/11? He didn't stand at the pile, he didn't lobby Congress for help, he didn't fight for the first responders. Nope." Trump, the owner of 40 Wall Street, "cashed in," Crowley said, "collecting $150,000 in federal funds intended to help small businesses recover, even though days after the attack,
Trump said his properties were not affected."
Clinton secured the funds to "help local mom and pop shops get back on their feet," Crowley continued. "Donald Trump sought out a payday for his empire. It was one of our nation's darkest days, but to Trump it was just another chance to make a quick buck. Hillary has never and will never forget the reality of that day, and that's why she will never give up on making us a better and stronger nation."
George Will: Trump Doesn't Want to Release Tax Returns "Because He's Deeply Involved In Dealing With Russia"
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date July 25, 2016
Bret Baier said the Democratic party would "not go down" the road of making a connection between Russia and Donald Trump, but on Monday's Special Report conservative columnist George Will said the Republican nominee for president may not be releasing his tax returns because it could show collusion between the two, calling it a "reasonable surmise." Will said his tax returns may show "he is deeply involved in dealing with Russia oligarchs."
BRET BAIER: Both the campaign chair and anybody you talk to, including Senator Murphy would not go down that road once pressed on the connection between Russia and the Trump campaign. But they have thrown it out there. George?
GEORGE WILL: Well, it's the sort of thing we might learn if we saw the candidates' tax returns. Perhaps one more reason why we're not seeing his tax returns because he is deeply involved in dealing with Russia oligarchs and others. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent it's probably the reasonable surmise.