Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Republlicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republlicans. Show all posts

Monday, May 22, 2017

Podesta And Politico Hit Trump



Podesta_Glasser.jpg
Getty


John Podesta Unloads on Trump

The former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign says the president is 'absolutely crazy' and Republicans are stuck to him like 'Velcro.'
May 22, 2017
Donald Trump is “unfit for office,” a president whose actions are often “absolutely crazy” and whose White House has “a complete disregard for the truth.” His firing of James Comey as the FBI director was overseeing an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and whether Trump’s advisers colluded with it amounts to “close to an obstruction case” against the president.
But, says John Podesta—the sharp-tongued campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton whose 60,000 hacked emails are at the heart of that FBI investigation into the team of the man who defeated them—don’t expect impeachment proceedings anytime soon.
Republican congressional leaders Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have chosen to “Velcro their own political fate” to Trump’s and won’t pursue allegations against the president of their own party unless forced to do so by a 2018 midterm election debacle or further revelations. “It is clear to me that Republicans on Capitol Hill are not going to begin to turn on him at this point,” Podesta says.
His scathing comments about a presidency in crisis—and the Republicans who “enable” Trump—came in an exclusive new interview for The Global Politico about Clinton’s shocking election defeat and the still-unfolding investigations swirling around Russia’s role in it. The wide-ranging conversation covered everything from infighting on last year’s Clinton campaign (“if those 70,000 votes had gone differently in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, … we would have all been geniuses”) to Watergate comparisons (unlike Trump, “Nixon, for all his flaws… was a serious person”) to why Clinton lost and whether her new PAC means she’s running for president again (“quite frankly, she’s done with that”).
But most of the hour-long interview consisted of Podesta’s most extensive comments yet on the last two dramatic weeks in Washington that began with Trump’s firing of Comey and ended with Trump departing for his first foreign trip even as a special counsel, former FBI director Robert Mueller, was named to oversee the widening probe.
In the immediate hours after the firing, the White House claimed Comey was forced out because he had mishandled the investigation last year of Clinton’s private email server. But Trump himself soon undercut that explanation, telling a TV interviewer that in fact he had removed Comey with thoughts of the ongoing Russia collusion investigation in mind and even, according to the New York Times, repeating that directly to the Russian foreign minister in an Oval Office conversation where he also called Comey “a nut job.”



Podesta was still incredulous about all this when we talked this Saturday at his Northwest Washington home.
“It’s laughable, really laughable that Donald Trump would fire Jim Comey because of his interference which damaged Hillary Clinton. I mean, it was laughable from the very beginning,” Podesta says. “Just a complete misreading of reality.”
Like Clinton, Podesta remains adamant that Comey’s late intervention in last year’s campaign—he reopened the closed probe of Clinton’s private email server just 11 days before the voting—likely cost her the presidency. But he thinks Trump mistook their criticism of Comey for a blank check to fire the director amid the current Trump-related probe. “I still think what Jim Comey did last fall was wrong,” Podesta says, “but he shouldn’t have been fired, given the circumstances that he was leading this investigation.”
Podesta, who served as White House chief of staff during the impeachment of Bill Clinton and then became a top Obama White House counselor at the end of his presidency, has years of experience with the different varieties of executive branch dysfunction, and he sees Comey’s firing as a symptom of a Trump White House that is broken. He wrote a Washington Post op-ed last week saying the president should fire top advisers like current chief of staff Reince Priebus who are unable to confront Trump with unpleasant realities.
“The problem in the Trump White House is they have no one who really stands up to him,” Podesta says. “He’s impetuous, he’s impulsive, he fires things off and if anything, they enable him rather than trying to contain what are moves that in any other context would seem, you know, absolutely crazy. … If they’re going to try to right this place and be able to be effective, I think they need a much stronger team who can resist his impulses and tell him that he’s wrong.”
I asked Podesta if Bill Clinton had lied to him during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, as aides have said Clinton did to hide his affair with the former intern—and what he would say to Trump’s increasingly beleaguered advisers now, as they are sent out to offer cover stories that the president himself soon discards or release information quickly proven to be incorrect.
“Look,” Podesta responded, “you need to probe that, and I think that you need to be sure that the information that you are providing is contextualized, and you’re not exaggerating the problem. And I think one of the things that we’ve seen in this White House is that they have a sort of complete disregard for the truth. So, they’ll say one thing one day, Trump will tweet something the next day, and they’re onto a different story.” The White House, he argued, has a responsibility “to basically put out straight information, and in order to do that, I think you’ve got to ensure that you’re getting straight information, and they seem to have little regard for that.”
Ultimately it’s Trump’s fault and not the staff’s, Podesta says, arguing the last couple weeks have proven that Trump is “incapable of doing the job.” Podesta says he believes the new revelations, with Trump linking the firing to the Russia case, amount to “close to an obstruction case, either in the political context of impeachment, or in the context of a criminal grand jury investigation to indict somebody for obstruction.”
As a matter of politics, however, Podesta says congressional leaders seem determined to stick with Trump, making impeachment unlikely for now, and a removal from office under Article 25 of the Constitution, by the president’s own Cabinet and vice president, even unlikelier. “You know, Betsy DeVos signing her name to throw Donald Trump out of office is kind of hard for me to imagine right now,” he says.


As for Ryan and McConnell on Capitol Hill, “I think they have concluded that their only chance of getting, you know, tax reform or repealing Obamacare, is to stick with Trump,” Podesta says. “And they’ll take the consequences. But I think they’re empowering him in their decision to Velcro their own political fate to his, and it could mean that in the midterm elections, they pay a healthy price for that.”
But Podesta, who may be the closest thing the Democratic Party has to a wise man right now even after the ignominious 2016 election defeat, isn’t ready to call 2018 just yet. “If the Democrats were to be so successful as to take back control of the House, then I think, you know, all bets are off,” he says. “I think you’d see a much more serious congressional investigation going on.”
***
Inevitably, much of the conversation with Podesta returns to the 2016 campaign, and the stunning events of last fall and even to one day in particular, Friday, October 7.
At one point that day, the main news looked to be a statement from senior officials in the Obama administration confirming that the Russians were indeed responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee’s emails in an effort to affect the U.S. presidential election. Then, just after 4 p.m. the Washington Post broke the news of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Donald Trump could be heard bragging about sexually assaulting women. That revelation seemed so politically damaging to the Republican presidential nominee that an event just minutes later was almost lost in comparison: the release by WikiLeaks of the first of what would eventually be thousands of hacked emails from Podesta’s email account.
Podesta had no idea until that night that his email had been completely compromised—an action he says that resulted when one of his assistants followed the advice of a campaign technology aide and clicked inadvertently on a link (“you can’t come back and blame the victim,” he says)—and that he and others at the time did not fully understand the effect the Russian hacking, along with the spread of Russian-pushed fake news, was having in a “subterranean” way on the campaign.
Then came that explosive Comey letter 11 days before the balloting. And we’ve been arguing ever since about not only Comey’s action, but whether and how it might have resulted in the election of Donald Trump.
Clinton has taken a lot of heat for attributing her loss to Comey and appearing to minimize other factors—like her own decisions. In our interview, however, Podesta took much the same approach.
First, though, he acknowledged the loss was on them. “We bear responsibility and it’s a great burden and I feel it every day. I mean, we lost this election; we won the popular vote by 3 million votes, but we lost the Electoral College and lost the election to Donald Trump. So, we have a burden of his having the keys to the White House, and you know, codes to the nuclear football,” he says.
But he insists Comey did matter. “We had a lead, and that lead really substantially narrowed after Comey’s letter,” he says, though he acknowledges the criticism that the campaign had not campaigned aggressively enough in the three states that ultimately swung the election and appeared to confirm accounts he had disagreed with campaign manager Robby Mook about the distribution of resources to one of those states, Wisconsin: “We probably should have done more in Wisconsin; we didn’t advertise there until the very end. But you know, at the end of the day, we lost Pennsylvania anyway, and we had thrown everything we could at Pennsylvania. So, it is what it is.”
And he came back to Comey in arguing that’s where the late “swing” to Trump mattered among a group of voters who thought “it was just OK to blow up the system because the system wasn’t working for them, and they would take a flyer on someone they viewed as unfit to be president,” pointing out that “when we set out to prove that he was temperamentally unfit, and unqualified to be president, we convinced 60 percent of the American public of that. Unfortunately, 20 percent of his voters believed that and still voted for him, and I think that was part of it.”
But if Comey was part of it and voters “taking a flyer” was part of it and Vladimir Putin was another part of it (he had a “grudge” against Clinton, Podesta argues, going back to her days as secretary of state), another big factor, he acknowledges, was Trump himself. “He does create a vortex and a kind of trap for his opponents, which is he says, you know, something outrageous, and if it’s not outrageous enough to dominate the news, he just amps it up,” Podesta says. “And it’s easy to fall into the trap of always being kind of in his story.”
***
So how does Trump’s story, the one we are all now endlessly caught up in, end, I asked? Will we see a repeat of the Watergate era, when Podesta and the Clintons first entered politics, and “impeachment” was first broached in the modern era?
“It’s hard to imagine how this keeps going for an entire presidential term,” Podesta replied, noting that unlike Nixon, Trump benefits from the protective cocoon of a Republican Congress. “Right now, there’s nothing that compels him to leave. So, we’ll just, you know, it’ll unfold as it unfolds. But every day, there’s kind of new fodder for thinking that he can’t do this job.”

Sunday, January 24, 2016

The Left Attacks Sarah Palin. She Must Really Scare Them For All The Vitriol That Is Thrown Her Way

Sarah Palin's quixotic quest for relevance

Published: 1/24/2016 11:00 AM
ARTICLE TOOLS
She’s back and tightly holding Donald Trump’s coattails.
That’s right, Sarah Palin, having again found the media spotlight, is casting her shadow across the more thoughtful conservatives.
This past week she declared her undying love and support of Trump’s attempt to seize the presidency from the more experienced and knowledgeable candidates in the Democratic, Republican and Green parties, and is blathering her way throughout IowaNew Hampshireand several early primary states to stir up Trump’s far-right base.
At a media circus press conference this past week in Ames, Iowa, Palin gave the far-right wing goose bumps of excitement with her opening declaration, “Looking around at all of you, you hard-working Iowa families, you farm families and teachers and Teamsters and cops and cooks, you rock and rollers and holy rollers!” And then she asked the crowd, “Are you ready for the leader to make America great again?” Her question echoed that of Trump, and brought a flushed frenzy to the target audience. The question also had undertones of stating that the United States was not great, was not the world leader in numerous areas and, to the far-right’s belief, not a world leader in waging war, something the Republicans have become adept at and known for.
Palin’s 20-minute endorsement, filled with a “you betcha” here and a “Hallelujah!” there, rambled on, attacking President Obama, who isn’t running, while avoiding anything about those who are climbing in the polls and about to catch the man who, until he declared his candidacy for president, liked being known as The Donald.
Palin’s endorsement may have been because she was looking to cement an irrational possibility to be a part of aTrump administration. Several months earlier, she had declared, to the amusement of anyone who ever studied science and energy, “I think a lot about the Department of Energy, because energy is my baby, oil and gas and minerals, those things that God has dumped on this part of the earth for mankind’s use, instead of relying on unfriendly foreign nations for us to import their resource.” Why she wanted to run the Department of Energy was clear — she wanted to be the one to ride it into extinction.
But the Tea Party darling may have endorsed Trump not because of any ideological similarities, as both proclaimed, but because she needs media exposure. Sen. John McCain and some delusional advisers had plucked Palin out of Alaskan obscurity to be the Republicans’ vice presidential candidate in 2008. On a full-time campaign, she had become a part-time governor. After the McCain-Palin combination failed to land many blows on the Obama-Biden ticket, and was soundly defeated, Palin decided that Alaska wasn’t big enough for her. She resigned the governorship half-way through her first term, wrote a best-selling book that only the extreme right-wing thought was well-written, began commanding $100,000 for speaking fees and was courted by, and signed by, Fox News as a commentator.
However, even Fox News, which has corralled most of the conservative loons to be commentators, tired of having to deal with Palin’s errors, outrageous observations and falling ratings. Palin’s and Fox’s PR machines claimed the divorce was amicable.
With her popularity fading, her speaking engagements slowing down and media coverage of her family’s problems rising, Palin needed a platform to restore her reality show road show. That media glow lays in the endorsement of the narcissistic and bombastic billionaire front runner whose three marriages and four bankruptcies haven’t reduced his appeal to the Republicans’ family values base.
It’s important that Palin get off the stage so that the conservatives who actually know what they’re talking about can command some of the media attention that has been focused upon Trumpian rhetoric and not substance.
(Walter Brasch, a retired university professor and freelance writer, composes “Wanderings” for each Sunday edition.)

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Which Direction Is US Heading? Toward Sodom Or Repentance? Its An Age Old Question

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/06/WhiteHouserainbow.png
WhiteHouserainbow
By Paul Bremmer
For Americans who oppose “same-sex marriage,” it can be hard to look at the future with much optimism. After all, the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 and two years later ruled same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
What’s more, same-sex marriage is more popular in the younger generation, with Pew Research Center finding 70 percent of millennials support same-sex marriage, including 58 percent of millennial Republicans.
But Michael Brown, an author, talk-radio host and president of FIRE School of Ministry, says traditional marriage advocates should not lose hope, because America has been in similar situations before.
In April 1966, the cover of Time magazine asked: “Is God Dead?” It was in the midst of the counterculture revolution of the 1960s, when many young Americans rebelled against the traditional values of their parents.

But only five years later, in June 1971, another Time cover teased a story on “The Jesus Revolution.” A spiritual movement had risen up among the rebellious young generation, with many of the hippies and druggies becoming born-again Christians.
Brown, who was one of those young born-again Christians, believes it shows the power of God to effect societal change.
“Factor in the God factor: God can turn the tide overnight in America,” he said.
If God could raise a spiritual revival out of a group of secular, rebellious young people, asks Brown, then why can’t He turn the tide against “gay marriage”? Brown urges Americans to never count God out. The seventh principle in his new book,  “Outlasting the Gay Revolution,” is “Factor in the God factor.”
The "God factor" in America was at work long before the 1960s, noted Brown. In the 1790s, when the U.S. was in its infancy, Christianity appeared to be dying in the nation. Only 5 to 10 percent of the adult population were church members. Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Congregationalists were all struggling to attract new members and retain existing ones.
"Did you know after the Revolutionary War in the late 1700s that things were absolutely miserable on some of our campuses in America?" Brown, a WND columnist, asked. "Campuses that were founded as Christian campuses had a couple hundred students, and they could not find a single professing Christian among them.
"Another campus, the handful of Christian students would meet in secret and keep their meetings in code, because they didn't want anyone to know about it.
"What happened? Awakening came."
Indeed, the Second Great Awakening surfaced in the early 1800s, and hundreds of thousands of Americans turned back to Jesus. Churches in the East filled up again, and many new congregations were formed in the western part of the country as well.
However, by the mid-1850s, "immorality, violent crime, spiritualism, corruption and atheism were on the rise" once again, according to Brown. American churches were becoming more internalized. Then in 1857, a large prayer movement began in New York City and spread around the country. This revival, sometimes called the Third Great Awakening, resulted in a more compassionate society focused on curing social ills.
Brown noted the revival brought with it a massive cultural change: The United States abolished slavery only a few years after it began.
He believes a similar religious revival could change the culture by bringing traditional marriage back into favor. He pointed out just how quickly gay marriage has become accepted in America. As recently as 1990, fewer than a third of Americans condoned same-sex marriage.
In 1996, a Democrat president, Bill Clinton, signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, and then-Sen. Joe Biden voted for it. Even in 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were still saying marriage was between a man and a woman.
While attitudes changed quickly, Brown doesn't believe gay marriage will be accepted forever just because the Supreme Court looks favorably on it now.
He noted that when the court ruled on Roe v. Wade in 1973, it hardly ended the abortion debate in favor of the pro-abortion side.
Instead, the pro-life movement rose up and still fights for the rights of unborn babies. And millennials are embracing the pro-life position, with polling data showing 59 percent of young Americans think abortion is morally wrong.
Brown also takes heart when he sees the Christian populations in Africa and Latin America soaring. It gives him hope that God has big things in store for America, too.
"We must factor in the God factor," Brown emphasized. "This is not just a sociological issue. This is not just a political issue. This is not just a demographic issue. This is also a spiritual issue. If we God's people will humble ourselves, turn away from sin in our own lives and begin to cry out, who knows what could happen next?"

Copyright 2015 WND