Yes, Wayne, we've clearly had enough of not having the normal demography in the White House. White guys forever!
Oh, and sorry Ted, Bobby, and Marco — we wouldn't want folk to think we're pandering to your symbolic demographies, either.)
(The rest of LaPierre's rant would be pretty amusing, too, if not that he's likely carrying a gun around most of the time.)
Originally shared by +Media Matters for America:
Gross.
It's possibly too early to consider Clinton's nomination a done deal, but that's the way I would bet. And given that …
The article offers up every tired cliche for compromising on progressive principles in the face of electoral reality, but they're tired because they keep coming up and they remain true. I am not at all enthused about a Clinton presidency (she's far too chummy with big corporate interests, for one thing), but looking at anyone the GOP is likely to run, I am horrified by what a Republican victory would likely mean for the country in terms of social policy, foreign policy, climate policy, let alone the next wave of SCOTUS appointments.
Sitting out the election or rallying around a third party candidate (does anyone remember Ralph Nader or how that worked out?) is effectively a vote for the GOP candidate, whomever he turns out to be.
I'm not a Clinton fan, but she'll be fine as a Not-Cruz, Not-Jindal, Not-Walker, Not-Bush, Not-Carson. Which for 2016 may be all I can hope for.
(h/t +Steve S)
There’s A Reality About Hillary Clinton That Many Liberals Need To Face
Liberals have two options when it comes to Hillary Clinton in 2016. The option they choose will shape our future for decades to come.
I try not to get into the over-simplifying type of campaign humor, but I found this pretty funny.
Originally shared by +Susan Stone:
Surely he was joking, right? Obviously, of course.
One has to wonder what Sen. Graham's reaction would be if, oh, President Obama "joked" about calling up the military to force Congress to reverse budget cuts on his favorite programs.
I would say there are some jokes a high government official shouldn't make. But the GOP keeps proving me wrong.
Lindsey Graham: as president I would deploy the military against Congress
It’s not like sending in the Marines to force Congress to vote the way the president wants would be a coup or anything.
As a scandal, the Clinton email thing is weak tea. For folk already inclined to mistrust Clinton on the Right (and the Left), it just adds to the impression. For those who see her as the great hope for the Dems retaining the White House in 2016, it's hand-waved with an array of excuses. (The current Panickmeisters amongst the Dems are just looking for something to panic about, or else to draw attention to themselves.)
That doesn't mean it isn't important — the email record for senior public officials is a critical historical (and, sometimes, legal) resource, and Clinton's use of a private email account, regardless of the legality at the time, should meet with vigorous disapproval at least (and at most). It's a game that's been played by folk on both side of the aisle, and what I most hope from this contretemps is that it serves as notice to others playing similar shenanigans in the future.
A Hillary Clinton Email the State Department Couldn’t Find
Specific correspondence that escaped public scrutiny after the former Secretary of State decided to communicate through a private account
Lovable Ben Carson, who has been tapped by some for being a maverick outsider in the conservative wing of potential GOP presidential candidates in 2016, keeps demonstrating why he needs to be kept far, far away from the Oval Office.
In the article below, he apparently endorses a blind eye against war crimes committed by US soldiers in times of war (in the context of sending troops to Syria and Iraq):
"And our military needs to know that they're not going to be prosecuted when they come back because somebody has said you did something that was politically incorrect. There's no such thing as a politically correct war. We need to grow up. We need to mature. If you're going to have rules for war, you should just have a rule that says no war. Other than that, we have to win. Our life depends on it."
Certainly read on the face of it, Carson seems to be stating that if you decide to go to war, then no holds barred, and none of that "politically correct" Geneva Convention "rules of war" kind of thing. I mean, war crimes, shwar crimes, right? Our boys are fighting a hypothetical war, goshdarnit, and bad things happen in war, but we're fighting for right and survival, so anything goes.
Just what Jesus would do, no doubt.
Of course, as am apparent hawk on security matters, he also just suggested that if Obama (not the Congress but the President) plays games with the Department of Homeland Security funding bill over his "executive amnesty program," if he should "… stand in the way, particularly to things that are vital to the security of this country, then I think we can start talking about treason. […] If things are done that are contrary to the security of this country, whoever does them is guilty of treason" (http://goo.gl/1S8IVv)
Let me correct myself: Mr Carson needs to be kept far away from Capitol Hill, too.
Ben Carson: No rules against ‘politically incorrect’ acts of war
“We need to grow up. We need to mature,” the neurosurgeon says.
I'm not a major Hillary fan by any means (except in comparison to pretty much everyone the GOP is talking about running), but I think even her worst enemies couldn't come up with a worse campaign commercial. Some horrifyingly awful lyrics here.
Originally shared by +Joshua Claybourn:
In all honesty, I thought this was a parody. It's hard for me to comprehend that some of the (allegedly) best political consultants in the country put their heads together and came up with this. Whatever your thoughts may be about Hillary, this can't bode well for the future of America.
Um … what?
Ben Carson thinks people get overly upset over his comparison between the US and Nazi Germany because they get all hung up on the reference to Nazi Germany. Which was the reference he made. But not what he meant to refer to, at least not in the way that some listeners are interpreting.
Sounds like the guy would do great at meetings with heads of state.
I realize that there can be differences in opinion about what something meant, and in how people interpret different references. The differences in meaning as the speaker / writer intended and as the listener / reader understands it is a danger in all communication. Carson made a comparison on particular aspects (that the Third Reich's government intimidated the populace, which didn't speak up soon enough to stop it), and apparently did not intend to include all the other various baggage that Nazi Germany calls to mind.
It seems to me, though, that not realizing those kind of misinterpretations can happen is a sign of a bobble in communication skills. To handwave them later on seems to not only compound that error (implying the listener should parse the mind of the speaker) but also in this case minimize the actual magnitude of the Nazi past (Carson apparently considers having a gut reaction to comparisons between the US and Nazi Germany as "PC-ism").
Carson has a large body of admirers for being an outsider in the political system and thus being something of a "maverick" in his opinions. However, his suggestion that when he uses metaphorical language ("Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery") we should take it for granted that he doesn't really mean that it's "worse" than any other event, political or otherwise, since then, or that if he compares the the US to Nazi Germany he really only means in particular ways and (maybe) not to the same degree or (probably) not in other particular ways, strikes me as sloppy speech for an increasingly public figure. His resentment for being called on it doesn't bode particularly well, either.
Ben Carson Lashes Out At Wolf Blitzer: Don’t ‘Focus On The Words’ When I Compare U.S. To Nazis
Possible Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson on Wednesday lashed out at CNN host Wolf Blitzer for “focusing on the words” that he used when he compared the United States to Nazi Germany.
Yup. "If I get to be president, white men in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency." Of that I have no doubt.
(Oh, don't worry, it's just a "joke.")
Lindsey Graham: ‘White Men In Male-Only Clubs Are Going To Do Great In My Presidency’ (Audio)
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told a few jokes in a private gathering this month that was recorded because it’s 2014. In the audio recording of his comments which were provided to CNN, Graham can be heard saying in the closed door, all male meeting, “I’m trying to help you with your tax status. I’m sorry…
Mike Huckabee, who thinks governors, presidents, and legislatures should simply ignore judicial rulings about the constitutionality of laws if they think that, well, by gosh, that's not what God wants.
Um … how is that different from a theocracy, Mike?
Huckabee Urges States To Ignore Rulings On Marriage Equality, Abortion Rights & Church-State Separation
In an interview with Iowa-based conservative talk show host Steve Deace on Monday, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee repeated his recommendation that governors simply ignore the Supreme Court&rsquo
(Sigh.)
GOP incumbent in Colorado 6th CD in a race with implications for 2016
The Coffman-Romanoff race offers what could be an ideal experiment for the Republican Party and its ambitions of winning the White House in 2016.
That's why no less a luminary than John Adams could make (though he feared it would break) his reputation defending the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre. The principle of presumption of innocence until the state has made its case, and the right of any accused to the best defense possible, are the foundation of our justice system.
That sometimes means mounting a vigorous defense for someone you know is an awful person, someone who is, in fact, guilty of the crime. But a lawyer can no more ethically fail to do their best in such a case than a doctor can ethically fail to do their best in saving the life of an awful person.
Which is why, as the article notes, attacks on former defenders for actually doing their job are not only wrong, but dangerous.
Why It’s Wrong to Make a Defense Attorney’s Career a Partisan Issue
When Republicans went after Debo Adegbile—President Obama’s former nominee to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department—they focused their fire on his prior professional obligations as a defense attorney, and in particular his work in the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. Pennsylvania…
1. Yeah, he is as big of a bully as he’s been trying to duck being seen as, and he willfully tied up GWB traffic as revenge against a political opponent, which not only led to a lot of major inconvenience, but looks to have killed an old woman when emergency responders were delayed.
2. Same as above, except (a) he didn’t give the orders, but (b) encouraged an atmosphere of political retribution where a senior aide would think this was a fine thing to do. Because deputy chiefs of staff don’t just do this kind of crap without expecting that the boss, carefully given deniability, would be pleased.
Will this tank Christie? I don’t think it will get him out of the governor’s seat, but it may derail his 2016 presidential hopes (assuming he really was interested). On the other hand, that’s still a few years away, and news stories like these can be easily derailed themselves by some new news tidbit.
We’ll see.
N.J. Governor Christie says misled by staff in bridge scandal
