Tag Archives: 2016 elections

Vámonos! An Unprecedented Latino Voter Drive Could Tip the Scales in Iowa

by ErnieRau44478 Posted on January 29, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Across Iowa, thousands of Latino voters are getting the same call. “It is important the Latino community participate in the presidential caucuses,” a young Latina woman says on the robocall. “If we don’t participate in the Iowa caucuses, then everyone else gets to decide for us what issues are important and which candidates will address those issues.”

A total of 50,000 Latino voters are receiving direct mailings bearing similar messages, and 25,000 are receiving robo and live calls encouraging them to caucus on February 1. For those living in the 20 Iowa counties with the highest concentration of Latino voters, they are getting knocks on their door and caucus training opportunities in their communities. It’s all part of an ambitious effort to organize Iowa’s Latino population into an influential voting block in the caucuses next month. “People will be surprised,” predicts Joe Henry, the man spearheading the effort. “I think you’re going to see a little history here.”

Continue Reading »

Visit link:  

Vámonos! An Unprecedented Latino Voter Drive Could Tip the Scales in Iowa

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vámonos! An Unprecedented Latino Voter Drive Could Tip the Scales in Iowa

How Donald Trump Killed the Biggest Cliché in Politics

by FranklynSwanton Posted on January 28, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The first candidate to use one of the most abused clichés in electoral politics at least had the facts on his side. Just before 5 p.m. on October 11, 1948, President Harry Truman pulled into the train station in Willard, Ohio, and addressed the crowd from the rear platform. In a brief speech that lasted no longer than 12 minutes, he accused his Republican challenger, New York Gov. Thomas Dewey, of obsessing over public-opinion surveys, and then made a historic prediction. “I think he is going to get a shock on the second of November,” Truman predicted. “He is going to get the results of one big poll that counts—that is the voice of the American people speaking at the ballot box.”

And good for him. Four years after Gallup’s preference for Republican candidates prompted congressional hearings, the preeminent polling firm predicted Dewey would win by five points. Truman won by 2 million votes. You’ve all seen the photo.

As candidates dealt with the increasing omnipresence of polls, Truman’s mantra became a handy crutch. At first, the historical allusion was explicit. “In one respect I’m like Harry Truman about polls,” Vice President Richard Nixon told the New York Times in 1959. “We share that in common, plus the fact that we both play the piano. I believe the only poll that counts is that on election day.” As he prepared to face Sen. John F. Kennedy the next year, he told Democrats, “I can agree with the distinguished member of your party, Mr. Truman, when he said that the only poll that counts is the one on election day.”

Nixon’s habitual usage of the term helped usher it into the mainstream. In 1972, his daughter Tricia declared that “the only poll that really counts is the vote on election day.” Four years later, Tricky Dick sent a private note of encouragement to his successor, President Gerald Ford: “Keep that confident, fighting spirit—and the only poll that matters will come out alright on November 2.” Within two years, yet another president, Jimmy Carter, was quoting from the Book of Harry: “Look, the only poll that matters in politics is the poll that the people conduct on election day.”

By 1980, when Carter was still holding out hope for the one true poll, the Times felt comfortable calling the use of the cliché a classic gesture of “politicians running behind.” It has even traveled across the pond (as a corollary to the very British phrase, “Every jockey knows the fence that counts is the last one”), and found an ironic second life among college football fans.

The problem now is that it’s no longer true, for wildly divergent reasons. The polls have been all over the place in 2016, and they’re only getting worse because, as Jill Lepore explained in the New Yorker, the pool of people who participate in them is becoming smaller and less representative. But at the same time, the polls matter more than ever. For the first time in a party-nominating contest, they were used to split the Republican candidate field into two tiers of debates—more than a year before election day.

If the cliché is truly dead (it may be indestructible), then Donald Trump killed it. In a rebuke to the Nixons and Trumans—and basically everyone else—who came before him, he has decided that polls are, in fact, fantastic. He can rattle off the latest results off the top of his head; at the most recent debate, in South Carolina, he even corrected a moderator who misstated the size of his lead. And it’s working. The effect has been to turn the polling industry into a political perpetual-motion machine; poll numbers beget media coverage about poll numbers, which beget even higher poll numbers.

After all this, maybe there’s only one way this story can end:

View this article:  

How Donald Trump Killed the Biggest Cliché in Politics

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Donald Trump Killed the Biggest Cliché in Politics

Ted Cruz Trumpets Endorsement From a Man Who Thinks God Sent Hitler to Hunt the Jews

by EmmanueV06 Posted on January 26, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas proudly announced the latest endorsement of his presidential bid. It came from Mike Bickle, the founder and director of the International House of Prayer of Kansas City. Bickle is a controversial pastor who has attacked same-sex marriage as a sign of the End Times and seemingly blamed the Jews for the Holocaust.

Here’s Bickle on how the legalization of gay marriage would tear the United States apart:

He’s more explicit in this sermon, in which he calls gay marriage “a unique signal of the End Times”:

Cruz’s new backer had some unique observations about celebrity talk show host and billionaire Oprah Winfrey. Bickle said Oprah is charming, kind, and reasonable but, unfortunately, also a forerunner of the Antichrist:

In a 2011 speech, Bickle suggested that millions of Jews were killed during the Holocaust because they didn’t accept God’s gift of Jesus. At this event, he read from Jeremiah 16:16 and used this passage from the Bible to explain why Hitler executed millions:

The Lord says, “I’m going to give all 20 million of them the chance to respond to the fishermen. And I give them grace.” And he says, “And if they don’t respond to grace, I’m going to raise up the hunters.” And the most famous hunter in recent history is a man named Adolf Hitler.

Cruz publicly thanked Bickle for his endorsement. “Through prayer, the Lord has changed my life and altered my family’s story,” Cruz said in a statement on his website. “I am grateful for Mike’s dedication to call a generation of young people to prayer and spiritual commitment. Heidi and I are grateful to have his prayers and support. With the support of Mike and many other people of faith, we will fight the good fight, finish the course, and keep the faith.”

Read More – 

Ted Cruz Trumpets Endorsement From a Man Who Thinks God Sent Hitler to Hunt the Jews

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Trumpets Endorsement From a Man Who Thinks God Sent Hitler to Hunt the Jews

A Shady Conservative Group Is Fundraising Off the Death of a Ben Carson Volunteer

by GeorginaDownie2 Posted on January 25, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A political action committee with a track record of questionable tactics is attempting to use the recent death of a Ben Carson campaign volunteer to raise money. The group has no connection to Carson’s presidential effort, and a spokesman for the retired neurosurgeon who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination tells Mother Jones that the Carson team was “disgusted and appalled” by the ploy.

On Sunday, the Sacramento-based Defenders of Freedom and Security PAC sent out an email blast urging recipients to donate whatever they could and to join its email list to “help Ben Carson carry the baton of freedom to the next generation!” The message, which includes language suggesting that donations will be used to directly support Carson’s presidential bid, begins with a not-very-subtle attempt to grab potential donors by their heartstrings: “The Carson campaign dealt with a tragedy this week when a student campaign worker died tragically in a car accident in Iowa.” This was a reference to 25-year-old Braden Joplin, who died when a van carrying Carson campaign volunteers was involved in a crash on icy roads in western Iowa on Tuesday.

Far from using the volunteer’s death as a fundraising gambit, Carson suspended campaigning for two days, and the campaign sent a private jet to fly Joplin’s family to Iowa. When Carson resumed campaigning, he dedicated his stops to the young volunteer. When told of Defenders of Freedom’s fundraising email, the Carson campaign criticized the move.

Continue Reading »

This article is from: 

A Shady Conservative Group Is Fundraising Off the Death of a Ben Carson Volunteer

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Shady Conservative Group Is Fundraising Off the Death of a Ben Carson Volunteer

There’s One Big Problem With Sanders’ Promise to Overturn Citizens United

by TeresitJ23 Posted on January 22, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Whoa, if true! On Thursday, Bernie Sanders declared that the Supreme Court would overturn Citizens United if he is elected president.

Except that’s not how the Supreme Court works. Justices don’t get to pick which issues or cases come their way. Only after a case is appealed to the Supreme Court can the justices decide to hear the case. There is no way for Sanders’ Supreme Court picks to decide that overturning Citizens United, the 2010 campaign finance decision that fueled the rise of super-PACs, will be one of their first acts on the bench, even if they really, really want it to be.

Update: Sanders campaign spokeswoman Symone Sanders sent the following note explaining the tweet: “That tweet was worded oddly. The senator often speaks about appointing justices that believe in overturning citizens united and who would do so if the opportunity arose. That is what this was referring to.”

Excerpt from:

There’s One Big Problem With Sanders’ Promise to Overturn Citizens United

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There’s One Big Problem With Sanders’ Promise to Overturn Citizens United

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Just Duked it Out Over Health Care at the Democratic Debate

by KRGMurraydeomam Posted on January 18, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders spent much of the last week battling over the Vermont senator’s proposal to create a nationwide single-payer health care system. In one of the most important exchanges of Sunday night’s debate, they finally hashed it out face to face.

Watch:

What neither of them would say outright—perhaps because it’s not an especially inspiring message for Democrats to hear—is that the question of how best to expand health care access is, at least for the time being, moot. Republicans have a huge majority in the House and will almost certainly continue to control the House in January 2017. But their argument exposed core differences between the two candidates on what the nation’s health care system should look like, and how it should be paid for. And it doesn’t look like a debate either candidate is about to abandon any time soon.

More:

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Just Duked it Out Over Health Care at the Democratic Debate

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Just Duked it Out Over Health Care at the Democratic Debate

NBC Should Ask Bernie and Hillary These Questions at Tonight’s Debate

by Gwenn Record Posted on January 18, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It’s the Sunday night of a three-day holiday weekend, which can only mean one thing: the three remaining Democratic presidential candidates are having a debate. With the Iowa caucuses less than a month away and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders leading in some early-state polls, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sanders have increasingly turned their fire on each other, fighting over past votes and current positions on universal health care and gun control. Why stop now? We at the Mother Jones‘ politics desk have put together a by-no-means-comprehensive list of questions we’d put to the candidates if we were on stage:

Bernie Sanders:

* In 2005 you voted to give immunity to gun makers from lawsuits. But the next day you voted against giving immunity to companies in the fast food industry, like McDonald’s. Why exempt guns but not Big Macs?

* Your home state of Vermont adopted a single-payer health care system in 2011. But last year the state scrapped the plan citing rising costs. Now you’re proposing single-payer for the nation. What went wrong in Vermont and how would you have fixed it?

* You’ve promised to reduce America’s prison population by more than 500,000 people by the end of your first term. But more than 90 percent of America’s 2.2 million inmates are in state and local facilities. What can a president do about them?

* You’ve said that the United States should take a backseat in the battle against ISIS, and instead leave the fighting to a coalition of Muslim nations including Iran and Saudi Arabia. In light of the most recent dust-up between the two countries and their deep political and religious differences, how will you get two nations that hate each other to take up arms together?

* Even with a Democratic super-majority in the Senate, President Obama struggled to deliver incremental change in Washington, ultimately accepting stripped-down versions of the Affordable Care Act and the Stimulus. How do you expect to push through an even more ambitious health-care proposal in a Republican-controlled Congress still trying to repeal Obamacare?

Hillary Clinton:

* A supporter of yours, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, reportedly worked to suppress a video of the killing of Laquan McDonald by Chicago police until after his re-election, and even used public funds to pay the victim’s family to keep quiet. Sen. Sanders has said that “any elected official with knowledge that the tape was being suppressed or improperly withheld should resign.” Should Mayor Emanuel resign?

* In October you said the Australian model of compulsory gun buy-backs “is worth looking at.” Have you looked at it? And would you entertain the idea of a compulsory gun re-purchase in the United States?

* Colorado residents will vote next fall on a ballot initiative on whether or not to institute a single-payer health care system. If you lived in Colorado, would you vote to approve that measure?

* You’ve pledged to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year, and criticized your opponents for proposing to raise taxes on people you’ve termed middle class. What is your actual definition of middle class? Why include a household making $150,000—the top 10 percent for annual income—in the middle class?

* In 2005, you went to war against violence in video games, introducing legislation to restrict sales of games. You said: “We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco, alcohol, and pornography.” Do you still hold that view?

* David Brock, the head of a super-PAC that’s supporting your candidacy, made news yesterday for a report suggesting he’d demand Bernie Sanders release his medical records. Brock’s group, Correct the Record, has said it is coordinating with the campaign thanks to a special exemption in federal election law. Why is a candidate who has pledged to repeal Citizens United using a legal loophole to openly coordinate with a super-PAC?

All candidates:

* The Atlantic‘s Ta-Nehisi Coates argued in 2014 that African-Americans deprived of wealth through decades of federal housing discrimination should be able to apply for reparations from the government—similar to the program offered to Japanese-Americans who lost their homes and businesses during internment. Would you consider such a program if elected? And if not, what will you do to alleviate the lingering damages caused by formal government discrimination in the housing market?

* A recent poll found that 52 percent of Americans believe genetically-modified food to be “unsafe.” Are they right?

* The Obama administration is currently reviewing a proposed rule to expand overtime to most workers who earn less than $50,000 a year. Is that number too high, or too low?

* Over the last half decade pro-life groups have fundamentally re-written abortion laws at the state level, resulting in shuttered women’s health clinics and forcing women to crisscross state lines to get an abortion. Aside from appointing more pro-choice Supreme Court judges, what can a president do to reverse these setbacks at the state level and insure the right to an abortion established by Roe?

* Two years ago, Harry Reid and Senate Democrats used the so-called “nuclear option” to remove the filibuster for judicial nominees. Should the filibuster still exist for legislation and Supreme Court nominees, or should it be wiped out entirely?

See original:

NBC Should Ask Bernie and Hillary These Questions at Tonight’s Debate

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on NBC Should Ask Bernie and Hillary These Questions at Tonight’s Debate

The 9 Best Moments From Thurday’s GOP Debate

by TimKAHSsslhrs Posted on January 15, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The first Republican presidential debate of 2016 was one of realignment. The candidates themselves had a bit more space on stage, after Carly Fiorina and Sen. Rand Paul were kicked out of the prime-time debate thanks to their dwindling poll numbers. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump broke their tentative alliance as Trump pondered whether Cruz could legally serve as president. Marco Rubio and Trump got wonky on tax policy and immigration as they sought to tear each other down.

With just over two weeks left before the Iowa caucuses, here are a few of the highlights from Thursday’s debate.

Cruz would have retaliated for captured sailors.

Even though the 10 sailors captured by Iran were released on Wednesday, Cruz opened the debate by promising that “any nation that captures our fighting men will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America.”

Cruz also railed against President Barack Obama for failing to mention the sailors in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, which occurred before the sailors were released. The White House has already explained the decision not to discuss the situation in that speech as a foreign policy decision:

Watch:

In a birther debate, Cruz points out that Trump’s mother was born in Scotland.

Cruz and Trump had a drawn out confrontation over whether Cruz is eligible to be president. Cruz made the legal case for his eligibility, but then tried to turn the argument against Trump—whose mother was born in Scotland.

“I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on, some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified, and interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified. Because Donald’s mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized.”

“Donald, I’m not going to use your mother’s birth against you,” Cruz promised Trump of the revelation about his mother. “Good,” Trump responded. “Because it wouldn’t work.”

Watch:

Trump foresees a lawsuit over Cruz’s birther problem.

In launching a birther attack on Cruz, Trump predicted a disaster scenario for the GOP: Trump wins the nomination, picks Cruz as his running mate, and then Democrats file a lawsuit over Cruz’s eligibility that ruins the campaign.

“I already know the Democrats are going to be bringing a suit. You have a big lawsuit over your head while you’re running. And if you become the nominee, who the hell knows if you can even serve in office?” Trump warned. “So you should go out, get a declaratory judgment, let the courts decide.”

“Why are you saying this now right now?” moderator Neil Cavuto asked Trump.

“Because now he’s doing a little bit better,” Trump responded. “Hey look, he never had a chance. Now, he’s doing better. He’s got probably a 4 or 5 percent chance.”

Trump gladly accepts the “mantle of anger.”

During her response to Obama’s State of the Union this week, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called out the “angriest voices” in the party. Moderator Maria Bartiromo wondered if Trump thought she’d gone too far. Trump said no.

“I’m very angry because our country is being run horribly and I will gladly accept the mantle of anger,” Trump responded, saying he had no beef with Haley. He proudly touted how angry he was, and said he’d stay that way until he’s elected president and fixes things up. “I’m very, very angry,” Trump said. “So when Nikki said that, I wasn’t offended. She said the truth.”

Watch:

Rubio vs. Christie: The battle for third.

Rubio was probably hoping he would not be bickering with Chris Christie two weeks before voting starts while Trump and Cruz repeatedly engage each other as the two front-runners. And yet, that’s what happened Thursday night. Christie has been gaining support in New Hampshire, threatening to overtake Rubio in the polls. So the super PAC supporting Rubio has launched negative attacks ads on Christie. Rubio doubled down on those attacks when asked if he stood by those attack ads. But Christie, prepared for the attack, returned fire.

Watch:

Asked about Bill Clinton, Ben Carson bemoans…internet commenters?

Oh, Ben. The Fox moderators asked Carson whether it was fair to hold Hillary Clinton responsible for her husband’s “sexual misconduct.” Carson didn’t have much of a response for that, but he wanted to discuss “values and principles.” What, in Carson’s mind, was an indication that the nation’s morals had fallen?

“You know, you go to the internet, you start reading an article and you go to the comments section—you cannot go five comments down before people are calling each all manner of names,” Carson said. “Where did that spirit come from in America? It did not come from our Judeo-Christian roots, I can tell you that. And wherever it came from we need to start once again recognizing that there is such a thing as right and wrong. And let’s not let the secular progressives drive that out of us.”

Rubio wants a gun in case ISIS attacks.

None of the Republicans on stage were fans of Obama’s calls for further gun control. But Rubio took his defense of Second Amendment rights a step further, saying that bearing arms is not just a constitutional right, but a necessity for keeping the country safe from ISIS.

“And let me tell you, ISIS and terrorists do not get their guns from a gun show,” Rubio said. “Here’s a fact. We are in a war against ISIS. They are trying to attack us here in America. They attacked us in Philadelphia last week. They attacked us in San Bernardino two weeks ago. And the last line standing between them and our families might be us and a gun.”

Watch:

Trump plays the 9/11 card.

Cruz walked right into this one. The senator from Texas, who has been attacking Trump as a New York liberal, made the accusation to his face Thursday night. And just like that, Cruz handed Trump the opportunity to defend New York with the mother of all trump cards.

“When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York,” he said. “And the people in New York fought and fought and fought, and we saw more death, and even the smell of death—nobody understood it. And it was with us for months, the smell, the air. And we rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers.”

“And I have to tell you,” he concluded, “that was a very insulting statement that Ted made.”

All Cruz could do was smile, nod, and clap for Trump.

Watch:

Rubio takes on Cruz as a flip-flopping politician.

Near the end of the evening, Rubio finally got a chance to go after Cruz—and he went all out. Rubio accused Cruz of changing his positions on issues like the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and ethanol subsidies to win voters.

When Rubio had finished, Cruz responded that his opponent had dumped his entire opposition research file on him.

View post:  

The 9 Best Moments From Thurday’s GOP Debate

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The 9 Best Moments From Thurday’s GOP Debate

We Are Live-Blogging the GOP Debate in South Carolina

by MadelaineM07 Posted on January 15, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Overall, this was sort of a boring debate, though it heated up a bit at the end. On a substantive level, there’s not much to say: nobody really said anything new. I guess that’s just the nature of things when you get to the sixth debate. My take:

Bush: He relentlessly tried to be reasonable. Apparently he thinks that eventually this will be a winning strategy, and maybe he’s right! But not tonight. He didn’t do anything to help himself.

Carson: At his best, he was in snoozeville. At his worst, he was incoherent. He’s a goner.

Rubio: He’s a hard duck to analyze. Rubio basically has a bunch of index cards in his head, and he recites one of them whenever he gets a question. The thing is, his index cards aren’t bad. And he recites them reasonably well. But eventually they just get old. That’s how it felt tonight—until he pulled out a brand new index card and attacked Cruz hard at the end. It was a good attack! It might help him. Maybe.

Trump: Fairly quiet by his standards. He did well responding to Cruz about “New York values.” His closing statement about the sailors was probably effective. His endless prevarication on the 45 percent tariff was a loser. Not his most dynamic performance, but he did OK. His numbers will probably go up.

Cruz: He was good tonight. He handled the natural-born citizen thing pretty well. Trump pwned him on New York values, but that helped Trump more than it hurt Cruz. His explanation of his tax plan was pretty much incomprehensible, and it was made worse when Rubio went after it, but I think that was his only real stumble. He’s a good debater, and probably picked up a few points tonight.

Kasich: He seemed like an island, totally disengaged from everyone else on the stage.

Christie: As always, he tried to seem like (a) the adult in the room and (b) the toughest guy in the room. It worked OK tonight, and he might pick up a point or two. But nothing more.

Overall, I’d say Trump, Cruz, and Rubio might gain a bit. Bush and Carson will drop a bit. Kasich and Christie will stay in nowhere-land.

Transcript here.

10:20 – Kasich: Mailman father blah blah blah. Bush: “Detailed plans count.” Oh Jeb…. Christie: Dammit, America is a hellhole and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Carson: Zzzzz. Rubio: Obama wants to ruin America. Hillary too. Cruz: Benghazi! Radical Islamic terrorism! Political correctness! Trump: If I’m president, we will win on everything we do.

10:19 – Time for closing statements. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief.

10:13 – Bush: We just heard a big spat between two “backbench” senators. Burn!

11:11 – Ooh. Big attack on Cruz from Rubio. Cruz says half the things Rubio said were false. But what about the other half?

11:04 – “We want Rand! We want Rand!” Well, don’t we all?

11:01 – Is it a blind trust if Don, Eric, and Ivanka Trump run the company? Um, no. Pretty sure it’s not. But I’ve actually been a little curious about what Trump would do with his company if he won.

10:57 – Christie says current Republican Congress “consorted” with Barack Obama. Quelle horreur!

10:55 – Big fight between Rubio and Cruz. Now Christie comes in to break it up. Let’s talk entitlement reform!

10:52 – Rubio says that Cruz’s tax plan would be bad for seniors. He’s right, but I doubt anyone understood what he said.

10:49 – Carson just gave an answer that I flatly didn’t understand. I’ll have to review it later.

10:46 – It’s tax time. I’m guessing everyone is in favor of cutting them. Especially on corporations and the rich.

10:43 – Now Cruz says his business tax is like a tariff. No, it’s not. But who’s counting, anyway?

10:41 – Cruz says Trump and Bush are both right about China. Such a peacemaker. The answer is a flat tax. Wait, what? What did I miss?

10:40 – Boos when Trump attacks Bush. The arena must have a big Bush cheering section.

10:39 – Trump also wants a trade war against Japan.

10:38 – Rubio: the answer to all our problems is to do the opposite of Barack Obama.

10:36 – So…Trump says the NYT lied, but I guess they didn’t. Imagine that. Trancript here.

10:35 – OK, but what about the tariff, Donald? Blah blah blah. Biggest bank in the world has an office in his building. But he’s totally open to a tariff.

10:35 – Did Trump call for 45 percent tariff on China? He says, of course not. He says he’d only do it if he stayed mad at them. Or something.

10:30 – Bush still trying to be reasonable. It’s so crazy it might work!

10:29 – “Radical Islamic terrorism.” Say it. SAY IT!

10:24 – Trump: “There’s something going on and it’s bad.” I guess that’s Trump’s campaign in a nutshell.

10:22 – Bush: “You can’t make rash statements.” Exciting as always!

10:21 – Jeb Bush steps up and defends letting Muslims into the country. Good for him.

10:19 – No follow-up, of course.

10:18 – These guys have lots of criticism of Obama, but they sure are shy about proposing actual concrete measures to step up the fight against ISIS.

10:15 – Should we send 20,000 ground troops to Iraq to fight ISIS? Carson says we should just give the military whatever they ask for. That’s it. And we should send in lots of special ops to put ISIS on the run. Uh huh.

10:11 – The fights between Trump and Cruz have been amusing, but generally speaking this debate has been pretty boring. Lots of canned applause lines and not a lot else.

10:10 – Does Saudi Arabia suck? Kasich says they need to stop funding radical clerics and madrasses. But what if they don’t?

10:07 – Ooh. Bush brings out the old Jerusalem chestnut. Go Jeb!

10:05 – New York values? William F. Buckley came out of Manhattan! New Yorkers were great after 9/11! So there.

10:01 – Sorry for the hiatus. So what’s going on? Guns? Looks like everyone is in favor of guns, guns, and more guns.

9:37 – The hamsters that power motherjones.com seem to be tired tonight. Sorry about that. If you’re having trouble commenting, keep trying!

9:34 – Cruz mostly treats natural-born citizen controversy as a joke. Probably smart.

9:31 – Audience booing Trump again.

9:30 – Audience booing Trump when he starts talking about polls.

9:27 – Audience not happy that Neil Cavuto asks Cruz about whether he’s a natural-born citizen. Cruz calls it a “birther” theory.

9:23 – Ah, an old favorite: Cruz turns a million-dollar loan from Goldman Sachs into an attack on the liberal media. That never gets old, does it?

9:20 – Trump says Syrian refugees are Trojan horses.

9:19 – Carson: What if someone hit us with an EMP, cyber-attack, and dirty bomb all at once? That would be pretty bad.

9:18 – Carson already whining about not getting enough questions.

9:17 – Rubio: Benghazi! Also: Obama has betrayed Israel, gutted the military, and apologized on ten world tours. That’s quite the memorized applause list.

9:13 – Bush: ISIS has a caliphate the size of Indiana! Also, US military has been totally gutted. Can’t even project power anymore.

9:11 – I wonder if anyone is going to acknowledge that American sailors did cross into Iranian waters near a major military base?

9:09 – If economy collapses next January, Kasich will balance the budget. That should work great.

9:06 – Cruz just can’t wait to bring up the American sailors. Ugh. Apparently he would have nuked Tehran immediately upon their capture.

8:57 – “The pirates are fighting in advance.” Huh?

8:48 – What will Donald Trump say tonight? In just a few minutes we’ll find out!

See more here:  

We Are Live-Blogging the GOP Debate in South Carolina

Posted in Citizen, Cyber, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Are Live-Blogging the GOP Debate in South Carolina

Ted Cruz’s War on Ethanol Mandates

by RonnyBingham Posted on January 14, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared on the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

For decades, presidential candidates seeking to compete in the Iowa caucuses have dutifully pledged their support for the production and sale of ethanol.

In 2011, Jon Huntsman went so far as to cite his opposition to subsidies for production of the corn-based biofuel as a reason to skip the state, given the strength of the lobbying groups behind it.

This year could be different. While all three Democratic candidates for the White House have voiced their support for the corn-based biofuel and thus, they hope, garnered support from those who produce and profit from it, the Republican front-runner in Iowa is adamantly opposed. And that could permanently change caucus politics.

Ted Cruz is strongly opposed to the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which mandates that all gas sold in the US include a certain percentage of biofuels like ethanol.

While ethanol advocates argue that its production is vital for both the rural economy and national security—as a source of domestically produced energy—opponents deride what they see as a government boondoggle to help agribusiness, which by its very existence raises food prices and harms the environment.

The federal government no longer directly subsidizes ethanol, but the RFS serves as an indirect subsidy. Opponents of ethanol production want to end the RFS. The pro-ethanol lobby wants the RFS unchanged until 2022, when it is due to expire.

In Iowa, this issue is sparking a furious political battle.

Cruz is not the only ethanol skeptic still running—Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is also opposed to the RFS. But, perhaps characteristically, the senator from Texas has gone out of his way to antagonize supporters of renewable fuels.

Eric Branstad, head of America’s Renewable Future (ARF), a bipartisan coalition of Iowa ethanol supporters, said Cruz refused to meet his group or even acknowledge it, forcing it to send a candidate survey by certified mail, just to confirm he had received it. Needless to say, Cruz did not fill out the survey.

ARF, which has built a well-funded operation to encourage ethanol supporters to attend the caucuses in February, has launched a major advertising campaign against Cruz. It is even following Cruz around the state, as he continues a bus tour.

Last week, Cruz wrote in the Des Moines Register that he supported keeping a renewable fuel requirement in place through 2022. ARF duly celebrated. However, Cruz has long favored a five-year RFS phase-out and was thus simply saying that he would start that process the moment he was elected to the White House.

The senator also wrote that he would significantly reduce the mandated use of ethanol each year in that five-year period.

Though the ethanol lobby feels confident it has pushed Cruz on the issue, it has not declared victory yet. In a statement, Branstad, who is the son of Iowa’s six-term governor, Terry Branstad, said: “Until Cruz pledges to uphold the RFS as the law dictates—not his position to phase it down by 2022—we will continue to educate Iowa voters about his bad position.”

ARF attacks on Cruz have included hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of radio, online and direct mail advertising. It is unclear, though, how much such attacks will matter.

Mark Langgin, a veteran Democratic political consultant in the state, told the Guardian: “Iowa farmers, while ethanol is important to them, they are first and foremost…a very socially conservative audience. So I don’t see ethanol being that huge of a wedge issue for Cruz.”

He was echoed by Jeff Kaufmann, the chair of the Republican Party of Iowa, who said: “I am not convinced that issue, in and of itself, will either cause a candidate to win or lose.”

While Kauffmann conceded that “ethanol is a critical issue in Iowa” and said the state certainly had some single-issue voters on the subject, he suggested that support for ethanol was not a make or break position.

“If you’re against the RFS, you’re going to make Iowans mad, you’re going to have some Iowans question you but the beauty of Iowa is you can take your case to the people,” said Kaufmann.

He added: “There is a certain appreciation from Iowans when a candidate comes to them and explains why he or she disagrees.”

Regardless of who wins the Iowa caucuses, however, the ethanol lobby may face new problems away from the political arena. The collapse in global oil prices has reduced the appeal of corn-based fuel.

As Matt Lasov, global head of advisory and analytics at Frontier Strategy Group, told the Guardian: “With oil prices at $40 a barrel and no sign of that changing, ethanol looks less viable.”

Originally posted here:  

Ted Cruz’s War on Ethanol Mandates

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz’s War on Ethanol Mandates