Tag Archives: barack

Why Are Former Presidents Supposed to Shut Up About Their Successors?

by YettaPreiss Posted on June 3, 2017

Mother Jones

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

Since leaving office, Barack Obama has made a few veiled criticisms of Donald Trump. Conservatives are pretty unhappy about this. It’s tradition for ex-presidents to maintain a dignified silence about their successors, after all.

This is mostly true, but when did it become a tradition? It certainly hasn’t been one forever. Herbert Hoover was a constant presence on the radio blasting FDR during the Depression, and Harry Truman remained a gadfly after he left office.

Eisenhower changed things up. After beating Hitler and serving two terms as president, he decided to adopt the elder statesman role. Then Kennedy died before leaving office, LBJ slunk back to Texas a broken man, and Nixon resigned in disgrace. By hook or by crook, the “tradition” of ex-presidential silence was two decades old by the time Reagan became president. It’s mostly held ever since.

Is there a good reason for this? The pretense seems kind of precious to me. Why treat sitting presidents like china dolls who can’t take some heat from their predecessors? Ex-presidents are among the greatest politicians alive, and usually the effective leaders of their party, at least for a while. They typically command a throng of admirers. The most natural thing in the world would be for them to maintain a robust political presence if they want to. Why shouldn’t they?

Ditto for losing presidential candidates. This is usually less of an issue, since most people don’t really want to listen to losers. But not always. Hillary Clinton should never run for office again—and she’s said she won’t—but why shouldn’t she stay loudly involved in politics if she can help lead the loyal opposition until Democrats coalesce around a new party leader?

Does anyone know the answer about this tradition? Is it really just an Eisenhower thing that somehow congealed into conventional wisdom? Do other countries have anything similar?

Link:

Why Are Former Presidents Supposed to Shut Up About Their Successors?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Are Former Presidents Supposed to Shut Up About Their Successors?

Look at the Difference in Trump and Obama’s Notes for Israel’s Holocaust Memorial

by KeishaMacPherso Posted on May 23, 2017

Mother Jones

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

Before leaving Israel’s Holocaust museum Yad Vashem Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump continued the tradition of US leaders who have visited the memorial before him, including former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, by writing a message in the Book of Remembrance.

“It is a great honor to be here with my friends!” Trump’s signature read. “So amazing and will never forget!”

The president’s note quickly attracted criticism for its strangely upbeat tone, with many mocking the message for appearing out of step with the memorial’s somber setting, especially when compared with former president Barack Obama’s 2008 message when he was still a senator.

The note on Tuesday is the latest in a series of awkward moments for Trump during his first overseas trip as president. The day before, while addressing reporters at a press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump appeared to inadvertently confirm that Israel was the source that provided the intelligence he shared with high-ranking Russian officials in the Oval Office last week.

Trump’s unusually lighthearted Book of Remembrance message is only the most recent example of tone deafness coming from the administration regarding the Holocaust. In February, the administration sparked by the ire of Jewish groups when it released a statement commemorating International Holocaust Remembrance Day that failed to mention the word Jews. White House press secretary also once called Nazi concentration camps “Holocaust centers” while positively comparing Adolf Hitler to Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad.

Read this article – 

Look at the Difference in Trump and Obama’s Notes for Israel’s Holocaust Memorial

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Look at the Difference in Trump and Obama’s Notes for Israel’s Holocaust Memorial

Trump Policy on Visitor Logs Provides Hint to How He Governs

by JustinOBOvyjyv Posted on April 14, 2017

Mother Jones

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

So much for visitor logs:

The Trump administration announced Friday that it would not follow former president Barack Obama’s policy of voluntarily disclosing the names of most visitors to the White House complex….White House communications director Mike Dubke said Friday that Trump has taken several steps to ensure the government “is both ethical and accessible to the American people.” Among those he mentioned were new restrictions on lobbyists and allowing journalists to participate remotely in White House briefings via Skype.

“Given the grave national security risks and privacy concerns of the hundreds of thousands of visitors annually, the White House Office will disclose Secret Service logs as outlined under the Freedom of Information Act, a position the Obama White House successfully defended in federal court,” Dubke said in a statement.

One theory about Trump is that the best predictor of his policy views is “whatever Obama did, do the opposite.” Those of you who subscribe to this theory can take a victory lap. The rest of us need to update our priors.

“Grave national security risks.” Yes indeedy.

More here: 

Trump Policy on Visitor Logs Provides Hint to How He Governs

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Policy on Visitor Logs Provides Hint to How He Governs

Republicans Just Went Nuclear. Neil Gorsuch Is Heading to the Supreme Court.

by MichealOIEB Posted on April 6, 2017

Mother Jones

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

Senate Republicans on Thursday voted to kill the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, invoking the so-called “nuclear option” so that a minority party will no longer have the ability to block a vote for nominees to the nation’s highest court. The rule change cleared the way for the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the empty seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch is expected to be officially confirmed Friday.

Over the past two weeks, Democrats coalesced around a strategy of filibustering Gorsuch when all but three Democratic senators announced they would oppose him—even though it was widely believed that Republicans would respond by changing the rules to prohibit filibusters of Supreme Court nominees. The decision was risky because it means Democrats will now have even less leverage if one of the more liberal justices leaves the court while Trump is in the White House.

Democrats’ actions were in part a result of the party’s activist and donor base, which has been pushing lawmakers to resist Trump and his nominee to the fullest extent possible. Democrats want to keep their base energized, not demoralized. But Democrats had other reasons for filibustering, as well. There was the issue of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court last year, whom Republicans in the Senate refused to even consider. The Garland episode helped persuade Democrats that temporarily preserving the ability to filibuster would be of little use, since Republicans were already prepared to do whatever it takes to put conservative justices on the court. As a progressive activist explained to Mother Jones, “Any vote that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans take is really just the icing on the cake—this thing has been cooked since Senate Republicans defied any sense of decorum in their treatment of Barack Obama.”

Democrats were also motivated by deep concerns about Gorsuch’s jurisprudence and his performance during his confirmation process. In his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch was so disinclined to reveal anything about his judicial philosophy that it took considerable cajoling to get him to express an opinion on Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark decision that struck down segregation in public education.

What Democrats could ascertain from Gorsuch’s record suggested that he was an ultra-conservative jurist who would go out of his way to issue broad rulings rather than taking a narrow approach to decisions, including in a case that limited aid for special education children in public schools. In remarks on the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested that Gorsuch could become the most conservative member of the Supreme Court.

Finally, Democrats were put off by how Gorsuch conducted himself in the meetings he held with senators. Three senators, all women of color, claimed Gorsuch had failed to meet with them after their offices had tried to schedule a meeting.

As Ian Millhiser, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, explained to the Washington Post, Gorsuch hurt his chances with Democrats throughout the process: “He mansplained fairly basic concepts to women senators. He pushed way too hard on the ‘I’m not going to express a view about anything, ever’ fallback—much harder than previous nominees. And then, after the Supreme Court unanimously overturned one of his opinions, he defended himself by misrepresenting his own opinion.” On the third day of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion overturning Gorsuch’s approach to enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a piece of Gorsuch’s record that had particularly irked Democrats.

Gorsuch will soon be a Supreme Court justice, but his confirmation will go down as a major moment in the continued breakdown of the US Senate.

Read More:

Republicans Just Went Nuclear. Neil Gorsuch Is Heading to the Supreme Court.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Just Went Nuclear. Neil Gorsuch Is Heading to the Supreme Court.

Stephen Colbert Mocks Donald Trump’s "Clean Coal" Promise

by RondaElzy6977 Posted on March 29, 2017

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump moved to effectively erase Barack Obama’s record on climate change, by signing an executive order to roll back federal regulations aimed at protecting the environment and curb the effects of global warming. Hours later, Late Show host Stephen Colbert took the president to task for “repealing the environment,” and specifically mocked Trump’s promise to deliver on “clean coal.”

“I know clean coal sounds like an oxymoron, but so does ‘President Trump,'” he said, prompting loud cheers from the audience.

Colbert then turned to a special guest to provide a succinct summary of the controversial order: “You are not legally required to give a hoot, so go pollute. Fuck the planet!”

Link to article:  

Stephen Colbert Mocks Donald Trump’s "Clean Coal" Promise

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stephen Colbert Mocks Donald Trump’s "Clean Coal" Promise

Trump Lashes Out at "Fake News Media" and Anonymous Sources at Conservative Gathering

by MarianaWhitely Posted on February 24, 2017

Mother Jones

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

President Donald Trump excoriated the “fake news media”—a category he has previously used to describe such outlets as the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post—during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday for reporting stories that portray his increasingly tumultuous administration in a negative light.

“I called the fake news the enemy of the people, and they are,” Trump said. “There are some terrible dishonest people and they do a tremendous disservice to our country.”

He specifically railed against reporters’ use of anonymous sources and demanded that people who leak information to the press instead criticize him to his “face.”

“I’m against the people that make up stories and make up sources,” he said. “They shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody’s name. Let their name be put out there.”

The remarks come just hours after White House officials anonymously refuted a bombshell CNN story, which reported that the White House had asked the FBI to dispute recent evidence that Trump aides had communicated with Russian officials throughout the presidential election. Trump himself has also touted anonymous sources to underscore his conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

The president reiterated his commitment to building a border wall and repealing Obamacare. He also pledged to continue working to deport the “bad dudes” living in the country and to put “its own citizens first.”

“They’re not coming back in, folks,” he said.

This article is from – 

Trump Lashes Out at "Fake News Media" and Anonymous Sources at Conservative Gathering

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Lashes Out at "Fake News Media" and Anonymous Sources at Conservative Gathering

Nine People Say Mike Flynn Lied About His Phone Calls With the Russian Ambassador

by Mstyslava7ju Posted on February 10, 2017

Mother Jones

The routine lying by the Trump administration is just beyond belief. Mike Flynn has consistently denied that he talked to the Russian ambassador in December about President Obama’s sanctions against Russia, but apparently he did exactly that. Here are Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima in the Washington Post tonight:

Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Sergey Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.” On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

….The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence…Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

All of those officials said ­Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president. “Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. A spokesman for Pence did not respond to a request for comment. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.

Nine officials! And every one of them says Flynn explicitly talked about the sanctions that Obama levied on Russia as retaliation for their cyber-hacking during the campaign. The message: don’t worry about it. We’ve got your back.

Do these guys ever tell the truth? About anything?

Original article:  

Nine People Say Mike Flynn Lied About His Phone Calls With the Russian Ambassador

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, LG, Naka, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Nine People Say Mike Flynn Lied About His Phone Calls With the Russian Ambassador

"Why Obama Will Go Down as One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time"

by HarrisonSecombe Posted on January 17, 2017

Mother Jones

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

As Barack Obama’s presidency winds down, I find myself wondering more and more how the history books will explain that we replaced him with Donald Trump. The indictments against the soon-to-be 45th president are well known and we’re about to spend the next four years prosecuting them so this week let’s take a moment to also focus on the often unheralded accomplishments of the 44th.

Each day this week I’m going to post highlights from a notable perspective on Obama’s legacy. Today we start with GQ editor-in-chief Jim Nelson, who earlier this year made a convincing case for Obama’s historic greatness:

Barack Obama will be inducted into the league of Great Presidents.

…

In so many ways, Obama was better than we imagined, better than the body politic deserved, and far, far better than his enemies will ever concede, but the great thing about being great is that the verdict of enemies doesn’t matter.

…

It may be hard to imagine now, but in the face of rising chaos, we’ll crave unity all the more, and in future years whoever can speak most convincingly of unity will rise to the top. (It’s also hard to imagine many beating Obama at the game.) This year’s carnival election, with Trump as a kind of debauched circus barker, only makes the distinction clearer. The absurdity and car-crash spectacle of it all have already lent Obama an out-of-time quality, as if he were a creature from another, loftier century. Whatever happens next, I feel this in my bones: We’ll look back at history, hopefully when we’re zooming down the Barack Obama Hyperloop Transport System, and think: That man was rare. And we were damn lucky to have him.

Go read the whole thing.

Read this article: 

"Why Obama Will Go Down as One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time"

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Why Obama Will Go Down as One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time"

IUD Sales Set to Soar After Trump Win

by RafaelaSeitz Posted on November 16, 2016

Mother Jones

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

After Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, gun shops did a land office business selling firearms to folks who were convinced that Obama was going to take their guns away. Now the shoe is on the other foot:

Since Donald Trump became president-elect, many women in California say they’ve started looking into long-acting, reversible birth control methods, in case access to contraception or abortions is rolled back. Trump has not said he wants to restrict birth control, but he has spoken often of repealing Obamacare, which could have that effect.

Collins said 45 people were ahead of her in line when she called the clinic. “So I was not the only person with that idea,” she said.

Doctors and Planned Parenthood offices across the state report that in the last week an increased number of women have asked about IUDs. The devices are inserted once and some types could even outlast a two-term Trump presidency. Google Trends shows more searches for “IUD” on Nov. 10 than in the previous 90 days.

I suppose there’s no harm in this. Long-acting birth control is generally a good idea, and IUDs are an excellent choice for many women. Still, don’t be like the gun nuts. It’s possible that Trump could take executive action that rolls back birth control to the dark ages of 2013, but that’s about it. And he hasn’t given any indication that he even wants to do that.

Still, IUDs are great! And there’s a chance that a year from now you might have to pay more for them. Might as well get one now, I suppose. Especially if you work for Hobby Lobby.

Excerpt from – 

IUD Sales Set to Soar After Trump Win

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on IUD Sales Set to Soar After Trump Win

We Really Should Not Be Encouraging a Twitter Presidency

by RickyJJBBldi Posted on November 16, 2016

Mother Jones

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

I suppose this is about 157th on the list of things to worry about from a Trump presidency, but I still have to wonder: Are we going to continue giving Trump’s tweets the same banner treatment that we gave to the Hindenburg disaster? Shouldn’t the press have a little more self-respect than that? If the guy won’t talk to them, and instead relies on tweets that sound like they were written by a fourth grader (“The failing @nytimes story is so totally wrong on transition. It is going so smoothly. Also, I have spoken to many foreign leaders.”)—well, maybe they should be given no more than the attention they deserve. Which is to say, about the amount that the press gave to Barack Obama’s tweets. Which is to say, none.

UPDATE: Here’s an idea. Instead of going crazy over every Trump tweet, maybe the Washington Post should inaugurate a regular feature: Today’s Presidential Tweets. Every day, on page A14, they could have a box that reprints all of Trump’s tweets for the previous day, along with a fact check for each of them. Something like this:

Pretty good idea, huh?

Excerpt from: 

We Really Should Not Be Encouraging a Twitter Presidency

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Really Should Not Be Encouraging a Twitter Presidency