Tag Archives: democrats

Ohio purges thousands of black voters from voting rolls

Ohio purges thousands of black voters from voting rolls

By on Jun 2, 2016Share

Reuters reports that Ohio officials have purged tens of thousands of voters who haven’t cast a ballot since the 2008 presidential election from the rolls.

While purging inactive voters is fairly common, doing it on this scale — and after only eight years of inactivity — is an exception. Although the statewide total of impacted voters isn’t known, Reuters found that 144,000 voters had been purged in the three biggest counties, and black and Democratic-leaning districts were twice as likely to be affected as white and Republican-leaning districts.

When kicked off the rolls, voters have to register again. Not only is this a hassle, there are reports of voters not finding out until they get to their polling places. Then, it’s already too late.

Because Ohio is a swing-state, this could have a huge impact on pro-climate candidates in the election, as well as potential state-wide measures for clean energy, raising the minimum wage, and legalizing medical marijuana and industrial hemp.

Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit against Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted in April, alleging that the rule targets minority and low-income voters and violates a federal law saying states can only purge voters from rolls upon death, request, or if they move out of state.

This isn’t the first time Husted has faced allegations of misconduct, as Think Progress points out: In 2012, Husted defied a court order to restore early voting hours, and in March, the Bernie Sanders campaign filed suit against him after Husted barred 17-year-olds who will turn 18 before the general election from voting in the primary. A judge agreed with the Sanders camp that this was unconstitutional, and blocked Husted’s decision.

Husted has called the recent suit “politically motivated, election-year politics,” that “opens the door for voter fraud in Ohio.”

Except voter fraud, according to experts, isn’t actually a problem. In fact, an investigation of more than 1 billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014 found all of 31 incidences of fraud.

Stories of voter suppression have been rampant this election season. Part of this is because its the first presidential election after the 2013 Supreme Court decision that kneecapped the Voting Rights Act. The decision allows state to enact ID requirements, shorten voting periods, and end same-day registration. There have also been a few mysterious incidences this go-round, like the purging of 120,000 people from voter rolls in New York and Arizona Democrats claiming that Latino and working class districts had insufficient polling places for their primary.

Now, it’s up to the courts to decide if it will be allowed to go on in Ohio.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Read more: 

Ohio purges thousands of black voters from voting rolls

Posted in alo, Anchor, cannabis, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ohio purges thousands of black voters from voting rolls

Hillary Clinton Remains the Most Likely 45th President of the United States

Mother Jones

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

Greg Sargent is a little tired of the current conventional wisdom about a Trump-Clinton general election:

Democrats should not underestimate Trump or imagine that defeating him will be easy….Democrats should obviously be prepared for any manner of attack that Trump will throw at Hillary Clinton, and they’ll need to figure out how to create a more positive narrative around her.

Rather, the point is that we should stop over-inflating impressions of Trump’s strength. We should stop ascribing magical political powers to Trump based on the questionable notion that his “unconventional” and “unpredictable” campaign makes him a more formidable foe than anyone expected. Trump will be difficult to beat, but that might be mainly because these elections are always hard.

I’ll go a little further: chill out, people. Trump is likely to get at least 45 percent of the vote. That’s just the way our country works at the moment. Ditto for Hillary. There’s probably not much more than 10 percent of the electorate that’s really, truly undecided.

This means that at any given moment, all it takes is a tiny bump based on some outside event, combined with a little bit of normal poll error, to make either candidate look like a winner. Especially this early in the campaign, this stuff is meaningless. For what it’s worth, though, the very least you should do is rely on poll aggregations, not single polls. Sam Wang has personally investigated 2 quadrillion outcomes—and boy are his eyes tired—and figures that Hillary is currently likely to win the electoral college by 336-202. Likewise, Pollster puts Hillary ahead in the popular vote by 44-40 percent. This will flutter around, and there will be times when panic seems like the best response, but it’s probably not. It’s just life in 50-50 America.

Read this article:  

Hillary Clinton Remains the Most Likely 45th President of the United States

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Remains the Most Likely 45th President of the United States

The Director of HBO’s "All the Way" Talks LBJ, MLK, and What They Can Teach Today’s Pols

Mother Jones

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

It’s an age-old question: how to balance principle and compromise. In All the Way, the new HBO film based on the play by Robert Schenkkan and directed by Jay Roach (Game Change, Recount, Trumbo, Austin Powers), the star attraction is Bryan Cranston’s masterful portrayal of President Lyndon Baines Johnson in the year after JFK’s assassination, as LBJ lied, wheedled, and bullied his way to passing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 and then won the presidential election of that year. Cranston’s transformation into a man brimming with brio and confidence and also profoundly burdened with anxiety, insecurity, and paranoia is one of the best cinematic depictions ever of an American president. (Move over, Daniel Day-Lewis). But the true beauty and power of the film is its engaging exploration of the inelegant (if not often ugly) nexus of politics and policy. In All the Way, Johnson is a pathological prevaricator who personally betrays his closest political allies (who happen to be southern Democrats and racists)—but it’s all for the greater good of ending segregation. And it works. But there’s a high political price: in the film’s telling, Johnson has doomed his party in the South. (Indeed, Richard Nixon would capture the White House four years later, partly due to his “Southern strategy” of exploiting white resentment and racism.) And, of course, on the other side of the ledger, Johnson’s conniving conduct sunk the nation deeper into the bloody tragedy of Vietnam—and the film notes how that mighty mistake overshadowed his significant accomplishments. Yet All the Way ultimately chronicles a moment when good was achieved—but by a greatly flawed man using dishonest means. That’s what makes the whole damn thing so fascinating.

I talked to Roach about how he turned Schenkkan’s much-acclaimed Broadway play into this gripping political morality tale, which premieres on the cable network on May 21.

Mother Jones: You’ve directed films about modern politics, as well as the Austin Powers movies. But more recently, you’ve gone back in time. You directed Trumbo and now All The Way. What drew you to the LBJ project?

Jay Roach: I saw Robert Schenkkan’s great play on Broadway, while Bryan and I were prepping for Trumbo. Steven Spielberg and HBO reached out to me to see if I wanted to direct the adaptation. I said yes immediately, then realized I was committing to back-to-back projects with Bryan without knowing if Trumbo was going to work out. Could have been awkward. Thank goodness, it wasn’t.

It’s always about story for me. I was drawn in by the incredible predicament LBJ finds himself in in November 1963. He’d wanted to be president his whole life, but after JFK’s assassination, LBJ becomes the “accidental president.” He knows he is perceived as the usurper. However, rather than just consolidate power to win the 1964 election, he chooses to pick up Kennedy’s agenda and immediately joins up with Dr. Martin Luther King and takes on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation he could have prioritized, the Civil Rights Act. In doing so, he lost the support of the South, which he thought he needed to get reelected. I think this proves how sincere he was about civil rights.

MJ: The film looks at politics at a time when segregation was legal and Southern Democrats on Capitol Hill were the obstructionists trying to block civil rights. What about this is relevant today?

JR: Because of the horrible history of Vietnam, most people forget how much was accomplished during LBJ’s term. He worked closely with Dr. King and the other civil rights leaders, and also with representatives and senators from both parties, to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That helped protect the rights of minorities and women, and it is still being used today to protect the rights of gay and transgender people. And then LBJ passed the Voting Rights act of 1965, re-enfranchising millions of Americans who had been frozen out of the democratic process. He also passed other crucial legislation that improved the quality of life for millions of Americans for generations: Medicare, Medicaid, and 60 separate pieces of legislation funding public education, including Head Start. He pushed through major funding bills for transportation, immigration reform, the environment, and the arts (which led to funding for PBS, NPR, and the American Film Institute).

It’s incredibly encouraging to remember that when we elect presidents and representatives who believe that government can work to improve the lives of citizens, we can actually accomplish much for Americans. In those early years, Johnson did put the country first—above party and above personal advancement—and he solved problems.

MJ: In the movie, Johnson is depicted as a man who could be full of confidence and simultaneously riddled with deep insecurity, paranoia, self-loathing, and anxiety. How did that affect his ability to be a leader? Did that make him a difficult character for Cranston to play?

JR: Johnson was an incredibly capable leader, but he was also deeply flawed. After JFK, he knew how he would be perceived—as the usurper from Texas, doomed to perpetual comparison to President Kennedy. And he was to some extent innately anxious, restless, insecure, even self-pitying. You can hear all that in the many phone calls recorded when he was in office. That was part of the attraction for Bryan in taking on this part. Complex characters are what every actor prefers. Directors, too. For both of us, this was an opportunity to tell a story that goes behind the history—to the psychology of the man, possibly even to the heart and soul of the man.

MJ: Johnson did whatever it took to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. He lied. He cut deals. He compromised. Are there any lessons here for President Barack Obama or other modern-day politicians?

JR: I can only hope the film becomes part of the conversation about what is needed for great leadership, what is required to solve problems for citizens and to raise us up as Americans. For LBJ and for Dr. King—and for the legislators from both sides that they worked with—compromise was not a dirty word. Those who remained inflexible— the segregationists—lost their battles. They were too dogmatic to keep up with history. I hope that for those people who continue to resist the full application of civil rights for every person in our country, this is a cautionary tale.

MJ: My teenage daughter saw the movie with me. Afterward, she asked, “Why does everyone today say John Kennedy was a great president and no one knows much about Johnson?” As you made this film, did you think that Johnson has been shortchanged in popular culture and public history? Might that because of Vietnam and because he essentially left the presidency under a cloud by withdrawing from the 1968 race?

JR: When we look back in time, it’s hard to see through the horrors of Vietnam, which were to some extent rightly pinned on LBJ, It’s tough to recognize and remember all of LBJ’s incredible accomplishments, all the hundreds of important pieces of legislation he was able to pass by working with both sides, throughout his administration. It didn’t help him, either, to be sandwiched between JFK and Nixon in the national timeline.

MJ: In All the Way, Cranston is physically transformed into LBJ. Was that necessary for the movie to succeed? You did not do the same with Anthony Mackie, who played Martin Luther King Jr. and who played him in what might be regarded as an understated fashion?

JR: I work to give every actor what he or she needs to fully interpret a historical character, to feel like the character when he or she walks out on the set. Bryan’s transformation worked for him, and it works beautifully for the story. But Anthony and I talked at great length, and we decided not to try to impersonate Dr. King. Instead, we wanted to channel the essence of the man, especially as he might have come across when he was hammering out political strategy in rooms with the other civil rights leaders. Dr. King is so iconic. We all know what a great speaker he was. And we present some of that, but we also learned, as we watched tapes of his interviews, that he was incredibly strong and calm and quietly powerful in rooms when he was out of the public eye and collaborating with others.

MJ: Bobby Kennedy is a looming presence in this movie, yet he does not appear as a character. What led you to keep him off-stage?

JR: In the play, Robert Schenkkan made the choice to keep Robert Kennedy off-stage to serve as a sort of exaggerated figure of fear for LBJ—a combination of real and imagined threat. (LBJ worried constantly that RFK would step in and run for president, eliminating Johnson’s ability to rise above being the “accidental president.” ) It was an expressionistic choice, but not a big reach. RFK remained attorney general after JFK’s assassination, but he was not that active in the civil rights fights. He was running for Senate, and LBJ helped him campaign, but that story wasn’t so relevant regarding the fight for civil rights.

MJ: You’ve now worked with Bryan Cranston on two projects. What can you tell us about him that fans of Breaking Bad and his films may not know?

JR: I’ve worked with Bryan in two very serious roles, but it turns out he’s an extremely funny man. Between takes while we were shooting All the Way, he would sometimes stay in character as LBJ. This was not for any “method acting” reasons, but so he could harass us all in hilariously aggressive ways, using LBJ’s larger than life “Texas Twists,” his Texas accent, and his pre-sexual-harassment-law political incorrectness. Throw in Bradley Whitford who plays the role of Sen. Hubert Humphrey doing a fantastic and fully inappropriate imitation of Bill Clinton, and Frank Langella who plays Sen. Richard Russell doing his Nixon, and you had a pretty funny Oval Office experience between takes. The Three Amigos of the presidency. They were walking around the set, talking about the pluses and minuses of secretly recording calls and conversations in the Oval Office.

Read more:  

The Director of HBO’s "All the Way" Talks LBJ, MLK, and What They Can Teach Today’s Pols

Posted in Accent, ATTRA, Broadway, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Director of HBO’s "All the Way" Talks LBJ, MLK, and What They Can Teach Today’s Pols

Trump’s Political Advisers Wanted to Vet Him. He Said No.

Mother Jones

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

For most major presidential campaigns, it is a routine act: you conduct opposition research on your own candidate. The reason is obvious; campaign officials and candidates want to know what they might have to contend with once the you-know-what starts flying. But not Donald Trump. At least not at the start of the campaign that would lead to him becoming the presumptive GOP nominee. According to a source with direct knowledge, when Trump was considering entering the presidential race early last year, his political advisers, including Corey Lewandowski, who would become his campaign manager, suggested that Trump hire a professional to investigate his past. But the celebrity mogul said no and refused to pay for it.

Marital infidelity, connections to mob-related persons, bankruptcies, the hiring of undocumented workers, policy flip-flops, deals gone bad, legal troubles—Trump’s life is an opposition researcher’s dream. That was no secret to his political lieutenants, who prior to his announcement discussed the need to conduct a deep dive into the tycoon’s background. The point was to go beyond Googling and perusing the many books written on Trump—and mount a full forensic examination of everything Donald. Especially before anyone else did. (Trump’s aides had heard a rumor that wealthy conservative donors, perhaps including the Koch Brothers, were underwriting a private opposition research effort aimed at the former reality TV star.)

“Everyone does this,” says a former Mitt Romney aide. “I don’t know a campaign that didn’t. It’s a standard procedure.” Political research firms specialize in this sort of work. “It’s an off-the-shelf service they provide,” this aide notes. “For X dollars, you get a different level of digging. I’ve never known a campaign that didn’t do this. After all, you’re expected to know your own record. Any responsible campaign would do that.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

One subject on the mind of Trump’s advisers was Jeffrey Epstein, the finance mogul who was arrested in 2006 and subsequently pled guilty to having solicited paid sex with a minor. He ultimately served 13 months in prison and had to register as a sex offender. (Several years ago, alleged Epstein victims filed a lawsuit against the US government claiming Epstein received too sweet a plea bargain.) Trump’s advisers didn’t know of anything in particular to worry about. But they knew that Trump had been linked to his fellow Palm Beach resident. In 2002, Trump had said of Epstein, “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” Epstein had occasionally visited Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s estate and club down the road from Epstein’s mansion. Trump also had flown on Epstein’s plane and had dined at his house. And Virginia Roberts, an alleged Epstein victim who tried to join the civil lawsuit, maintaining that Epstein kept her as a sex slave for several years when she was a teenager, was working at Mar-a-Lago as a changing room assistant when she was recruited, at age 15, to be a masseuse for Epstein. (A judge recently denied Roberts’ bid to become a plaintiff in the case.)

Trump has downplayed his association with Epstein. But these connections would be enough to cause any senior campaign staffer to want a full examination. “This vetting process was not for the purpose of looking at Epstein specifically,” a Trump insider says. “It was to be an audit to see what could be found on anything.” (Conservatives have pointed to Bill Clinton’s friendship with Epstein—he often was a passenger on Epstein’s private plane—as possible ammunition to be used in the 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton.)

Though Trump would not authorize an extensive research effort to identify what oppo might be most harmful to his candidacy, his campaign did prepare responses to obvious lines of attack against the billionaire. Mother Jones reviewed one campaign memo outlining possible replies to expected assaults, but most of these topics were policy and political matters already in the public realm. What about Trump’s 1999 proposal to raise taxes on the well-to-do? Trump merely had proposed a one-time fix designed to erase the national debt, a move that showed that Trump possessed the foresight to see that deficits would become a major problem. What about his past donations to Democrats? Trump was supporting incumbents of both parties as an act of civic participation, and since 2011 he has only contributed to Republicans. What about Trump manufacturing his clothing line in China? He had played no role in the decision to out-source, and China was picked because US regulation and red tape made it too expensive to manufacture goods in the United States. What about his failure to serve in the military? Trump had received student deferments, and as a graduate of a military academy he has been a strong proponent of the US military and veterans.

This memo covered numerous issues. What about the bankruptcies filed by his companies? Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy. What about Trump’s previous support for universal healthcare? Trump has always called for a market-based system and has been an ardent opponent of Obamacare. What about Trump saying he has a plan to defeat ISIS but refusing to provide details? Trump does not want to tell ISIS in advance how he will defeat it; that would put US soldiers at risk. What about Trump’s support for the TARP bailout of the big banks? Trump believed TARP was necessary to stabilize the global financial system but came to conclude the program was poorly administered. What about Trump’s previous support for Jeb Bush, whom he once called the kind of political leader the United States needs? The Bush presidencies have been failures, Jeb Bush governed Florida as a typical politician who bowed to lobbyists and special interests, and it’s time to make America great again.

These were talking points designed to deal with the existing public record—not responses crafted to address new revelations. At the beginning of his presidential crusade, Trump would not allow his aides to prepare for that. The candidate, who now refuses to release his income taxes, did not want his own campaign scrutinizing his past. He was not willing to be transparent—not even for his own team.

Originally from:  

Trump’s Political Advisers Wanted to Vet Him. He Said No.

Posted in Casio, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Political Advisers Wanted to Vet Him. He Said No.

On Facebook, Trump’s Longtime Butler Calls for Obama to Be Killed

Mother Jones

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

Anthony Senecal, who worked as Donald Trump’s butler for 17 years before being named the in-house historian at the tycoon’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, has repeatedly published posts on his Facebook page that express profound hatred for President Barack Obama and declare he should be killed.

On Wednesday, Senecal put up a post that read:

To all my friends on FB, just a short note to you on our pus headed “president” !!!! This character who I refer to as zero (0) should have been taken out by our military and shot as an enemy agent in his first term !!!!! Instead he still remains in office doing every thing he can to gut the America we all know and love !!!!! Now comes Donald J Trump to put an end to the corruption in government !!!! The so called elite, who are nothing but common dog turds from your front lawn are shaking in their boots because there is a new Sheriff coming to town, and the end to their corruption of the American people (YOU) is at hand !!!! I cannot believe that a common murder is even allowed to run (killery clinton) OR that a commie like bernie is a also allowed to also run !!!! Come on America put your big boy pants on—this election you have a choice—GET YOUR ASS OUT AND VOTE !!!! Thank you !!!!

Though Senecal’s Facebook page is public, this message could only be read by his Facebook friends. In an interview with Mother Jones, Senecal confirms that those were his words: “I wrote that. I believe that.”

Here’s a screen shot of the missive:

A spokeswoman for the Trump campaign says, “This individual has not worked at Mar-a-Lago for many years.”

Senecal, who is 84, says he has been employed at Mar-a-Lago since about 1959. Trump acquired the property in 1985, and Senecal remained on staff. “As Trump says, I came with the furniture,” Senecal remarks. About seven years later, he became the butler for the celebrity mogul who is now the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee. In 2009, Senecal informed Trump he wanted to resign as butler, and Trump persuaded him to stay on as the in-house historian at Mar-a-Lago. There is no salary for the job, Senecal says, but he makes money leading tours of the estate.

Senecal regularly posts screeds on his Facebook page from a far-right perspective in which he decries Obama and his wife—along with Hillary Clinton, other Democrats, and Republican leaders. He often refers to Obama as “zero,” and several times he has called for the president’s execution. He confirms that he has written all the posts on the page that have appeared under his name. “It’s all me,” he says.

On April 21, 2015, Senecal railed:

Looks like that sleezey bastard zero (O) is trying to out maneuver Congress again, if the truth be known this prick needs to be hung for treason!!!

On May 23, 2015, he published a post saying:

I feel it is time for the SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION !!!!! The only way we will change this crooked government is to douche it !!!!! This might be the time with this kenyan fraud in power !!!!! …With the last breath I draw I will help rid this America of the scum infested in its government–and if that means dragging that ball less dick head from the white mosque and hanging his scrawny ass from the portico–count me in !!!!!

On June 6, 2015, one of his Facebook friends wrote a comment on Senecal’s page saying, “We need to send the seals to SOROS and ROTHCHILD and REMOVE them and their cronies–then HANG BO and most of Washington–and we’ll have a CHANCE to get things straightened out.” This person added, “everyone knows they’re CRIMINAL – HANG ALL OF THEM.” Senecal replied, “I love the idea.”

On May 26, 2015, a commenter on the page excoriated Obama and his wife, Michelle (referring to the First Lady as “Sasquatch”): “If he gets hung, then Sasquatch does too.” Senecal responded, “Amen….Two of the most DISGUSTING individuals on the face of God’s Green Earth !!!! Puke !!!!!!”

Here are screen shots of these posts:

Asked why he has posted messages calling for Obama to be killed, Senecal says, “I cannot stand the bastard.” He continues: “I don’t believe he’s an American citizen. I think he’s a fraudulent piece of crap that was brought in by the Democrats.” Trump’s historian is a birther. Senecal notes that he has been suspended in the past on Facebook for publishing material that violated the service’s guidelines.

One recurring theme in Senecal’s messages is that Obama is a secret Muslim bent on destroying the United States. On September 18, he wrote, “Our current ‘president’ is a rotten filthy muzzie !!!!! Period !!!!!! He continues his war on Christians !!!!!! …zero is against the people of America !!!!!” Months earlier, he declared of Obama, “look at the number of goat screwing muzzies he is degrading our government with !!!!!” (One of Senecal’s Facebook associates replied, “We need to LYNCH that NIG — NOW!!”) In another post that day, Senecal suggested Obama was preparing to impose martial law on the United States.

On June 6, a commenter on Senecal’s page wrote, “I will gladly fight…to get rid of the commie muzzie and his vp in the white house…and we need to get rid of his whole administration and those that support and those muzzies he has put in highly senative positions in our government.” Senecal answered, “Exactly, Ruth !!!!!”

In a June 23 message, Senecal complained, “there are to sic many fkn muzzies in America !!!!!” Two days later, he wrote on Facebook, “muzzie shits…are invading our country.”

On August 12, he published a photo of Obama with this caption: “If ALLAH HAD AN ASSHOLE IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS.” On June 18, he referred to Obama as an “unfeeling sack of camel feces.”

Senecal’s Facebook timeline is loaded with assorted extremism. A year ago, he derided Clinton: “Stop the LYING BITCH OF BENGHAZI, NOW—killery clinton !!!!!! She should be in prison awaiting hanging !!!!!!!” Last summer, Senecal posted an image comparing Obama to Hitler and Lenin. On September 11, he groused about the Iran nuclear deal and assailed “the treachery of zero, the pig ‘president’ and traitor ketchup kerry.” And Senecal has taken shots at the GOP establishment. In a September 7 post, Senecal denounced then-House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and said both were “FKN CROOKS and should be run out of D.C, on a rail and covered in hot tar.” A few months prior to that, he proclaimed, “revolt and hang all of the a-holes in Congress and the crooked government !!!!! Let’s get ‘er done !!!!!!”

Senecal often has included links to articles about various right-wing conspiracies. On September 14, he cited an article that claimed that Obama “is leading the Muslim Brotherhood.” The day before, he had linked to a story from a conservative site claiming that nearly half of Americans would support a military coup against Obama.

He has regularly published images of the Confederate flag on his Facebook page. And in a May 10, 2015, post, he exclaimed, “Call me biased, racist…call me anything you want–I could care less !!!!!” The following month, he wrote on the page that once Obama leaves office, “only a FEW Negroes and josh earnest will even remember him.”

A lengthy and flattering New York Times profile of Senecal in March noted, “Few people here can anticipate Mr. Trump’s demands and desires better than Mr. Senecal…He understands Mr. Trump’s sleeping patterns and how he likes his steak (‘It would rock on the plate, it was so well done’).” The story reported that in 1990, Senecal “took a sabbatical to become the mayor of a town in West Virginia, where he gained some notoriety for a proposal requiring all panhandlers to carry begging permits.” The article did not mention his Facebook page.

The Times did point out that “Senecal’s admiration for his longtime boss seems to know few limits.” On June 16, Senecal exclaimed on his Facebook page, “Today, my employer and friend Donald J Trump announced he was running for the Office of President of the United States… NO ONE deserves to run for and be elected to this GREAT office, than Mr. Trump. !!!!!”

Here is a roundup of screen shots from Senecal’s Facebook page:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2830634-Senecal-Facebook-Posts.js”,
width: 630,
height: 450,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2830634-Senecal-Facebook-Posts”
);

Senecal-Facebook-Posts (PDF)

Senecal-Facebook-Posts (Text)

View this article:  

On Facebook, Trump’s Longtime Butler Calls for Obama to Be Killed

Posted in alo, Anchor, bigo, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on On Facebook, Trump’s Longtime Butler Calls for Obama to Be Killed

Sanders Wins West Virginia, Keeping the Pressure on Clinton

Mother Jones

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

Bernie Sanders won the West Virginia Democratic primary on Tuesday, once again demonstrating that his campaign retains ardent support despite Hillary Clinton’s significant lead in the delegate count.

West Virginia fits the profile of a Sanders-friendly state. It’s a small and overwhelmingly white—in fact, at 93 percent white, it’s the third-whitest state in the country, according to FiveThirtyEight. Independents were permitted to vote in the Democratic primary, and Sanders has done well in contests open to independents, whereas Clinton has won most primaries restricted to Democrats.

Recent polls showed Sanders leading by an average of six points in the state. The major networks called the race with a quarter of the votes counted.

But Sanders’ win is not enough to make up ground in the delegate count. West Virginia has only 29 delegates, which will be allocated proportionally. Before Tuesday night, Clinton led Sanders by 290 in the pledged delegate count. When super-delegates are included, that lead grows by another 484 delegates. In order for Sanders to overtake Clinton, he will need many of those super-delegates to abandon Clinton and support him instead. And he’ll need to win bigger states than West Virginia, and by bigger margins.

On the Republican side, presumptive nominee Donald Trump won handily in West Virginia. Even before his last two rivals, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, left the race last week, polls in West Virginia showed the real estate mogul with a lead of more than 30 points.

Trump also easily won the Republican primary in Nebraska on Tuesday. Nebraska’s Republican governor, Pete Ricketts, recently endorsed Trump, while the state’s junior senator, Republican Ben Sasse, is among the most vocal anti-Trump members of Congress.

See the original post:

Sanders Wins West Virginia, Keeping the Pressure on Clinton

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sanders Wins West Virginia, Keeping the Pressure on Clinton

This West Virginia election is full of twists and coal money influence

This West Virginia election is full of twists and coal money influence

By on May 9, 2016Share

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In 2004, with his company facing a $50 million fraud judgment, Don Blankenship, then the CEO of coal giant Massey Energy, spent $3 million in a successful effort to elect a little-known attorney named Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia Supreme Court, where Blankenship planned to appeal the judgment. A few years later, Benjamin voted to overturn the $50 million verdict. It was such a perfect illustration of money’s corrupting influence that it inspired a John Grisham novel.

Twelve years later, Blankenship has been sentenced to a year in prison for conspiring to violate mine safety regulations in the lead-up to a deadly explosion at one of his company’s mines in 2010. But the legacy of his political activism in the state — where he poured millions of dollars into conservative candidates and causes — has not ebbed. As Benjamin runs for reelection for the first time on Tuesday, following a 12-year term, funds from Blankenship allies are again flooding the race. But this time, this outside money is working against Benjamin, whom Blankenship’s allies deem insufficiently conservative. And Benjamin, without the financial backing of the business community, has been forced to turn to the very public financing system that was established as a response to his initial Blankenship-funded election.

Benjamin’s 2004 race haunts this year’s contest. The state Supreme Court justice he challenged that year was a liberal stalwart named Warren McGraw. Blankenship anticipated he would lose his appeal unless he could change the makeup of the five-member court, so he spent about $3 million to elect McGraw’s Republican challenger, Benjamin, then a Charleston attorney. Much of that money was channeled through a nonprofit called And for the Sake of the Kids, which ran ads accusing McGraw of voting to set a child molester free. Blankenship also personally paid for ads supporting Benjamin, solicited money to help elect him, and sent out letters urging doctors to donate to Benjamin’s campaign on the grounds that he would help lower their malpractice premiums, according to court documents.

Benjamin won. When Blankenship’s case came before the state Supreme Court a few years later, Benjamin joined a 3-2 majority in support of Blankenship and Massey Energy, tossing out the $50 million judgment.

That wasn’t the end of the case. Hugh Caperton, the man who had sued Massey, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself violated his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court agreed with Caperton and sent the case back to West Virginia to be reheard with Benjamin recused. (Blankenship won again on the basis that the case should have been filed in the state of Virginia, where it is ongoing.)

Now, as he campaigns for reelection, Benjamin has found the dynamics that helped put him on the bench 12 years ago reversed. In 2004, Blankenship carried the torch for conservative causes in the state; today, Blankenship’s former personal aides continue his work to elect Republican legislators and pro-business justices. The difference is that Benjamin is no longer one of the candidates they favor.

“They’ve turned on him viciously,” says Tim Bailey, a prominent plaintiff’s lawyer who often challenges the coal companies in the state.

Operatives and allies once in Blankenship’s orbit are now actively working against Benjamin. Greg Thomas, whom Blankenship hired to run And for the Sake of the Kids, was until last year the executive director of a conservative legal advocacy group called West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA). Last summer, CALA began raising questions about Benjamin’s record, highlighting cases where Benjamin joined the more liberal justices in favor of personal-injury plaintiffs and against the interest of businesses. When a conservative lawyer named Beth Walker announced that she would challenge Benjamin last June, CALA supported her. (CALA’s current executive director, Roman Stauffer, ran Walker’s first Supreme Court campaign in 2008, which she narrowly lost.) Thomas, who is now a Republican consultant, told the Charleston Gazette-Mail last year that Blankenship spent heavily on the 2004 race in order to unseat McGraw — not because he particularly liked Benjamin.

Walker was formerly a partner at one of the state’s top corporate law firms, Bowles Rice, which frequently represents coal companies and big business. Walker’s husband, Mike Walker, is a former executive at his family’s machinery company, which was a major contractor with coal companies. Walker Machinery donated $25,000 to And for the Sake of the Kids in 2004.

Leading conservative groups have rallied around Walker, using outside spending to flood the airwaves in the final weeks before Tuesday’s election. As of May 5, the Republican State Leadership Committee, which is active in judicial elections across the country, had spent nearly $750,000 on Walker’s behalf and another $1.9 million against her opponents. The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce has spent almost $270,000 to back Walker.

“Conservative business people, who are mostly Republicans, expected that after [Benjamin] got elected that he would rule their way all the time, and he hasn’t done that,” says Anthony Majestro, a personal-injury attorney who also represents Democrats running for office. “In a couple of high-profile cases, he voted, I think the business community would say, the wrong way. I think they saw a 12-year seat up for grabs and they handpicked somebody they think will vote their way all the time.”

One case cited by CALA, the conservative legal group, as evidence that Benjamin does not deserve reelection was a 2006 decision in which Benjamin joined the majority in ruling that an injured forklift operator in Virginia had the right to sue the product distributor in West Virginia. (The only dissenting justice was photographed vacationing with Blankenship in the French Riviera the same month the case was decided.) CALA also cites a case in which Benjamin joined a 3-2 majority in finding that individuals addicted to prescription drugs could sue the pharmacies that encouraged and profited from that addiction. CALA argued that the addicts shouldn’t be able to sue because they obtained or took the drugs illegally, and CALA’s executive director wrote last November that Benjamin “decided to enable criminals and their attorneys to profit from illegal behavior.”

“CALA and the people who support them care about stopping lawsuits,” says Majestro. “And so what their problem with Justice Benjamin was, is he didn’t go far enough.”

Without the support of the business community, Benjamin turned to the state’s public financing program to fund his reelection campaign — a program that was born as a reaction to the conspicuous circumstances of his 2004 election. “From a personal standpoint,” Benjamin explained to the West Virginia radio network Metro News, “I made the decision I could not judge cases and then know that my campaign committee was going to those very same people appearing in front of me, whether they be lawyers or clients of the lawyers, and asking for money.”

But it’s not easy to qualify for public financing in West Virginia. Benjamin needed to raise at least $35,000 from a minimum of 500 individual contributors from across the state. So an unlikely group helped secure Benjamin public financing: the trial attorneys and personal-injury lawyers who go up against the coal and business interests who backed Benjamin’s 2004 election.

In 2004, Majestro helped McGraw raise money in his race against Benjamin. This year, he went to work for Benjamin. “I helped qualify him for public financing, which is among the ironies of this,” he says. Majestro says he helped Benjamin raise about $20,000 in a few days from fellow plaintiff’s attorneys.

That the plaintiff’s bar decided to help out Benjamin is a testament to his record on the bench. “Most lawyers feel that he’s conservative but very fair,” says Bob Fitzsimmons, a well-known personal-injury lawyer in Wheeling. “A lot of the stuff that went on in that whole [2004] election gives an impression that I don’t necessarily ascribe to. I always have felt that he was a really good lawyer and a good person.” Bailey says that, considering who backed Benjamin in 2004, he turned out to be “a heck of a lot more fair than we assumed.”

A group run by plaintiff’s lawyers, Just Courts for West Virginia Political Action Committee, has spent more than $200,000 on an ad attacking Walker. It invokes Blankenship’s role in the 2004 election, portraying Walker — not Benjamin — as beholden to Blankenship. “In 2004, Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship spent $3 million to elect a Supreme Court justice,” the narrator says, not mentioning that that justice was Benjamin. “Before her first campaign, Beth Walker met with Blankenship and hired his operative to run it. Now, Blankenship’s operatives and executives are funding Walker’s current campaign.” The ad concludes, “Don’t let special corporate interests buy Beth Walker a seat on our Supreme Court.”

Benjamin and Walker aren’t the only candidates in the race. In 2014, Republicans took control of the West Virginia legislature for the first time in more than 80 years and moved quickly to pass several judicial reforms. Among them, the legislature made judicial elections nonpartisan — a longtime goal for Republicans, since Democrats still outnumber them in party registration — and eliminated primaries, instead setting the election on the day of the state’s primaries. The result is a system in which a candidate can win a 12-year Supreme Court term with a plurality of the vote in a low-turnout election.

This year, there are five candidates in the race, allowing a candidate with high name recognition to come out on top over a divided field. On Jan. 30, the deadline for candidates to file, a surprise entrant upended the race: Darrell McGraw, the 79-year-old brother of former Justice Warren McGraw, whom Benjamin unseated in 2004. Darrell McGraw is well known throughout the state. He already served as a state Supreme Court justice from 1976 to 1988, and then spent 20 years as the Democratic state attorney general. The 2014 judicial reforms, intended to help elect conservative justices, may instead hand the seat to one of the state’s most prominent liberals.

McGraw took the lead in an early poll — there have not been any recent polls — and became the main target of attack ads from outside Republican groups. The presidential primary election could also pose a problem for Walker and Benjamin. The fact that Donald Trump is now the de facto Republican nominee could dampen GOP turnout, while the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is still drawing Democrats to the polls. (Trump reportedly told supporters on Thursday to stay home from the primary now that he is the presumptive nominee.) The Supreme Court hopefuls are also near the bottom of the ballots, which may run longer than 20 pages in some counties, and many voters may stop voting before they reach the end.

The number of twists and turns in this contest have made the outcome anyone’s guess. In the 12 long years since Benjamin was elected, alliances have been turned upside down, nonpartisan campaigns have replaced partisan ones, and a public financing system has emerged. But in other ways, not a lot has changed.

“If Don Blankenship drops $3 million into an election years ago with a shadow group called And for the Sake of the Kids,” says Bailey, the plaintiff’s attorney, “and [now] the Chamber and the Republican Party drop in $2 million on a nonpartisan, one-shot primary type deal, you tell me what improvement we’ve had.”

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Source: 

This West Virginia election is full of twists and coal money influence

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This West Virginia election is full of twists and coal money influence

The Super-Rich Tech Elite Is Just Fine With Big Government

Mother Jones

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

Gregory Ferenstein, in the course of arguing that super-rich donors are about equally split between Democrats and Republicans (although the Republicans donate more in absolute dollars), points out that the super rich in Silicon Valley are almost exclusively Democrats. Why?

I think the more likely explanation is that the nation’s new industrial titans are pro-government.

Google, Facebook, and most Internet titans are fueled by government projects: the Internet began in a defense department lab, public universities educate a skilled workforce and environmental policies benefit high tech green industries. The CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, is a fan of Obamacare, which helps his entrepreneurial drivers keep their health insurance as they transition between jobs.

In other words, the Democratic party is good for emerging industries and billionaires recognize it. Donald Trump is a candidate known to go after major figures in tech; a trend that may further the Democrats friendship with new industrial titans.

Perhaps more importantly, I’ve argued that the modern emerging workforce of Silicon Valley, urbanized professionals, and “gig economy” laborers all represent an entirely new political demographic redefining the Democratic party to be more about education, research and entrepreneurship, and less about regulations and labor unions.

There’s something to this, but I suspect culture has a lot more to do with it. Most of these folks have spent their lives marinating in social liberalism, and being situated in the Bay Area just adds to that. So they start out with a visceral loathing of conservative social policies that pushes them in the direction of the Democratic Party. From there, tribalism does most of the additional work: once you’ve chosen a team, you tend to adopt all of the team’s views.

Beyond that, yes, I imagine that tech zillionaires are more than normally aware of how much they rely on government: for basic research, for standards setting, for regulation that protects them from getting crushed by old-school dinosaurs, and so forth. And let’s be honest: most of the really rich ones have their wealth tied up almost entirely in capital gains, which doesn’t get taxed much anyway. So endorsing candidates who happen to favor higher tax rates on ordinary income (which they probably won’t get anyway) doesn’t really cost them much.

For most folks in Silicon Valley, even the super rich, there’s very little personal cost to supporting Democrats. Combine that with an almost instinctive revulsion at both troglodyte Republican policies and the Fox News base of the party, and there just aren’t going to be many Republican supporters in this crowd.

Link: 

The Super-Rich Tech Elite Is Just Fine With Big Government

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Super-Rich Tech Elite Is Just Fine With Big Government

Democrats Have a Class Gap. Republicans Have a Generation Gap.

Mother Jones

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

What are the big fault lines within the Democratic and Republican parties? According to a recent Pew report, Democrats have a class gap: Democratic elites are far more liberal than less educated members of the party. But there’s not much of a generation gap: old and young voters are pretty similar ideologically.

Among Republicans, it’s just the opposite. They have a huge generation gap, with older voters skewing much more conservative than younger voters. But there’s no class gap: their elites are in pretty close sync with the party base. The raw data is here, and the chart below shows the magnitude of the difference:

This is interesting, since the most talked-about aspect of the Democratic primary was the astonishingly strong preference of young voters for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. But why did they prefer Bernie? The obvious answer is that they’re more liberal than older Democrats and therefore preferred his more radical vision—but the Pew data says that’s not the case.

So what is the answer? The age gap could still explain a bit of it, since young Democrats are a little more liberal than older Democrats. And the class gap could also explain a bit of it, since Bernie voters tend to be both young and well educated. But even put together, this doesn’t seem like enough.

Obviously there was something about Bernie that generated huge enthusiasm among younger voters. But if it wasn’t ideology, what was it?

Originally posted here: 

Democrats Have a Class Gap. Republicans Have a Generation Gap.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Democrats Have a Class Gap. Republicans Have a Generation Gap.

Everyone Knows Why Hillary Clinton Won’t Release Her Goldman Sachs Speeches

Mother Jones

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

John Judis says he’s worried about Hillary Clinton again:

I don’t understand why she can’t put the Goldman, Sachs question behind her. I initially assumed that she either didn’t have transcripts or that what she said was the usual milquetoast stuff politicians offer up. But her continued refusal to provide transcripts (which I now assume must exist) suggests that there must be something damning in them.

If she gets the nomination, she’ll face these questions again in the fall, and if Trump or Cruz is her opponent, these questions will detract from the attention that their past utterances about Mexican rapists or masturbation or whathaveyou.

For what it’s worth, I think we all know what’s in those transcripts: a bit of routine praise for the yeoman work that investment bankers do to keep the gears of the economy well oiled. Maybe something like this:

These are tough times for investment bankers. I think Goldman Sachs is the only organization with a lower approval rating than Congress audience laughs politely between bites of prime rib. But seriously, folks, Main Street and Wall Street need each other. Bankers aren’t villains. I support higher leverage requirements and regulation of derivatives audience stares moodily at their forks, but I’ve always said that we need to do it in a practical way. Some of the financial engineering that’s come under such attack from the Bernie Sanders of the world audience brightens is just what our country needs. It helps states build roads and cities build schools. You’re the villains when things go bad—and maybe sometimes you deserve to be. But other times you’re the heroes America can’t do without.

This is the kind of thing that people say when they give a speech. But in the hands of a political opponent, it will come out like this:

Bankers aren’t villains….The financial engineering that’s come under such attack from the Bernie Sanders of the world is just what our country needs. It helps states build roads and cities build schools….You’re the heroes America can’t do without.

Something like that, anyway. My own guess is that it’s vanishingly unlikely Hillary said anything in these speeches that’s truly a bombshell. Her entire life suggests the kind of caution and experience with leaks that almost certainly made these speeches dull and predictable. But the Goldman folks knew all that up front. They just wanted the cachet of having a Clinton address their dinner.

Still, when you give speeches to any industry group, you offer up some praise for the vital work they do. It’s just part of the spiel. And Hillary knows perfectly well without even looking that some of that stuff is in these speeches—and it can be taken out of context and made into yet another endless and idiotic Republican meme. Remember “You didn’t build that”? Sure you do.

On another note, if Hillary does release the transcripts, she’s sure not going to do it now. She’ll wait until she has the nomination wrapped up and then release them during the dog days of May or June. If possible, she’ll do it the same day Donald Trump blows up the news cycle again. By that time, Democrats will all be circling the wagons to defend her and the entire foofarah will be dead by the time the real campaign starts in September.

As for the odds of a genuine bombshell, I’d put it at about 1 percent. I guess you never know about these things, but literally everything in Hillary’s 40-year political career suggests a woman who simply doesn’t traffic in bombshells. It’s not in her personality, and in any case, long experience has taught her better. It’s only barely conceivable that something genuinely damning is anywhere in any of those speeches.

View article – 

Everyone Knows Why Hillary Clinton Won’t Release Her Goldman Sachs Speeches

Posted in Anker, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Everyone Knows Why Hillary Clinton Won’t Release Her Goldman Sachs Speeches