Tag Archives: republican

Did Ted Cruz Leak Classified Information? Then So Did a Former NSA Chief.

Mother Jones

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

A testy exchange between Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz at Tuesday’s Republican debate turned on Wednesday into a question of whether Cruz accidentally leaked classified information in public. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters on Wednesday that his office was looking into whether Cruz had revealed any secrets as he defended his yes vote on a National Security Agency reform bill earlier this year.

Neither Burr nor his office specified what information Cruz may have revealed, but it’s widely believed to be Cruz’s claim that the USA Freedom Act, an NSA reform bill passed in May, would actually expand the reach of intelligence. Whether or not the information is classified, however, it was already known to the public, thanks to government officials including Michael Hayden, the retired Air Force general who ran both the CIA and the NSA during his career.

Rubio attacked Cruz for voting for USA Freedom, which ended the NSA’s mass collection of phone records and replaced it with a system that requires the NSA to get a federal judge’s approval to get data from phone companies. Cruz responded that the new system would actually make more records open to the NSA. “The old program covered 20 percent to 30 percent of phone numbers to search for terrorists,” he said. “The new program covers nearly 100 percent.”

That lines up with what Hayden said during an appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation on March 30, 2014, when Hayden appeared on the show with former CIA deputy director Michael Morell and others to discuss national security issues. Morell was a member of a panel convened in 2013 by President Barack Obama to review intelligence collection, and that group recommended the end of bulk metadata collection in favor of the new system. Hayden agreed with the move for the same reasons Cruz gave. “Over time, the percentage of overall billing records the NSA was retrieving got smaller and smaller,” he told host Bob Schieffer. “Michael Morell’s panel pointed out that they’re only getting about a third, if that, just because of changes in technology. The NSA gets to query the data…in an exhaustive way, not that one-third they’ve formerly gotten.”

The Washington Post cited unnamed US government officials in an article in February 2014 who made the same claim of a 30 percent collection rate as Cruz, noting that “the government is taking steps to restore the collection—which does not include the content of conversations—closer to previous levels.”

The information may still be classified: Making a secret public doesn’t change its classified status as far as the government is concerned. But if Cruz supposedly put national security at risk over his comments last night, he was far from the first to do so.

Update, 12/16/15, 4:55 pm: Sens. Burr and Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday afternoon that “the Committee is not investigating anything said during last night’s Republican Presidential debate.”

Originally posted here:  

Did Ted Cruz Leak Classified Information? Then So Did a Former NSA Chief.

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did Ted Cruz Leak Classified Information? Then So Did a Former NSA Chief.

If CNN Asks the GOP Contenders This Question Tonight, It Will Make Them Squirm

Mother Jones

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

At CNBC’s Republican presidential debate in October, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie lashed out at the moderators after they asked a question about whether daily fantasy sports—a growing and lucrative industry—should be considered a form of gambling and regulated by the government. “Are we really talking about getting the government involved in fantasy football?” he bellowed. “We have $19 trillion in debt, we have people out of work, we have ISIS and Al Qaeda attacking us, and we’re talking about fantasy football? Can we stop? How about this? How about we get the government to do what they’re supposed to be doing: secure our borders, protect our people and support American values and American families. Enough on fantasy football. People play, who cares?”

The rant garnered applause, but it’s likely that Christie won’t be engaging in similar theatrics tonight if the topic of online gambling comes up. That’s because GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson will be sitting front and center at the debate, which will be held in the billionaire’s Las Vegas casino. A fierce opponent of online gambling, Adelson has said he will spend “whatever it takes” to ban it.

So far, the question of whether daily fantasy sports qualify as online gambling has not been definitely settled, and none of the current attempts to regulate online gambling have directly addressed daily fantasy sports. But if it is deemed a form of gambling, it would seem to be a likely target for opponents of online gambling.

In 2012, Adelson and his wife, Miriam, spent at least $92 million backing Republican candidates, and they are widely expected channel the same amount into this election. But the Adelsons have yet to throw their weight behind a GOP contender—which means that what the candidates do or don’t say could be a deciding factor on whether they win the “Adelson primary.” Along with online gambling, the candidates will likely face questions on several other pet Adelson topics—drug legalization, for instance, which Adelson opposes but which several GOP candidates have said should be left up to each state.

Continue Reading »

See the article here: 

If CNN Asks the GOP Contenders This Question Tonight, It Will Make Them Squirm

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on If CNN Asks the GOP Contenders This Question Tonight, It Will Make Them Squirm

Why Is the Press Corps So Smitten With Donald Trump?

Mother Jones

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

Jack Shafer is unhappy about calls to stop giving Donald Trump the attention he so obviously craves:

Ever since Donald Trump appeared on Campaign 2016’s horizon, journalists have been imploring other journalists not to cover him….The logic behind the Trump blackout proposals vary, but usually boils down to this: Any attention given to his retrograde “ideas” only end up giving his candidacy additional velocity. But just because Trump is a potential menace to society…why does that mean TV should give him the blind eye? The more hateful and demagogic a politician the more you should cover him, right?

….The working premise behind the Trump ban seems to be that journalists should avoid stories that have a potential to make things “worse” (i.e., increase Trump support) and instead produce stories that have a potential to make things “better” (i.e., a decrease in Trump support). But a journalist’s primary duty isn’t to produce stories that push history in the “correct” direction—whatever that is—or to self-censor anything that might possibly encourage a “bad” outcome. Sometimes newsgathering stimulates a happy result, but it’s not the only way to judge the worthiness of a story.

In order to write this piece, Shafer needed someone to call for a ban on Trump coverage. And finally, a few days ago, someone did: former CNN anchor Campbell Brown wrote a piece suggesting a one-week boycott of Trump coverage. To my ears, Brown’s proposal sounded a bit Swiftian, but no matter. It gave Shafer the chance to write an easy column making the obvious case against banning Trump.

But why write an easy column? Why not wrestle with the real issue: the fantastic overcoverage of Trump on cable news? I doubt that any candidate in history running in a genuinely contested primary has gotten the kind of lopsided coverage Trump has. In the past month, he’s gotten more coverage than every other Republican candidate combined. In the past week, he’s gotten an astonishing 3x the coverage of every other candidate combined. Forget about whether this is good for America. Doesn’t it demonstrate some seriously flawed news judgment within the press corps? As though news outlets are more interested in sensationalism and ratings than in reporting what’s genuinely newsworthy? That’s debatable, for sure, but it’s exactly the kind of debate a press critic should weigh in on.

But Shafer cavalierly waves this off: “The notion that the press has dreadfully overcovered or tragically undercovered a topic is the idiot’s version of press criticism. No perfect dose of journalism can be prescribed for every subject. But if you still think that the TV news operations are overcovering Donald Trump, I have a simple suggestion. Unplug your television instead of asking the news channels to turn off their cameras.”

Well, then, call me an idiot. Shafer is right that partisans routinely think their guy is undercovered and the other side’s guy is overcovered. In this case, though, the evidence is overwhelming that Trump is getting vastly more coverage than any serious assessment of his news value justifies. And turning off my TV doesn’t change this, any more than turning off my TV will end poverty or put ISIS out of business.

Shafer is too sharp to waste his time on straw men. Instead, how about a look at why the press corps is so smitten with Trump? Is it because he’s a godsend for campaign reporters who love easy stories that save them from having to dive into tedious stuff like taxes and abortion and all the other chestnuts we argue fruitlessly about every four years? Is it because news directors crave ratings far more than news value? Or is it because Donald Trump somehow justifies the coverage he’s getting? If so, let’s hear the argument. I don’t know if this is likely to win the morning or not, but now that we’ve reached the point where Trump is getting 75 percent of all cable news coverage, isn’t it a question worth asking?

View the original here: 

Why Is the Press Corps So Smitten With Donald Trump?

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Is the Press Corps So Smitten With Donald Trump?

Did a Republican Megadonor Just Secretly Buy Nevada’s Biggest Newspaper?

Mother Jones

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

Conventional wisdom holds that you do not want to buy a newspaper because newspapers are terrible investments. Yet late last week, someone did buy the largest newspaper in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and paid a premium for it. Even stranger, nobody knows who it was, and the new owners seem to be actively working to keep it that way.

The sale has created a controversy because, while there is no rule requiring a newspaper to disclose its owners, the Journal-Review will be, by far, the largest newspaper in America whose owners are secret. The intrigue is not just journalistic: For a well-heeled person interested in influencing an election, owning the largest paper in the state that in a few short months will hold one of the first nominating events of the primary season (third for Democrats and fourth for Republicans) is a good place to start.

Continue Reading »

View this article: 

Did a Republican Megadonor Just Secretly Buy Nevada’s Biggest Newspaper?

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did a Republican Megadonor Just Secretly Buy Nevada’s Biggest Newspaper?

Trump Blames Obama for His Hair Problems

Mother Jones

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

Donald Trump’s hair is not as clean as he would like, and he says it’s the president’s fault.

At a campaign event in Aiken, South Carolina, the Republican presidential front-runner was asked about the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Waters of the United States” rule, issued earlier this year. That regulation “clarifies the scope” of the kinds of bodies of water—wetlands, waterways, streams, lakes—that should be protected under the Clean Water Act. Trump expressed his displeasure at the rule, which he says has interrupted his ability to lather, rinse, and repeat.

“So I build, and I build a lot of stuff,” Trump said. “And I go into areas where they have tremendous water…And you have sinks where the water doesn’t come out. You have showers where I can’t wash my hair properly. It’s a disaster.”

The rule does not introduce any new regulations or regulatory requirements, but rather specifies the bodies of water in the United States covered under the Clean Water, which was introduced in the 1940s and then reorganized and expanded to its current form in 1972. It is unclear whether Trump’s hair-washing problems stretch back that far.

Link:

Trump Blames Obama for His Hair Problems

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Blames Obama for His Hair Problems

Obama: Paris Climate Agreement Could Be a "Turning Point For the World"

Mother Jones

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

More than seven years ago, Barack Obama told campaign supporters that one day, Americans would be able to tell their children that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Saturday* evening—just hours after international leaders agreed to a historic deal to fight global warming—Obama told the nation that the accord could represent “a turning point for the world” and would help humanity “delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change.”

“We may not live to see the full realization of our achievement, but that’s OK,” Obama said. “What matters is that today we can be more confident that this planet will be in better shape for the next generation.” You can watch Obama’s remarks above.

The deal, known as the Paris Agreement, includes commitments from countries around the world to reduce their emissions and pledges from high-polluting, developed nations help help poorer countries transition to clean energy and adapt to climate change. You can read more about the details of the agreement here.

Obama portrayed the hard-won deal as a product of American leadership. He said that the joint plan to control emissions that he and China’s President Xi Jinping announced last year inspired other countries to make ambitious climate commitments. “Over the past seven years,” Obama said, “we’ve transformed the United States into the global leader in fighting climate change.”

Obama also took a shot at his Republican critics, who have bitterly opposed his regulations on power plant emission and his other climate policies. “Skeptics said these actions would kill jobs,” said Obama. “Instead, we’ve seen the longest streak of private-sector job creation in our history.”

Still, Obama acknowledged that the Paris Agreement is far from sufficient to end the dangers posed by climate change. Negotiators pledged to limit warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. They also agreed and to “pursue efforts” to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

However, all of the emissions cuts promised by countries thus far won’t come anywhere close to meeting those goals. Scientists estimate that these commitments would put the planet on course for 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming—and that’s only if countries actually follow through on them.

“The problem’s not solved because of this accord,” said Obama. “But make no mistake, the Paris Agreement establishes the enduring framework the world needs to solve the climate crisis.”

* Day corrected

Original source – 

Obama: Paris Climate Agreement Could Be a "Turning Point For the World"

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama: Paris Climate Agreement Could Be a "Turning Point For the World"

Breaking: World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

Mother Jones

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

There was relief and celebration in Paris Saturday evening, as officials from more than 190 countries swept aside monumental differences and agreed to an unprecedented global deal to tackle climate change.

The historic accord, known as the Paris Agreement, includes emissions-slashing commitments from individual countries and promises to help poorer nations adapt to the damaging effects of a warming world. Negotiators also agreed on measures to revise, strengthen, and scrutinize countries’ contributions going forward.

“This is a tremendous victory for all our citizens,” said Secretary of State John Kerry during the final session of the summit. “It’s a victory for all of the planet and for future generations.”

However, the deal leaves some key decisions to the future, and it is widely recognized as not representing an ultimate solution to climate change. Instead, it sets out the rules of the road for the next 10 to 15 years and establishes an unprecedented international legal basis for addressing climate issues. Within the agreement, nearly every country on Earth laid out its own plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change impacts. Although those individual plans are not legally binding, the core agreement itself is.

The deal sets a long-term goal of keeping the increase in the global temperature to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels and calls on countries to “pursue efforts” to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees C. It adds that “parties aim to reach a global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who has served as chair of the two-week summit, said the deal is the most ambitious step ever taken by the international community to confront climate change.

In announcing the deal, President Barack Obama clinched a major foreign policy success years in the making and secured long-term action on climate change as a core part of his legacy, despite extraordinary opposition at home from the Republican majority in Congress. During the second week of the talks in Paris, Kerry was a driving force, delivering several high-profile speeches in which he sought to cast the United States as a leader on climate action. For Kerry, who has been a prominent voice in climate summits for two decades, it was essential to craft a deal to which the United States could agree and not to return home empty-handed.

The deal signals that world leaders are now committed to responding to the dire scientific warnings about the impacts of warming. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and other human activities are threatening to usher in an era of rising sea levels, sinking islands, scorching heat waves, devastating droughts, mass human migration, and destruction of ecosystems.

Among the deal’s biggest successes is a commitment to produce a global review of climate progress by 2018 and to bring countries back to the negotiating table by 2020 to present climate targets that “will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then-current” target. In other words, countries are committed to ramping up their ambition in the short term. This was an essential item for many people here, since the current raft of targets only keeps global warming to 2.7 degrees C, not 1.5 degrees. The deal also promises to hold every country accountable to the same standard of transparency in measuring and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions; this was a provision that the United States had pushed hard for in order to ensure that other big polluters such as China and India abide by their promises.

“Countries have united around a historic agreement that marks a turning point in the climate crisis,” said Jennifer Morgan, global director of the climate program at the World Resources Institute. “This is a transformational long-term goal that should really send clear signals into the markets” about the imminent decline of fossil fuel consumption.

The deal is expected to be a boon for the clean energy industry, as developing and developed countries alike increase their investments in wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. Early in the talks, a high-profile group of billionaire investors, including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, promised to pour money into clean energy research, and a critical component of the agreement is a commitment for developed countries to transfer clean technologies to developing countries.

“If we needed an economic signal from this agreement, I think this is rather remarkable,” said Michael Jacobs, a senior advisor at New Climate Economy.

Still, parts of the deal left some environmental groups unsatisfied, particularly with respect to financing for clean energy technology and climate change adaptation. The deal requires all developed countries to “provide financial assistance to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation.” Although the deal sets a floor of $100 billion for that assistance and calls for that number to be raised by 2025, it doesn’t specify a new higher target and does not commit any country, including the United States, to any particular share of that. The deal also specifies that nothing in it can be construed as holding countries with the biggest historical contribution to climate change—most importantly the United States—legally or financially liable for climate-change-related damages in vulnerable countries. And it provides no specific timeline for peaking and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions; according to some scientists, that will need to happen within the next few decades for the 1.5 degrees C target to be achievable.

“There’s not enough in this deal for the nations and people on the frontlines of climate change,” said Kumi Naidoo, international executive director of Greenpeace, in a statement. “It contains an inherent, ingrained injustice. The nations which caused this problem have promised too little help to the people who are already losing their lives and livelihoods.”

The task of delegates at Le Bourget, a converted airport north of Paris, over the past two weeks was substantial. After all, more than two decades of UN-led climate talks had failed to produce a global deal to limit greenhouse gases. The Copenhagen talks in 2009 collapsed because officials couldn’t agree on how to level the playing field between rich and poor countries, sending negotiations into a morass of recriminations. Before that, the Kyoto protocol in 1997 also failed—the United States and China didn’t ratify it, and it only covered about 14 percent of global carbon emissions. This year’s negotiations, the 21st in the series of UN climate talks, had to be different.

One of the major reasons negotiators were able to reach a deal was that much of the work had been done in advance. By the time Paris rolled around, more than 150 countries had promised to change the way they use energy, detailing those changes in the form of individual commitments. Known as INDCs, these pledges formed the basis of Saturday’s deal. Of course, the INDCs won’t be legally binding, and even if most countries do manage to live up to their promises, they aren’t yet ambitious enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming.

The latest estimate is that the INDCs will limit global warming to about 2.7 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. That’s above the limit of 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) that scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts of global warming—and far above the 1.5 degrees C target that negotiators in Paris agreed to aim for. But it’s also about 1 degree C less warming than would happen if the world continued on its present course.

The Paris summit began as the largest meeting of government leaders in history (outside the UN building in New York) just two weeks after ISIS-affiliated terrorists killed 130 people across the city. While French officials immediately promised the talks would continue, they soon banned long-planned, massive climate protests, citing security concerns. That decision set the stage for several skirmishes between police and protesters, who remained committed to disrupting the talks in order to highlight issues such as sponsorship from big oil companies and the plight of poorer countries. At one protest, an estimated 10,000 people formed a human chain in the Place de la République, the site of a spontaneous memorial to the victims of the Paris attacks. There were scores of arrests.

But the climate talks themselves went ahead as planned. Some 40,000 heads of state, diplomats, scientists, activists, policy experts, and journalists descended on the French capital for the event. Perhaps the biggest factor driving the negotiators’ unprecedented optimism was the fact that the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, and the world’s two biggest economies—the United States and China—had made a public show of working together to get an agreement. A landmark climate deal between the two countries in November 2014 built critical momentum. China later promised to create a national cap-and-trade program to augment a suite of emissions control policies. The Obama administration, meanwhile, pushed through its Clean Power Plan regulations, despite aggressive resistance from Republicans. Still, as the talks neared their conclusion on Friday, tensions were rising between the so-called “High Ambition Coalition”—a negotiating bloc including the United States, the European Union, and dozens of developing countries—and China and India.

Nevertheless, a rare alliance between world leaders ultimately prevailed: Pope Francis, for one, campaigned tirelessly for a climate deal ahead of the talks, decrying the “unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem.”

All of this cleared the way for large groups of developed and developing countries to cooperate at the talks. Bigger countries appeared ready to work with the 43-country-strong negotiating bloc of highly vulnerable developing nations. Recent changes of leadership in Canada and Australia, notable adversaries of climate action in recent years, switched these mid-sized players into fans of a deal before the talks. Even Russia’s Vladimir Putin seemed to have an eleventh-hour change of heart—or, at least, of rhetoric—and called for action.

Read the final draft of the agreement below.

More details to follow.

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2646012-The-Paris-Agreement.js”,
width: 630,
height: 630,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2646012-The-Paris-Agreement”
);

The-Paris-Agreement (PDF)

The-Paris-Agreement (Text)

Excerpt from: 

Breaking: World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, Landmark, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Breaking: World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

Republican Voters Like What Donald Trump Is Selling

Mother Jones

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

Why is Donald Trump not paying a price for his increasingly unhinged rhetoric? Two recent polls tell the story.

At the top is a Bloomberg poll that asks if you agree with Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the country. Less than a quarter of Republicans oppose it. At the bottom is an MSNBC poll that asks what kind of person Trump is. Only a quarter of Republicans think he’s insulting and offensive. These aren’t polls of tea partiers. They aren’t polls just of conservative states. These are polls of all Republicans in the nation. By a very wide margin, ordinary Republican voters think the stuff Trump is saying sounds great. Only about a quarter don’t like what they’re hearing.

I don’t really know what to say about this. On 9/11, nineteen Muslim terrorists killed 3,000 Americans and destroyed two skyscrapers. There was an enormous thirst for revenge, and eventually George Bush used this to send us to war in Iraq. But even at the height of the fear, there was never any call to ban Muslim immigration.

This year, 14 people are killed by a couple of deranged Muslims with no real ties to international terrorism, and two-thirds of Republicans are in favor of banning all Muslims from the country. So what’s happened over the past decade? Multiple things, I suppose. This is an election year, and 2001 wasn’t. In addition to the San Bernardino shooting, there have been several overseas attacks and a huge tide of refugees coming from Syria. Republican voters have been driven crazy by Barack Obama, who they’ve been told repeatedly is all but a Muslim mole. Finally, in 2001 a Republican president spoke pretty firmly against anti-Muslim bigotry. No one on the Republican side is doing that now.

And of course, there’s Donald Trump. Is he cause or effect? A bit of both, I think. In any case, it’s increasingly clear why Trump isn’t paying a price for what he says: It’s because most Republicans like it.

UPDATE: I’m not trying to drive you all into despair for the country. Honest, I’m not. But here’s another one:

View this article:  

Republican Voters Like What Donald Trump Is Selling

Posted in alo, bigo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republican Voters Like What Donald Trump Is Selling

Jeb Bush’s Tax Plan Will…Um…Oh, Who Cares, Really?

Mother Jones

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

In 2012 the Tax Policy Center scored most of the Republican tax plans, but this year they’ve sat on the sidelines. I suppose this is partly because the plans generally don’t have enough detail to be seriously evaluated, and partly because they got tired of wasting time on tax plans that are meant more as affinity statements than as actual financial documents. I mean, what’s the point of a bunch of guys with PhDs playing the role of pro wrestling referee in a tired game of “can you top this?”

For some reason, though, they’ve gone ahead and evaluated Jeb Bush’s tax plan. Their results are the usual ones from the party of fiscal prudence: Bush’s plan would increase the national debt from 78 percent of GDP to 106 percent within ten years; it would increase the federal deficit by about a trillion dollars; and it would benefit the rich far more than the poor. In other words, it’s the same as every other Republican tax plan. A few of the details change a bit from candidate to candidate, as do the specific numbers, but that’s about all

So does this matter? I go back and forth on this. Dylan Matthews says it does because the other campaigns haven’t provided enough detail for TPC to complete an analysis of their plans:

In the worst case, in which TPC never gets the details it needs for Rubio and Trump’s plans (or Ted Cruz’s very different plan), the Bush analysis becomes hugely valuable. It gives us a glimpse of what Rubio and Trump’s TPC scores would look like. It indicates that the plans are likely to be very, very expensive, with benefits concentrated at the top.

I don’t buy this. Everyone who’s not a paid shill for the Republican Party already knows it. The only difference is that reporters now have a well-respected analysis they can use to badger the Bush campaign, but they don’t have one for the others. So Bush will get more heat and the others will benefit from being smart enough not to cooperate with TPC.

Beyond that, does anyone care about these plans anymore? They’ve gotten so ridiculous that it’s hard to believe that even the candidates still take them seriously, let alone anyone else. They’re basically just a highly ritualized way of indicating that candidates subscribe to the approved catechism. The message is “I hate taxes, especially on the wealthy,” and the details are unimportant. As long as your tax cut is sufficiently large, you’re in.

TPC says they’d like to evaluate other tax plans, but I’d suggest they not bother. It’s a kabuki show long past its prime, and they must have better things to spend their time on.

Visit source:  

Jeb Bush’s Tax Plan Will…Um…Oh, Who Cares, Really?

Posted in alo, Badger, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jeb Bush’s Tax Plan Will…Um…Oh, Who Cares, Really?

Jeb Bush Pays a Price for Failing to Register JebBush.com

Mother Jones

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

Jeb Bush has a web problem. The Republican presidential candidate has been using Jeb2016.com as his main campaign website. But as the Daily Caller noticed on Monday, visitors to a more intuitive URL for the Bush campaign will find themselves at a rival’s site.

If you type JebBush.com into your web browser, it’ll automatically redirect you to DonaldJTrump.com, the official website for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. It’s unclear whether this fun bit of trolling comes from the Trump campaign itself, or just an overzealous fan of The Donald.

Last year I dug into how the huge crop of Republican presidential hopefuls had been slacking when it came to the all-important task of locking down domain names before opponents could snap them up. (If you doubt the significance of staking out your web presence as a presidential candidate, I point you to one Santorum, Rick.) Here’s what I found for Bush’s web savvy last May:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is also in rough shape should he decide to run in 2016. His logical campaign web address would be JebBush.com, but that website is currently blank. It’s registered anonymously, so perhaps someone in Jeb’s orbit owns the domain. But the last time it showed up on the Wayback Machine was in March 2008, when the domain automatically redirected to jeb-bush.blogspot.com. That website clearly has no relationship to the former Florida governor. An author going by the name Ryan Braun (possibly a fan of the Milwaukee Brewers outfielder?) writes bizarre parody stories. It hasn’t been updated since February 2012, but back then blogger Braun was writing posts such as “President Obama Plans on Plying Republicans with Liquor to Get Budget Passed” and “Mitt Romney Camp Hires Renowned Chuckle Coach.”

JebBush2016.com is currently sitting unused and has been registered to a New Yorker named Benny Thottam, who had an impressive amount of foresight. “In 2007 I thought of Jeb Bush being a solid candidate for 2016 election,” he told Mother Jones by email. “I do hope that he will run and I am very open about voting for him.”

Thottam doesn’t seem to have ever worked things out with the official Bush campaign, since JebBush2016.com is currently just a blank placeholder GoDaddy page. As for JebBush.com, that old blogger likely turned parody stories into a large profit. Earlier this year, CNN reported that the domain was up for sale at a $250,000 price tag. That must have been too yuuuge a cost for Bush.

See more here – 

Jeb Bush Pays a Price for Failing to Register JebBush.com

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jeb Bush Pays a Price for Failing to Register JebBush.com