Tag Archives: republican

Hillary Wants a Piece of the Elizabeth Warren Love Fest

Mother Jones

Hillary Clinton desperately wants liberals to redirect their adoration of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) toward her presidential campaign.

Since the official launch of her 2016 run earlier this month, Clinton has done everything she can to cozy up to Warren and publicly channel the spirit of the Massachusetts senator. Clinton has bemoaned hedge funders paying lower tax rates and called out CEOs for earning outsize paychecks. She penned a fawning blurb about Warren for Time‘s list of the world’s 100 most influential people. “Elizabeth Warren never lets us forget that the work of taming Wall Street’s irresponsible risk taking and reforming our financial system is far from finished,” Clinton wrote. “And she never hesitates to hold powerful people’s feet to the fire: bankers, lobbyists, senior government officials and, yes, even presidential aspirants.”

Beyond this broad political rhetoric, Clinton so far has been unwilling to reveal where exactly her views align with Warren’s. She launched her campaign by traveling to Iowa and New Hampshire for a “listening tour” of sorts, with detailed ideas promised to come later in the year. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign declined to say if Hillary Clinton would support a list of specific ideas proposed by Warren, such as breaking up big banks and imposing new taxes on financial transactions.

“As Hillary Clinton said last week, Elizabeth Warren is a champion of working families and scourge of special interests,” Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson said in a statement to Mother Jones. “The campaign is only two weeks old and we will be detailing our policy agenda after our ramp up period ends this summer but Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton share a record of and a commitment to fighting for everyday Americans and their families.”

Continue Reading »

View post:  

Hillary Wants a Piece of the Elizabeth Warren Love Fest

Posted in Anchor, Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Wants a Piece of the Elizabeth Warren Love Fest

Who’s Tired Of Politics?

Mother Jones

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

Yesterday lifelong political junkie George Packer reluctantly confessed something: “It might not be wise for a sometime political journalist to admit this, but the 2016 campaign doesn’t seem like fun to me.”

Ed Kilgore and Dylan Byers both took issue with this. In a nutshell, Kilgore thinks 2016 will be a fairly consequential election and the horse race will be fairly unpredictable, while Byers thinks the horse race will have as many twists and turns as usual. Lots of fun for everyone!

I’m a bit of an odd duck on this subject: a daily blogger and political junkie who has only a slight interest in the campaigns themselves. I have some interest, and I usually end up writing plenty of campaign posts, but it mostly seems like uninteresting kabuki to me. Candidates are so thoroughly media trained these days that you mostly know what they’re going to say before they open their mouths. “Gaffes” are seldom more than slightly ambiguous extemporaneous constructions that the media plays along with either out of boredom or a desire to seem like they’re not playing favorites. All the marketing minutiae of ad buys and demos and GOTV innovations is interesting in an academic sense, but it hardly seems to matter much in the face of overwhelming evidence that a few basic fundamentals decide the race months before Election Day. And the tired and almost childish obsession of the press corps with dumb adherence to narratives and personalities is enough to make any serious reader scream.

But these aren’t really Packer’s main beefs with presidential campaigns. This is:

The reason is the stuckness of American politics. Especially in the years after 2008, the worst tendencies of American politics only hardened, while remaining in the same place. Beneath the surface froth and churn, we are paralyzed. You can sense it as soon as you step out of the train at Union Station in Washington, the instant you click on a Politico article about a candidates’ forum in Iowa: miasma settles over your central nervous system and you start to go numb. What has happened is that the same things keep happening. The tidal wave of money keeps happening, the trivialization of coverage keeps happening, the extremism of the Republican Party keeps happening (Ted Cruz: abolish the I.R.S.; Rand Paul: the Common Core is “un-American”). The issues remain huge and urgent: inequality, global warming, immigration, poorly educated children, American decline, radical Islamism. But the language of politics stays the same, and it is a dead language. The notion that answers will come from Washington or the campaign trail is beyond far-fetched.

This is it, and it’s a common complaint. Both parties are stuck in the same sound bites; neither is willing to seriously compromise; and given the structure of the US government it’s vanishingly unlikely that either party can get much of anything done. Tax policy can be changed via reconciliation, and Barack Obama had a short window where he got some things done via a huge Democratic majority in the Senate. Neither party is likely to replicate that in the near future. Likewise, for all the sound and fury, the differences between mainstream Democratic and Republican foreign policy have become pretty narrow since George Bush’s Iraq debacle.

As Packer says, American politics is stuck. It’s paralyzed. Exhibit 1: We’ve just witnessed a historically unprecedented delay in confirming an Attorney General that everyone agrees is eminently qualified. Why? Because of a bit of clever Republican gameplaying over an abortion clause that was fundamentally trivial but great red meat for the base. When the Democratic base finally cottoned on to the game, they went predictably ballistic and everything stalled. It was all just dumb kabuki: gameplaying from Republicans, predictable outrage from Democrats, and all over a long accepted principle that bans federal funding of abortion. Two months of gridlock over trivial symbolism. And why not? Everyone knows there was nothing important that had any chance of getting done anyway.

So yeah: unless you’re a horse race junkie by nature, it’s pretty hard to get excited by the horse race when it has almost no chance of changing things except on the margins. This will change eventually, but probably no time soon.

View this article: 

Who’s Tired Of Politics?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who’s Tired Of Politics?

Obama Has a Plan to Expand Medicaid in Red States—by Weakening It

Mother Jones

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

One of the Affordable Care Act’s major provisions sought to expand the number of people covered by Medicaid by allowing people earning up to 138 percent of the poverty line to enroll.

But in many parts of the country, it hasn’t worked out that way. Individual states are largely responsible for running Medicaid, and despite the act’s generous terms—the federal government promised to initially cover 100 percent of the cost, then 90 percent after 2016—only 29 states have taken the deal. Of the holdouts, most are conservative states with Republican governors where Obama is unpopular.

Some red states have been coming around, lured by of the enormous infusion of federal funds they’ll receive by expanding Medicaid. And without participating, states soon stand to lose billions in other payments designed to compensate hospitals for care for the uninsured. (Florida could lose more than $2 billion on account of leaving 800,000 residents uninsured who could otherwise be covered under Medicaid.)

Despite that carrot and stick, Republican-controlled states have demanded additional concessions from the Obama administration before taking part in the expansion—and in many cases, as a new paper from the National Health Law Program suggests, the administration has agreed to changes that undermine its own goal of expanding coverage.

These changes have made some states’ Medicaid programs more, well, Republican—not to mention punitive. Take Arkansas, which in 2013 was allowed to use its Medicaid funds to let poor residents buy private insurance on the state health exchange—policies that may not have the same protections or coverage as traditional Medicaid. Iowa and New Hampshire have followed suit. According to the NHLP, these initial waivers emboldened states to seek even greater concessions. An example is Indiana, where, in exchange for agreeing to expand Medicaid, officials not only won the right to charge poor people premiums and co-payments, but also to lock people out of the program for at least six months if they fail to pay those premiums.

The administration has granted such waivers through its authority to authorize so-called demonstration projects to encourage policy innovation in the states. But NHLP contends that waivers like Indiana’s violate the law, which “requires demonstrations to actually demonstrate something.” As NHLP points out, reams of research have long showed that such premiums dramatically reduce health coverage for low-income people. After the Obama administration granted Indiana’s request, Arkansas went back to ask for permission to charge premiums, too. And it prevailed.

And yet some states still want more. Florida, for instance, is considering a bill that would use billions of dollars of Medicaid money to provide vouchers to poor people to buy private insurance. But anyone getting a voucher would have to pay mandatory premiums, and also either have a job or be in school. Childless adults need not apply. (The administration hasn’t signed off on this one—yet.)

NHLP suggests that the Obama administration is undercutting its very strong bargaining position by allowing states to dismantle Medicaid through waivers, at the expense of the very poor and sick. Its white paper notes that Medicaid’s history proves even the most ardent opponents of government health care eventually come around: In 1965, when the program was first created, only 26 states joined in. Five years later, though, almost all had.

Read the article: 

Obama Has a Plan to Expand Medicaid in Red States—by Weakening It

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Has a Plan to Expand Medicaid in Red States—by Weakening It

Scott Walker May Have Just Scored 2016’s Biggest Sugar Daddies

Mother Jones

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

Charles and David Koch have already made it clear that they plan to do everything in their power to prevent Hillary Clinton (or, in case she stumbles, any other Democrat) from winning the presidency. The moguls hope to garner $889 million for the 2016 election from their networks, much of it bound to be channeled through their favorite Dark Money organizations. At one single summit in late January they managed to raise $249 million from friends and allies.

And now, it looks like the Koch brothers may have landed on their standardbearer for all that spending. As the New York Times reported:

On Monday, at a fund-raising event in Manhattan for the New York State Republican Party, David Koch told donors that he and his brother, who oversee one of the biggest private political organizations in the country, believed that Mr. Walker would be the Republican nominee.

“When the primaries are over and Scott Walker gets the nomination,” Mr. Koch told the crowd, the billionaire brothers would support him, according to a spokeswoman. The remark drew laughter and applause from the audience of fellow donors and Republican activists, who had come to hear Mr. Walker speak earlier at the event, held at the Union League Club.

If the Kochs do decide to back Scott Walker, according to the Times, the money would come from them personally, rather than their network of affiliated groups. But with a combined net worth of over $85 billion, Charles and David could set up a vehicle that would outspend nearly anyone while barely tapping into their bank accounts. Seeing the brothers get behind Walker isn’t terribly surprising. The pair invested heavily in his initial gubernatorial campaign and have aided him in his subsequent elections.

Not so fast, though, Politico‘s Mike Allen cautioned this morning. Despite David Koch’s remarks, he provided Politico a statement disavowing any endorsement. As Allen wrote, the brothers say they are undecided and still plan to hold “auditions” at their summer donor conference. In addition to Walker, the lineup of people under consideration reportedly includes Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and, most surprisingly, Jeb Bush.

Whoever ends up gaining the Kochs’ support would have unparalleled fundraising might, and would have to be considered a favorite for the Republican nomination. And their ascent would be the latest example of the power of the ultrarich in the age of the super PAC: Winning broad support from small donors doesn’t matter when the affections of two individuals willing to spend astronomically could upend the entire campaign.

More:  

Scott Walker May Have Just Scored 2016’s Biggest Sugar Daddies

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scott Walker May Have Just Scored 2016’s Biggest Sugar Daddies

Politician Tasked With Oil Industry Oversight Gets a Paycheck From Big Oil

Mother Jones

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

The BP oil spill turned five years old on Monday, and as my colleague Tim McDonnell reported, we’re still paying the price: There’s as much as 26 million gallons of crude oil still on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. But the story of the Deepwater Horizon wasn’t just about environmental devastation—it was also a story about regulation.

In Louisiana, where many politicians rely on oil and gas companies to fill their campaign coffers (and keep their constituents employed), environmental consequences often take a back seat to business concerns. But sometimes, things go even further. Take the case of Republican state Sen. Robert Adley—the vice-chair of the committee on environmental quality and the chair of the transportation committee (which oversees levees)—who played a leading role in trying to stop a local levee board from suing oil companies for damages related to coastal erosion. As Tyler Bridges reported for the Louisiana investigative news site The Lens, Adley doesn’t just go to bat for oil companies—he works for them as a paid consultant. He even launched his own oil company while serving as a state representative, and he didn’t cut ties to the company until nine years into his stint in the senate:

“He has carried a lot of legislation for the oil and gas industry over the years,” said Don Briggs, the industry association’s president. “I’ve never seen him carry one that he didn’t truly believe was the right thing to do.”

Adley’s numerous ties to the oil and gas industry have led critics to say he is the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

Adley said calls that he should recuse himself from the issue because of his industry ties are “un-American” and “outrageous.”

“It’s what I know,” Adley said. “Is it wrong to have someone dealing with legislation they know?”

For the time being, at least, voters in northwest Louisiana have decided that the answer is no.

View the original here – 

Politician Tasked With Oil Industry Oversight Gets a Paycheck From Big Oil

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Politician Tasked With Oil Industry Oversight Gets a Paycheck From Big Oil

Are Republicans Finally Giving Up on Killing Obamacare?

Mother Jones

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

Let me say right up front that I’m skeptical of the following report. But then, maybe I’m blinded by partisanship. Who knows? In any case, here is Noam Levey writing in the LA Times today:

After five years and more than 50 votes in Congress, the Republican campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act is essentially over. GOP congressional leaders, unable to roll back the law while President Obama remains in office and unwilling to again threaten a government shutdown to pressure him, are focused on other issues, including trade and tax reform.

Less noted, senior Republican lawmakers have quietly incorporated many of the law’s key protections into their own proposals, including guaranteeing coverage and providing government assistance to help consumers purchase insurance.

….At the same time, the presumed Republican presidential front-runner, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has shown little enthusiasm for a new healthcare fight. Last year, he even criticized the repeal effort….“Only 18% of Americans want to go back to the system we had before because they do not want to go back to some of the problems we had,” Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster said….”Smart Republicans in this area get that,” he added.

Well, maybe. Levey concedes that there will still be plenty of calls to repeal Obamacare during the 2016 presidential campaign, but he believes that in practice, Republicans will be unwilling to seriously gut a program that’s now providing health coverage for 20 million Americans, a number that will only increase over the next two years.

This is an argument I’ve made myself on multiple occasions, so I ought to be sympathetic to it. And I guess I am. On the other hand, I’ve been repeatedly astonished at the relentlessness of the GOP base’s hatred of Obamacare. Over and over, I thought it would fade out. Maybe when the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional. Maybe when Obama won in 2012. Maybe when the law finally took full effect in 2014. But like the Energizer bunny, their unholy enmity toward the law just kept going and going and going.

So is Obamacare Derangement Syndrome finally burning itself out? I guess I’ll believe it when I see it. But maybe.

See the original post: 

Are Republicans Finally Giving Up on Killing Obamacare?

Posted in Bunn, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are Republicans Finally Giving Up on Killing Obamacare?

Nebraska Conservatives Take On GOP Governor Over Death Penalty

Mother Jones

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

A group of conservative legislators in Nebraska are gearing up for what could be a multi-day battle to end the state’s death penalty. The fight pits the right-wing anti-death penalty crusaders against their fellow conservatives and the state’s Republican governor. Here’s the Omaha World-Herald:

Nine conservative lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors of a repeal measure the Nebraska Legislature will begin debating Thursday. One of their key platforms: Repealing the death penalty makes good fiscal sense.

“If capital punishment were any other program that was so inefficient and so costly to the taxpayer, we would have gotten rid of it a long time ago,” said Sen. Colby Coash of Lincoln.

The bill is unlikely to become law. There are currently enough votes for passage, but advocates warn that anything could happen when the bill comes up for a final vote. Death penalty advocates could mount a filibuster to block the legislature from even voting on the measure. If they don’t, Gov. Pete Ricketts, a Republican, has vowed to block the legislation, and it’s unclear that there are enough votes to override his veto.

Still, the upcoming debate and vote on the bill marks a victory for a small conservative group working on a state-by-state basis to end the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. This group, Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, argues that capital punishment violates core conservative beliefs about the sanctity of life, small government, and fiscal responsibility.

The Nebraska chapter of the group held a press conference Wednesday in advance of today’s floor debate on the bill. “I may be old-fashioned, but I believe God should be the only one who decides when it is time to call a person home,” said state Sen. Tommy Garrett, a conservative who supports repeal. “The state has no business playing God.”

Nebraska has not carried out an execution since 1997, when the state was still using the electric chair, but that might change, according to the World-Herald:

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson said this week that his staff is working to restore the viability of a lethal injection protocol. He did not, however, predict when executions could resume.

More here: 

Nebraska Conservatives Take On GOP Governor Over Death Penalty

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Nebraska Conservatives Take On GOP Governor Over Death Penalty

My Travels on the Clinton Conspiracy Trail

Mother Jones

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

I met Larry Nichols, the self-described smut king of Arkansas, at a breakfast joint in Conway, not far from the spot where he claims Bill Clinton loyalists once fired on him and a reporter for London’s Sunday Telegraph. “You have to understand,” he said, looking up from his coffee, “you’re in Redneck City.” Nichols had declared war on the Clintons in 1988, when Bill was governor, after being canned from his job at a state agency for placing dozens of long-distance phone calls on behalf of the Nicaraguan Contras. As he hunched over the table in four layers of winter clothing, Nichols indulged in the caginess that had once seduced a small army of conservative journalists seeking dirt on the Clintons—the lurching, twangy, conspiratorial tones of someone with a secret he wasn’t sure how to spill. For a moment, I felt as if I’d taken the wrong exit off I-40 and ended up in 1995.

But Nichols, who did as much as anyone in Arkansas to an image of the 42nd president as a womanizing, cocaine-snorting, dirty-dealing, drug-running mafioso, was ready to move on. “There is nothing you’re gonna find here,” he told me. “Pack your shit and go home. Good God, man—that was 20 years ago.”

With Hillary Clinton the odds-on favorite in next year’s Democratic presidential primary, all that was past is suddenly new again. The reinvestigation of the Clintons was already well underway by January, when Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus boasted to Bloomberg that he had dispatched a team of operatives to Little Rock to investigate the former first lady and secretary of state. “We’re not going to be shy about what we are doing,” he said. “We’re going to be active. We’re going to get whatever we have to in order to share with the American people the truth about Hillary and Bill Clinton.” Last year, America Rising, an opposition research firm/political action group that works with Republican candidates, placed a full-time researcher in Little Rock, where she pored over newly declassified documents at the Clinton Presidential Library.

But 20 years after the so-called Arkansas Project, the multimillion-dollar campaign financed by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife that turned Whitewater and Troopergate into household names, opposition researchers face a conundrum: Considering that the first expedition for dirt on the Clintons culminated in impeachment proceedings, are there any stones left unturned in Little Rock?

Few pieces of political turf have been excavated as thoroughly as Arkansas was in the 1990s, when conservatives scoured the Ozarks for evidence of everything from plastic surgery (to fix Bill’s supposedly cocaine-ravaged nose) to murder (a list of suspicious deaths, promoted by Nichols, became known as “Arkancides”) and, of course, womanizing. In the state capital, the return of the oppo researchers has been met with a sigh. “Bill and Hillary left here in December of 1992 and never came back,” said Max Brantley, a longtime political columnist at the Arkansas Times. “Kenneth Starr ran everything through that grand jury. There may be something, but I can’t imagine what.” Rex Nelson, a former aide to Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee, told me there was nothing left to unearth about the Clintons, “unless there’s ancient relics buried in the dirt under the Rose Law Firm,” where Hillary was once a partner.

In their quest for fresh muck, the diggers have fixated on a new chamber of secrets: archives. With a 40-year record to pore over, oppo researchers and journalists have been gifted an almost unprecedented trove of papers from former Clinton associates, and tens of millions of pages from the couple’s years in Arkansas and Washington, DC, some of which have only recently been made public. “Every chief of staff, every top official for any Clinton office dating back 40 years has donated their papers to a university,” said Tim Miller, a cofounder of America Rising. “We’ve gone to other libraries where staffers from the Clinton White House, or Clinton governor’s office, have donated papers, or authors have written profiles on the Clintons.” (Shortly after I spoke with him, Miller took a job with Jeb Bush’s campaign. Throw in material related to Bush, a former governor and kin to two presidents, and next November’s race might feature the longest collective paper trail in history.)

Last year, the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet that wears its animus toward the Clintons as a badge of honor, hired an oppo researcher to help dig through special collections at the University of Arkansas in Fayette­ville. It came away with a series of journal excerpts from longtime Hillary confidante Diane Blair in which the first lady was quoted as calling Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon.” The story made national news. “When those stories hit, we got busy for a week or so,” said Geoffrey Stark, the reading room supervisor at the university library’s special collections. The quiet basement room, with its oil paintings of homegrown artists and politicians looking on in judgment, filled up with reporters hungry for whatever scraps were left behind.

The Republican intelligence gathering has also spawned Democratic counterintelligence operations. Leaving nothing to chance, Correct the Record, a pro-Hillary group fronted by David Brock, the former right-wing journalist turned Clinton loyalist, dispatched a staffer to Fayetteville to scan the archives. Twenty-one years after he had blown open Troopergate, the bombshell that purported to detail how Bubba’s security detail facilitated his sexual liaisons, Brock was returning to Arkansas to put the genie back in the bottle. Correct the Record spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod confirmed that the group has been visiting the archives, but said, “We aren’t getting into the specifics of tactics or strategies.”

Yet even the field marshals of the new invasion recognize that the Clintons have moved on to bigger things. Miller expects the Arkansas cache to be used more as supporting evidence rather than the main indictment. The Whitewater scandal of 2016 won’t be set in Arkansas; given Republicans’ fixation on the family’s international nonprofit, the Clinton Foundation, it might not even be in the United States. “For me, the big difference between 2016 and 2008, from a research standpoint, is that their network of influence has grown exponentially,” Miller explained. “When you’re talking about crony capitalism and special deals in the ’90s, a lot of times the beneficiaries are, like, Arkansas lawyers. Now their influences are the global elites.” And what’s not in the Clintons’ archives may turn out to be just as damaging, as Hillary found out in March, when it was revealed that she had skirted public recordkeeping requirements by conducting all of her State Department business with a private email address.

The Arkansas the Clintons left behind isn’t just old news—it hardly exists anymore. One morning in February, using the Whitewater report as my Lonely Planet guide, I spent a few hours walking through a Little Rock neighborhood known as SoMa, searching for remnants of the real estate deals that compelled special investigator Kenneth Starr to set up shop in town. In testimony, the area was described as “a slum district,” but it has since flowered into a yuppie paradise. I got a blank stare when I mentioned Whitewater at the farm-to-table cafe across the street from the former headquarters of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, the bank wrapped up in the Clintons’ scheme to turn a patch of land on the White River in the Ozarks into a summer resort. The young employee behind the counter seemed to think I was asking about whitewater rafting.

Now, in a salute to history, a subpoena-serving firm occupies the office that the state government once leased from the Clintons’ Whitewater banker pal. Next door at the Esse Purse Museum, I’d missed a special exhibit called “Handbags for Hillary,” a joint installation with the Clinton Library of pocketbooks given to the first lady (including one made out of socks, in honor of the family cat). The closest I came to scandal was at the Green Corner Store, purveyors of artisanal ice cream that, I was told, is whipped up in the very building “where Bill met Jessica Flowers.” (Bill’s alleged paramour was in fact named Gennifer.) The soda jerk who poured my small-batch lavenderade hinted that Hillary faces a more immediate challenge from another woman: She’s torn between Clinton and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

If the conspiracy-slinging Clinton antagonists are a bit quieter this time around, that’s also because—cue the ominous voice-over and shaky-cam footage—many of the loudest ones are now dead. John Brown, a sheriff’s deputy who alleged that the Clintons had murdered several Arkansans over a cocaine-trafficking operation, died in prison. Jim Johnson, the segregationist former Arkansas Supreme Court justice who lent a semblance of gravitas to the 1994 conspiracy flick The Clinton Chronicles, committed suicide five years ago. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, who sold 60,000 copies of the film, died in 2007. Parker Dozhier, the trapper and bait shop owner whom Scaife paid to find dirt on the Clintons, is, like his benefactor, dead.

Others have gotten out of the game. David Brock broke bad. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the Sunday Telegraph scribe who reported in a gossip- and conspiracy-laden book that Bill liked to dance around in a black dress after doing cocaine with his brother, went back to Europe. “I think Hillary was a good secretary of state,” he said in an email, although he stands by his earlier work. (He doesn’t recall being shot at with Nichols.) When I reached Larry Patterson, the retired state policeman whose grudge against Bill over a forgotten transfer compelled him to talk to Brock for the Troopergate story, he was curt. “Sir, the Clintons have taught me a lesson,” he said. And then he hung up.

Of the original band of Clinton hunters, only Nichols kept up the ruse, doing interviews with fringe right-wing radio hosts, even boasting in 2013 that he had been Bill’s personal hit man, which he now says he didn’t mean and wouldn’t have said if he hadn’t been on painkillers.

But something strange has come over him. After six years of watching Barack Hussein Obama cower in the face of Islamists, Nichols believes the family he spent two decades tarring as cold-blooded crooks might just be the only people who can save the country. “I’m not saying I like Hillary, you hear me?” he said, defensively. “I am not saying I like Hillary Rodham Clinton. I’m not saying anything I’ve said I take back. But God help me, I’m going to have to stand up and tell conservative patriots we have no choice but to give Hillary her shot.”

“I know she won’t flinch,” he continued. “That’s a mean sonofabitch woman that can be laying over four people and say”—he paraphrased her now-infamous response to hostile congressional questioning on the deaths of four Americans in Libya—”‘What the hell difference did it make?'” He was against Clinton because of Whitewater. Now he’s voting for her because of Benghazi.

See the article here:  

My Travels on the Clinton Conspiracy Trail

Posted in Anchor, Anker, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Paradise, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My Travels on the Clinton Conspiracy Trail

Why Hillary Clinton Needs Martin O’Malley to Run for President

Mother Jones

One Democratic source tells me that Hillary Clinton’s camp has sent a clear message to former Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.): Challenge her for the Democratic presidential nomination and you’re dead to us. Another source says that the Clinton crew has sent a different clear message to O’Malley: Feel free to take her on in the primaries; she could use the competition. I don’t know which source is correct. Perhaps both are, for Hillaryland may well be populated by advisers and strategists with different takes on this question. But it does seem clear that Clinton, who finally jumped into the 2016 race with a tweet and video splash on Sunday, could benefit if she is challenged in her party’s primaries by O’Malley or someone else.

There’s about nine months to come before the first voting occurs in the Iowa caucuses—and 19 months until the general election. That’s a long time. Clinton, who is hardly a fresh face, will find it tough not to appear stale to some voters during that stretch. She is already at a super-saturation level of media coverage. There are endless tweets, blog posts, and articles about every aspect of her campaign. All her moves—her logo!—receive inordinate press attention. Though she and her aides insist this race is not about her—it’s about everyday Americans and how to improve their lot—the campaign is likely to be much ado about Clinton: how she campaigns, what she says, what’s her vision, where she goes, how she’s performing, what’s her strategy, what’s up with her husband, her connection with voters, her trustworthiness, her likability, and so on. Her every utterance and move will be dissected everywhere—again and again. (And the various dissections will be dissected.) On the Republican side, all the 2016 wannabes will be directing attention at her, as they each angle to be seen as the candidate best able to obliterate Clinton. Sure, the GOPers will eventually form a circular firing squad—they won’t be able to resist the urge to attack one another—but they will direct many shots at Clinton. The around-the-clock Hillary Bashathon will never end.

It would be tough for any candidate to withstand this degree of hyperscrutiny for such an extended period. Might voters become bored with Clinton, through no fault of her own, before any voting starts? Might her message, whatever its merits, seem tired and worn out by then? If the Democratic half of the 2016 primary story is only about Clinton going through elections and caucuses with preordained results and being compared solely to herself, that will likely not engage undecided voters. What’s exciting or interesting about a cakewalk and no substantial debates over political qualifications and important policy matters?

Clinton needs a foil in the Democratic primaries—someone she can joust with, someone who will expand the narrative, and someone she can beat. Waltzing through one election after another will not boost her commander-in-chief credentials. A fight or, at least, a tussle—even a lopsided one—will give her campaign more of a story to tell, and, presuming she wins the primaries, will position her as, well, a winner, not a candidate who is skating toward the general election on the easy ice of entitlement and inevitability. Barack Obama’s ability to dispatch Clinton in 2008 demonstrated his moxie and his mettle. His glow intensified with each victory. Everyone likes a winner, right? And these battles were great training for the match-up to come against Republican John McCain. Clinton will not face as formidable a primary foe as Obama did. But a face-off against any opponent of consequence is better than a breezy promenade toward the main event.

O’Malley, who’s considering a presidential bid, would make a good sparring partner. He’s a smart guy with sass, but he’s not a slasher who could inflict long-lasting political damage. In fact, the clichéd conventional wisdom about tough primary contests pulling candidates too far toward an ideological extreme and hurting nominees in the general election may not hold true. In 2012, Mitt Romney did veer far to the right to capture the Republican nomination, and McCain also sucked up to conservatives in 2008—and both men were harshly assailed by their party rivals during the nomination phase—but each still had a fighting chance in the general election that came next. Both were undone by errors made in the postprimary period rather than decisions and dustups of the primaries. General election voters have short memories—or don’t bother to pay a lot of attention to the nomination battles. If O’Malley manages to score some points against Clinton, they would probably matter little after the convention.

Clinton’s rival need not be O’Malley. But the choices for this spot are limited. James Webb? Lincoln Chaffee? Bernie Sanders (who’s not a Democrat)? It may be tougher for any of them to engage her in a serious fight. O’Malley, too, is not likely to threaten her path toward that glass ceiling. But at the moment he seems the possible contender with the most oomph.

A primary battle—even a limited one—introduces risk into the equation. It’s not hard to imagine Clinton and her strategists yearning for less uncertainty than more. (What if O’Malleymentum takes off?) And the Clintonites may not have a say in whether O’Malley enters the ring. Yet a primary fight that makes Clinton earn—not inherit—the nomination would cast her in a different role. She’d be a fighter, not a dynastic queen. The press and the public would have something to ponder beyond just Clinton herself. And all politics are relative; candidates usually look better when compared to another candidate rather than to a nonexistent ideal or even themselves. So perhaps Team Hillary should welcome the upstart Marylander into the contest. A slam dunk is more impressive when waged against a competitor, and even the Harlem Globetrotters needed the Washington Generals.

This article is from: 

Why Hillary Clinton Needs Martin O’Malley to Run for President

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Hillary Clinton Needs Martin O’Malley to Run for President

Jeb Bush’s Emails: Why Are So Many Key Episodes MIA?

Mother Jones

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

When the New York Times revealed that Hillary Clinton used a private email address as secretary of state, GOP presidential candidate-in-waiting Jeb Bush pounced. “Transparency matters,” he tweeted, linking to the archive of his own emails that he had made public a month earlier.

Continue Reading »

More: 

Jeb Bush’s Emails: Why Are So Many Key Episodes MIA?

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, Bunn, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jeb Bush’s Emails: Why Are So Many Key Episodes MIA?