Tag Archives: rubio

The Top 5 Moments From the Republican Debate

by Onopriyll7 Posted on February 14, 2016

Mother Jones

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

A week before the crucial GOP primary in South Carolina, the Republican presidential candidates met for another debate Saturday night. Gone were Gov. Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina, who each dropped out following the New Hampshire contest. The debate, hosted by CBS, began with a moment of silence to mark the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Then the candidates, in a series of fiery exchanges, returned to the familiar conflicts that have dominated their previous encounters.

Here are the highlights:

Ted Cruz gets his facts wrong…and the crowd boos the moderator for correcting him.

At the start of the debate, moderator John Dickerson, the Face the Nation host, asked each candidate if he thought President Barack Obama should name a replacement for Justice Scalia during his final year in office. Predictably, several of the candidates pushed the new conservative meme: the GOP-controlled Senate should block Obama from appointing a successor to Scalia. “We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year,” Ted Cruz claimed. Not so, said Dickerson, pointing to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed in February 1988. Cruz tried to argue that Kennedy got his seat in 1987—which was when he was nominated. But when Dickerson tried to make sure viewers were aware of the facts, the South Carolina crowd booed.

Donald Trump invokes Iraq War and 9/11 to attack Jeb Bush.

In 2008, Donald Trump said that George W. Bush should have been impeached over the Iraq War. When Dickerson asked Trump if he still holds this view, an inflamed Trump called the Iraq War “a big fat mistake” that cost the US trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

A heated exchange followed: Jeb Bush fired back at Trump, calling out the business mogul for his continued attacks on the Bush family. “While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe,” Bush said. The back-and-forth grew hotter when Trump interrupted Bush and declared that the Twin Towers came down when George Bush was president.

Rubio disagreed, asserting that September 11 was Bill Clinton’s fault because Clinton failed to kill Osama Bin Laden in the 1990s. Rubio added, “I thank God that it was Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore.” In response, Trump again invoked the 9/11 attack: “I lost hundreds of friends, the World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush.” He was met by a roar of boos from the audience.

Ted Cruz gets booed over immigration.

It wouldn’t be a GOP debate without a fight between Cruz and Rubio over immigration. But this tussle came with the added twist of a debate crowd that turned on Cruz, booing him when he attacked Rubio’s support for immigration reform. And when Cruz accused Rubio of once supporting amnesty during an appearance on Univision, Rubio fired back: “I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision, because he doesn’t speak Spanish.” Cruz immediately shot back at Rubio in rapid, but grammatically incorrect, Spanish.

Donald Trump calls Ted Cruz the biggest liar.

When Trump said he considers himself “a common-sense conservative,” Cruz protested. Cruz contended that the billionaire has been “very, very liberal” throughout his career, though also “an amazing entertainer.” Trump then accused Cruz of putting out robocalls criticizing Trump. He said that Cruz was a “nasty guy” who “will say anything.” Trump continued, “You are the single biggest liar.”

A few minutes later, while Cruz was trying to respond to another attack from Trump (regarding Cruz’s support for the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts), Trump began shouting over Cruz: “Why do you lie? Why do you lie?”

“Donald, adults learn not to interrupt each other,” Cruz responded. “Yeah, yeah, I know, you’re an adult,” Trump replied.

Trump says Planned Parenthood does “wonderful things” for women’s health, other than abortion.

Cruz accused Trump of supporting taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, hitting Trump for having said, “Planned Parenthood does wonderful things and we should not defund it.” Trump responded by saying that he does believe the organization does “wonderful things” having to do with women’s health “but not when it comes to abortion.” Cruz used Trump’s answer to again accuse the tycoon of being a liberal and claimed that Trump would appoint progressive judges to the Supreme Court.

Jump to original: 

The Top 5 Moments From the Republican Debate

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Top 5 Moments From the Republican Debate

Marcobot Has Apparently Exceeded Its Rated Mean Time to Failure

by JanelleWeldon2 Posted on February 9, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Oh hell, now I’m just starting to feel sorry for Marco Rubio. The whole Marcobot thing has apparently made him so self-conscious that he can barely even recite his stump speech anymore. Here he is delivering a line about values being rammed down our throats right after he’s just said it. There’s an almost poignant moment at 0:26 when Rubio suddenly realizes what he’s just done.

This reminds me of a Star Trek episode where Kirk uses some kind of sophomoric paradox to trick a computer into self destructing. That’s about what Chris Christie seems to have done to Rubio.

Taken from: 

Marcobot Has Apparently Exceeded Its Rated Mean Time to Failure

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marcobot Has Apparently Exceeded Its Rated Mean Time to Failure

Marco Rubio Disses George W. Bush

by NickolaHennessy Posted on February 6, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Marco Rubio is on the move.

That’s what his supporters in New Hampshire eagerly tell reporters at Rubio campaign events, after the Republican senator from Florida placed third in the Iowa caucuses. As proof, they point to the increased number of camera crews trailing Rubio, who’s making a bid to claim ownership of the so-called establishment lane in the GOP contest.

Indeed, among the media masses assembled in New Hampshire Rubio is topic No. 1. How far can he surge? Can he win? Donald Trump—remember him?—has become almost an after-thought. And at a town hall meeting at Hood Middle School in Derry on Friday evening, Rubio exuded confidence and energy before a crowd of about 400. He stuck mainly to his stump speech, with its blend of partisan anger (a power-mad Barack Obama has nearly brought the United States to total ruin) and generational hope (only a young, forward-looking leader can make this century the greatest one yet for the United States).

And it played well. The audience members listened attentively as Rubio proclaimed, “I know why you’re here.” He later added: “You understand… that this election is different… it’s a referendum on what kind of country do you want America to be in the 21st century.” They cheered when Rubio bashed Obama (claiming he purposefully has divided the nation) and promised to rip up the Iran nuclear deal on his first day as president. He also pledged to end Obamacare, to save the supposedly imperiled Second Amendment, to smother Common Core, and to get tough (somehow) on immigration. They also applauded loudly when he vowed that he would unite the nation.

“I will be a president for all Americans,” he exclaimed. Few, it seemed, noticed the conflict between his hard-edged assaults and his pledge to heal a divided nation.

Talking to several Rubio backers in attendance, I got the sense that they really fancied the idea of Rubio. Asked why they were supporting him, each cited Rubio’s “positive vision.” As a follow-up, I asked these Rubio-ites to describe that vision. Each said a version of this: to make America better. So, Rubio has figured out a way to tap into Republicans dislike (or hatred) of Obama and Hillary Clinton — the crowd roared with delight when Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Rubio endorser, introduced Rep. Trey Gowdy, who heads the House committee on Benghazi, and mentioned the B-word —while also coming across, at least to GOPers, as not a mean guy. (And the GOP pack already has mean guys in the lead.)

At the same time, Rubio proffers vague policy prescriptions of the usual conservative fare—advance free enterprise! cut taxes!—yet is seen by his fans as a visionary and man of the future. This is all a pretty neat trick, and a good reminder that presentation is 90 percent of politics. Or maybe more.

Rubio tossed out one line that did warrant unpacking. Early in the speech, the 46-year-old self-exiled senator irately declared, “This generation of leadership is the most selfish generation of leadership we’ve ever had in DC.” This seemed to be another dig at Obama. But Rubio went on to assert that for 15 to 20 years, this gang of lousy leaders has “done nothing about the national debt.”

Twenty years? That would mean that the “most selfish generation” included the entire George W. Bush presidency. The folks in the crowd nodded, as Rubio issued this denunciation. Did they realize he was indicting the last Republican administration? And coincidentally—or not—this dig was a harsh assault on the brother of his mentor-turned-rival Jeb Bush.

Rubio is pushing generational change as a primary reason for his presidential bid. (After all, in his campaign speeches, he does not spend much time detailing his previous accomplishments.) And he’s willing to indict the Bush crew to make this point. As Rubio rises, this is more salt in Jeb Bush’s wounds—and another indication that Rubio is quite good at making an attack seem positive.

Link:

Marco Rubio Disses George W. Bush

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marco Rubio Disses George W. Bush

After Iowa, Both Parties Are Facing Hostile Takeovers

by SVDElise894 Posted on February 2, 2016

Mother Jones

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

As Iowans trekked to caucuses across their state on Monday evening, both major political parties were on the verge of hostile takeovers. By night’s end, the Democratic establishment and Hillary Clinton had apparently held the threat at bay—barely!—with the former secretary of state seemingly defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-professed democratic socialist channeling populist ire, by a small number of votes in what was almost a tie. On the Republican side, Sen. Ted Cruz, a nemesis of the GOP establishment, prevailed in Iowa the traditional way by rounding up evangelical and social conservative voters, and Donald Trump, the reality television tycoon, placed a close second (28 to 24 percent) with his they’re-all-losers schtick—meaning that half of Republican voters rebelled against their party’s poohbahs.

Anyone reading this knows the usual yada-yada-yada of Campaign 2016: this is the year of the outsiders. Donald Trump entered the Republican race, called everyone an idiot, and turned the GOP into the latest extension of Trump Empire™. Cruz, a onetime corporate lawyer (who happens to be married to a Goldman Sachs executive), campaigned as a pious bomb-thrower eager to take on the do-nothing status-quoticians of Washington (Republican and Democratic). And Bernie Sanders, the 74-year-old Vermont senator who a year ago was not even a Democrat, crashed Hillary Clinton’s coronation with his call for a “political revolution” that would break up the big banks, slam the billionaires class, and deliver single-payer health care and free college to all Americans. But this convenient, soundbite-friendly description of what’s going on is too easy an explanation, for the supposed outsider energy in each party is different, particularly when it comes to Trump.

Let’s start with the Dems. Sure, Sanders called for smashing up the big-money establishment and implied (strongly!) that Clinton, a Washington insider who has pocketed campaign cash and speaking fees from Wall Street, was part of the corrupt system. Not to take anything away from Sanders’ populist message and his campaign’s delivery, but he was able to take advantage of—that is, speak to—a pre-existing and ever restless ideological bloc within the Democratic primary electorate: progressives.

According to a Gallup poll taken last year, 44 percent of Democrats call themselves liberals. This number has been on a steady rise since 2000, when only 29 percent claimed that label. So as several Democratic strategists have pointed out to me in recent weeks—including those backing and not backing Clinton—Sanders began with a big potential base to tap. Call it the Elizabeth Warren Collection: populist-minded Democrats yearning for a crusader. Any Democratic candidate challenging Clinton with a heartfelt, authentic and enthusiastic progressive appeal had a chance to attract these Democratic voters. (This wing has always been there. In the 1980 Democratic primary, Teddy Kennedy won 37 percent of the vote to the 52 percent bagged by incumbent President Jimmy Carter.) It may be a bit of a mystery why former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley flopped so miserably in his effort to court these looking-for-a-hero Democrats. But the fiery Sanders, whose leftism was never in doubt, went for them, and when Clinton, whose progressivism has often been debated, seemed to stumble (those “damn emails”) and failed to inspire younger and more liberal Democrats, Sanders had an opening to present himself as this year’s true progressive model and a cool alternative to the ideologically-suspect and baggage-heavy Clinton. Voila! He made a connection with a major Democratic subset that has always been there.

Forget about Iowa for a moment—especially now that this unrepresentative event is done—and look at the average of the national polls in the Democratic race. Clinton leads Sanders, 52 to 37 percent. Sanders’ take is darn close to that 40-percent mark long associated with the progressive wing. Sanders surpassed that level in Iowa, and he’s likely to do so in New Hampshire, where three recent polls have put his lead over Clinton between 20 percent and 31 percent. Yet in the long run, can he continue to stay above 40-percent —particularly when the contest shifts to states with more diverse electorates (meaning more black and Latino voters) and states where voters are less familiar with this self-proclaimed socialist? Those contests will show whether Sanders has reshaped the party or whether he has only deftly addressed a desire Clinton could not fulfill.

Cruz did something similar to Sanders: he appealed to an ideological bloc that pines for a champion. With the collapse of Ben Carson, who at one point led the GOP pack in Iowa, Cruz, who fielded an effective on-the-ground organization, was able to consolidate much of the social conservative vote. (Carson placed a distant fourth behind Sen. Marco Rubio, who came in a close third with 23 percent.) Still, Trump’s ability to grab one out of four voters in Iowa—and his commanding lead in New Hampshire polls—indicates his bid to seize control of the Republican Party has not been neutralized.

Trump has not been waging an ideological war. He is no Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. Just as there is a progressive base in the Democratic Party, there is a conservative foundation in the GOP, and those right-wing heroes of yesteryear won the Republican presidential contests (respectively in 1964 and 1980) by rallying the conservative grassroots within the GOP. At the time, each contended that the path to victory for the GOP was to beat back the more moderate elements of their party (Take that, Nelson Rockefeller! Ka-pow, George H.W. Bush!) and run to the right in November. (Only one of the two had their argument proven correct in the general election.) Theirs was an ideological mission. Cruz adopted this model, and he fared well in a state that has in recent years rewarded Republicans who appeal to the religious right. He’s an outsider in Washington, but not within this historical framework.

Trump’s play was not to become the leader of the party’s conservative wing. He’s been waging a cultural revolution, not an ideological rebellion, within the GOP. His main argument, such as it is, is not that the government is too big, but that everyone in government—and just about everyone who doesn’t agree with him—is stupid. And he’s a winner. (Well, at least until Monday night.) With his campaign, the political is the personal. His policy prescriptions, if they deserve to be called that, do not hew to a clear ideological line. He bashes hedge fund guys, calls for The Wall, wants less taxes, opposes trade deals backed by Big Business, decries the corruption of Washington (big-money donations and special-interest lobbyists), derides the US invasion of Iraq, but vows to obliterate ISIS with a massive, you-won’t-believe-how-big military built-up. It’s a mishmosh.

Trump is a protest candidate protesting…just about everything, as he peddles bigotry by pushing a ban on Muslims entering the United States. He’s not playing to the ideological voters of the GOP, but to the angry ones. His target audience: people who resent pushing 1 for English and 2 for Spanish. And I’m guessing many of these people have spent the last eight years detesting President Barack Obama, suspecting he’s some kind of secret Muslim, Kenya-born socialist who has a clandestine plan for destroying the United States of America. This hatred of Obama has been encouraged and exploited by leading Republicans who gained power in Washington with the tea party. These establishment GOPers giggled with delight as their mad-as-hell voters rushed to the polls, after being told that Obama was setting up death panels, that Obamacare would wreck the economy, that the president had once palled around with terrorists, and that Obama was feckless and dictatorial. They fed the beast. But that only created hunger for more hatred.

Enter Trump, who first auditioned for this role as a birther. Here was a guy brave enough to tell the Obama despisers the real truth. Here was a guy willing to target Muslims. Here was a guy who would characterize Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. Here was a guy who would mock all those other Republicans who wouldn’t talk this way, essentially declaring them phony-baloney (and weak and ugly). The infuriated GOP voters who had bought the Republican propaganda that Obama has destroyed the United States gobbled all this up. Make America great, indeed. These are voters not seeking an ideological crusader who quotes the Constitution and presents intellectually sound arguments for smaller government and lower taxes. They are looking for a venter-in-chief who is as furious as they are and who promises that he and the nation will win, win, win.

The GOP unleashed the dogs of resentment and rage. And a bombastic, arrogant, demagogue billionaire shouted to them, “Follow me, not those louts in Washington.” Trump’s takeover of the GOP was going smoothly until Cruz, who has also tried to capitalize on right-wing resentment, bested Trump in Iowa, and Marco Rubio, a tea partier turned establishment favorite, came within 3,000 votes of bumping Trump to third. Now Trump’s going to have to try harder. And it will be interesting to see how voters respond to a diminished Trump. He still is positioned to do well in New Hampshire. And after that, why not Trump victories in South Carolina and Nevada (the land of casinos), and then the southern states that hold primary contests on Super Tuesday? But Cruz and Rubio will be nipping at his heels. (Watch the establishment money flood into Rubio’s campaign treasury.) And there’s no telling whether the Trump bubble has burst or whether he can return to the top of the heap with what will likely be an intensified effort to inflame the passions of irate voters.

After Iowa, the Democratic Party and Clinton are facing a fierce ideological challenge from an unlikely and previously underestimated source, while the Republican old guard is confronted by Cruz’s traditional assault and Trump’s unconventional attack. It’s the season of disruption.

See original article here: 

After Iowa, Both Parties Are Facing Hostile Takeovers

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, bigo, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on After Iowa, Both Parties Are Facing Hostile Takeovers

Here’s the Latest Reason Republicans Are Afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency

by AnnmarieE89 Posted on January 29, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Supreme Court nominations, thanks to a lifetime appointment if confirmed, are always one of the most important parts of presidential administrations elections but rarely get much attention on the campaign trail. But at a campaign stop in Iowa City Friday afternoon, Ben Carson suggested to caucus voters that they had a new reason to fear Hillary Clinton becoming president: put her in the White House and you’ll end up with Barack Obama on the Supreme Court.

If there’s “another progressive president,” Carson said, “and they get two or three Supreme Court picks—one of them being Obama—America’s toast. Your children and grandchildren, they’re toast.”

Carson isn’t the first candidate to suggest this possibility—from either party. Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton said she would consider nominating Obama to the Supreme Court when she was asked about putting Obama on the bench at a town hall in Iowa. “I mean, he is brilliant and he can set forth an argument,” she said. That proved to be fodder for Sen. Marco Rubio at Thursday night’s debate. “Hillary Clinton this week said Barack Obama would make a great Supreme Court justice,” Rubio said. “The guy who systematically and habitually violates the constitution on the Supreme Court? I don’t think so.”

In terms of campaign trail fear mongering, it’s actually not a crazy suggestion. Obama did, after all, teach constitutional law classes before entering politics full-time. And he wouldn’t be the first president-cum-justice, though it’s been quite a long while since the last one, nearly a century. Only William Howard Taft has made that transition, appointed in 1921. But, as MSNBC’s Steve Benen noted, Obama told The New Yorker in 2014 that being a judge would “a little bit too monastic” for him. The White House also shot down the idea earlier this week.

Read the article – 

Here’s the Latest Reason Republicans Are Afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the Latest Reason Republicans Are Afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency

The 9 Best Moments From Thurday’s GOP Debate

by TimKAHSsslhrs Posted on January 15, 2016

Mother Jones

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

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

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

Cruz would have retaliated for captured sailors.

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

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

Watch:

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

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

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

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

Watch:

Trump foresees a lawsuit over Cruz’s birther problem.

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

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

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

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

Trump gladly accepts the “mantle of anger.”

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

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

Watch:

Rubio vs. Christie: The battle for third.

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

Watch:

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

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

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

Rubio wants a gun in case ISIS attacks.

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

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

Watch:

Trump plays the 9/11 card.

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

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

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

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

Watch:

Rubio takes on Cruz as a flip-flopping politician.

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

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

View post:  

The 9 Best Moments From Thurday’s GOP Debate

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

We Are Live-Blogging the GOP Debate in South Carolina

by MadelaineM07 Posted on January 15, 2016

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10:19 – No follow-up, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9:31 – Audience booing Trump again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See more here:  

We Are Live-Blogging the GOP Debate in South Carolina

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

Rubio Slams Obama on Guns—But He Once Backed "Reasonable Restrictions" on Firearms

by CornellSmalls48 Posted on January 6, 2016

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) slammed President Barack Obama’s new executive actions aimed at enhancing gun safety—but the GOP candidate was attacking an approach to guns that he once supported as a candidate in Florida, when he endorsed “reasonable restrictions” on firearms.

After Obama announced the series of new gun-control steps, Rubio exclaimed, “Barack Obama is obsessed with undermining the Second Amendment…Now this executive order is just one more way to make it harder for law-abiding people to buy weapons or to be able to protect their families.” And in a campaign ad, Rubio went further in assailing the president: “His plan after the attack in San Bernardino: take away our guns.”

Obama’s new measures would not take away guns; the most prominent executive action is aimed at limiting the number of gun sales that occur without background checks by requiring more gun sellers to register as dealers and vet their customers. And background checks is a policy that Rubio has supported in the past.

When Rubio first ran for the Florida state House in 2000, he told the Miami Herald that he supported “reasonable restrictions” on guns, including background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases. Ten years later, this comment was used against Rubio during his Senate primary campaign against then-Republican Charlie Crist. The Crist camp, pointing to Rubio’s 2010 statement, accused him of supporting gun limits. Rubio’s spokesman dismissed the significance of Rubio’s earlier statement, saying, “It’s basically a restatement of his support for the current law.”

During his eight years in the Florida legislature, Rubio backed much of the National Rifle Association’s agenda. He co-sponsored the state’s Stand Your Ground law, which became the subject of a nationwide debate following the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. And, as a senator, Rubio recently received an A rating from the NRA. But Rubio has a few times wavered from the NRA’s hardline. In the Florida legislature, he drew the organization’s ire when he took a tepid approach to supporting a bill allowing Floridians to bring firearms to work if they leave them in their cars. (He ultimately voted for the measure). And after the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, he flirted with supporting measures to prevent convicted felons and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms—actions the NRA opposed. He voted against the background-check bill that ultimately came to the Senate floor the following spring.

As a presidential candidate, Rubio has positioned himself as an ardent champion of gun rights and does not talk about the need to preserve or enhance “reasonable restrictions” on guns. His campaign website states that “new gun laws will do nothing to deter criminals from obtaining firearms.” Asked whether he still supports “reasonable restrictions,” Rubio’s campaign did not respond.

View original:  

Rubio Slams Obama on Guns—But He Once Backed "Reasonable Restrictions" on Firearms

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rubio Slams Obama on Guns—But He Once Backed "Reasonable Restrictions" on Firearms

China Is Absolutely Destroying the US on Clean Energy

by NormanCombs79 Posted on November 24, 2015

Mother Jones

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

When world leaders convene on Monday in Paris for two weeks of high-stakes climate negotiations, one of the top items on the agenda will be how developing nations should prepare for and help to slow global warming. Opponents to President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, such as GOP presidential contender Marco Rubio, like to argue that anything the United States does to curb greenhouse gas emissions will be pointless because countries like India and China aren’t doing the same.

But new data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that this argument is just hot air: For the first time ever, over the last year the majority of global investment in clean energy projects was spent in developing countries. In fact, clean energy investment in China alone outpaced that in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France combined, BNEF found. Across 55 major non-OECD countries, including India, Brazil, China, and Kenya, clean energy investment reached $126 billion in 2014, a record high and 39 percent higher than 2013 levels.

The chart below shows how that level of investment is opening up a market for wind, solar, and other clean energy projects in non-OECD countries that is now larger than the market in the traditional strongholds of the United States and Europe. In other words, the very countries Rubio likes to malign as laggards are actually leading the charge.

BNEF

That trend is likely to continue for decades to come, BNEF found. Check out their projection for growth through 2040:

BNEF

These numbers add up to a big deal for the climate, because they show that countries in Africa and Southeast Asia that still lack reliable electricity for millions of people are solving that problem, and growing their economies, without relying on dirty fossil fuels. China, to be clear, is still the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and it doesn’t plan to peak its emissions until 2030. But its early commitment to clean energy means it can continue its rapid rate of growth with far less pollution than it would produce otherwise.

The BNEF report is just the most recent good sign for the clean energy business. Big corporations in the United States are signing contracts for a record amount of clean energy for their data centers, warehouses, and other facilities. And the Paris talks are likely to send a jolt through the industry, as countries around the world redouble their commitments to get more of their power from renewable sources.

Stay tuned for more news on this front as the talks unfold over the coming weeks.

Original article:  

China Is Absolutely Destroying the US on Clean Energy

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Hoffman, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China Is Absolutely Destroying the US on Clean Energy

Chart of the Day: Republican Tax Plans for the Middle Class

by DeanaMoeller Posted on November 11, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Of the five leading candidates, four have released semi-detailed tax plans. We’re still waiting on Ben Carson’s tithe-based plan. Still, I thought everyone ought to get a look at how their plans affect the middle class vs. the rich. After all, we liberals keep nattering on about how these guys all want to “cut taxes on the rich,” so let’s see the evidence.

Well, the Tax Foundation is a right-leaning outfit, so you have to figure they’re going to give Republican plans a fair shake. And their distributional analysis of Rubio, Bush, Trump, and Cruz shows that their tax plans are all pretty similar: tiny gains for middle-income workers and huge gains for the top 1 percent. I’ve used the static analysis, since it’s the most tethered to reality, but even if you use the magic dynamic estimates you get roughly the same result: the rich make out a whole lot better than the middle class.

That said, you really have to give Ted Cruz credit. When it comes to giving huge handouts to the rich, he’s the true Republican leader.

Originally posted here – 

Chart of the Day: Republican Tax Plans for the Middle Class

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chart of the Day: Republican Tax Plans for the Middle Class