Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 872
February 6, 2016
A fight for the party’s soul: What’s really at stake in Bernie vs. Hillary
Revolution versus evolution. Passion versus pragmatism. Outsiders versus insiders. These are just some of the big schisms facing Democratic voters in the party's growing conundrum of having to choose between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. On Monday night, both candidates pledged to keep fighting for the soul of the party, to win voters’ trust in upcoming primaries and caucuses, and to lead the country toward a future guided by its better angels come November’s presidential election. But make no mistake; the future is far from clear. No matter what happens in coming weeks until a nominee is chosen, a party split into two fervent factions means there will be a tough, perhaps bitter competition. How will that play out? And how will it affect Democrats’ chances this fall? The way Clinton handled it Monday night may not bode well. Assuming she is the nominee, it will help her to connect with the people her campaign will need to win — especially Sanders’ younger, fresher and more passionate grassroots base. He won an astounding 70 percent of Iowa Democrats under age 30. When Clinton spoke Monday night after the caucuses, she said, “It is rare that we have the opportunity we do now to have a real contest of ideas; to really think hard about what the Democratic Party stands for and what we want the future of our country to look like.” And she added a perhaps misguided pitch to Sanders’ crowd. “I am a progressive that gets things done for people.” It is revealing that last line brought boos from Sanders’ supporters. But there’s more to this than simply saying the party will be debating what Democrats truly stand for and who’s best suited to carry that message. The fact that Clinton didn’t lose—but didn’t clearly win—Iowa’s caucuses—quite possibly becauseIowa’s Democratic Party deliberately slowed down announcing the night’s results—underscores both Clinton’s weaknesses and what her campaign lacks. For months, polls have found enthusiasm levels for Clinton backers to be low, while questions about her trustworthiness especially high among young voters. Clinton’s advisors said Tuesday they knew Iowa was not going to be a strong showing, just as they predicted that its similarity to Sanders’ nearly all-white home state of Vermont would play to his advantage. Clinton’s supporters also were saying she was best under pressure and we will soon see that side of Hillary as she goes to New Hampshire as an underdog, given Sanders’ double-digit lead in polls there. But Americans and the Sanders team saw the real Clinton on Monday night, when she announced that she won before the results were tallied, pushing the headlines into saying victory or tie — but not a loss. On Tuesday, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver said there were many unanswered questions about how the Iowa party tallied and awarded delegates. “As an empirical matter, we’re not likely to ever know what the actual result was,” he said, citing the razor-thin finish, “arcane” caucus rules, delayed reporting of precincts and counting technology used. Sanders won’t contest the result, his campaign said. Both candidates will end up essentially splitting Iowa’s delegates. But Clinton’s headline-grabbing move does not endear her to Sanders supporters, who are ready to follow him all the way to the Democratic National Convention next summer. In the shortest of short runs, the odds are in Sanders’ favor. In New Hampshire, he’s ahead by double-digits. But then the contest literally goes south to primaries and caucuses in Nevada, South Carolina and a dozen states on March 1. Clinton is favored in many of the big post-New Hampshire states, because of decades of relationships with politicians, leaders in communities of color and party activists. Clinton is still the party’s presumed nominee in 2016. Several hundred so-called super delegates, who are the top elected Democratic officials in Congress and the states, support her. That calculus still holds despite Sanders’ photo finish in Iowa and his lead going into New Hampshire. It’s one thing for Clinton and Sanders to debate whether Democrats need an idealist or realist — and which one of them fits that bill. But if she relies on tactics to win in the short run — like grabbing the progressive mantle in Monday night’s speech prematurely claiming victory — it could haunt her come the fall if she’s the nominee, because it may alienate the young Democrats her campaign will need. In politics, winning is almost everything. But how one wins matters, especially when one of the top themes raised by your opponent—in this case, Sanders—is restoring fairness across America and challenging a rigged system.
Revolution versus evolution. Passion versus pragmatism. Outsiders versus insiders. These are just some of the big schisms facing Democratic voters in the party's growing conundrum of having to choose between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. On Monday night, both candidates pledged to keep fighting for the soul of the party, to win voters’ trust in upcoming primaries and caucuses, and to lead the country toward a future guided by its better angels come November’s presidential election. But make no mistake; the future is far from clear. No matter what happens in coming weeks until a nominee is chosen, a party split into two fervent factions means there will be a tough, perhaps bitter competition. How will that play out? And how will it affect Democrats’ chances this fall? The way Clinton handled it Monday night may not bode well. Assuming she is the nominee, it will help her to connect with the people her campaign will need to win — especially Sanders’ younger, fresher and more passionate grassroots base. He won an astounding 70 percent of Iowa Democrats under age 30. When Clinton spoke Monday night after the caucuses, she said, “It is rare that we have the opportunity we do now to have a real contest of ideas; to really think hard about what the Democratic Party stands for and what we want the future of our country to look like.” And she added a perhaps misguided pitch to Sanders’ crowd. “I am a progressive that gets things done for people.” It is revealing that last line brought boos from Sanders’ supporters. But there’s more to this than simply saying the party will be debating what Democrats truly stand for and who’s best suited to carry that message. The fact that Clinton didn’t lose—but didn’t clearly win—Iowa’s caucuses—quite possibly becauseIowa’s Democratic Party deliberately slowed down announcing the night’s results—underscores both Clinton’s weaknesses and what her campaign lacks. For months, polls have found enthusiasm levels for Clinton backers to be low, while questions about her trustworthiness especially high among young voters. Clinton’s advisors said Tuesday they knew Iowa was not going to be a strong showing, just as they predicted that its similarity to Sanders’ nearly all-white home state of Vermont would play to his advantage. Clinton’s supporters also were saying she was best under pressure and we will soon see that side of Hillary as she goes to New Hampshire as an underdog, given Sanders’ double-digit lead in polls there. But Americans and the Sanders team saw the real Clinton on Monday night, when she announced that she won before the results were tallied, pushing the headlines into saying victory or tie — but not a loss. On Tuesday, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver said there were many unanswered questions about how the Iowa party tallied and awarded delegates. “As an empirical matter, we’re not likely to ever know what the actual result was,” he said, citing the razor-thin finish, “arcane” caucus rules, delayed reporting of precincts and counting technology used. Sanders won’t contest the result, his campaign said. Both candidates will end up essentially splitting Iowa’s delegates. But Clinton’s headline-grabbing move does not endear her to Sanders supporters, who are ready to follow him all the way to the Democratic National Convention next summer. In the shortest of short runs, the odds are in Sanders’ favor. In New Hampshire, he’s ahead by double-digits. But then the contest literally goes south to primaries and caucuses in Nevada, South Carolina and a dozen states on March 1. Clinton is favored in many of the big post-New Hampshire states, because of decades of relationships with politicians, leaders in communities of color and party activists. Clinton is still the party’s presumed nominee in 2016. Several hundred so-called super delegates, who are the top elected Democratic officials in Congress and the states, support her. That calculus still holds despite Sanders’ photo finish in Iowa and his lead going into New Hampshire. It’s one thing for Clinton and Sanders to debate whether Democrats need an idealist or realist — and which one of them fits that bill. But if she relies on tactics to win in the short run — like grabbing the progressive mantle in Monday night’s speech prematurely claiming victory — it could haunt her come the fall if she’s the nominee, because it may alienate the young Democrats her campaign will need. In politics, winning is almost everything. But how one wins matters, especially when one of the top themes raised by your opponent—in this case, Sanders—is restoring fairness across America and challenging a rigged system.
Revolution versus evolution. Passion versus pragmatism. Outsiders versus insiders. These are just some of the big schisms facing Democratic voters in the party's growing conundrum of having to choose between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. On Monday night, both candidates pledged to keep fighting for the soul of the party, to win voters’ trust in upcoming primaries and caucuses, and to lead the country toward a future guided by its better angels come November’s presidential election. But make no mistake; the future is far from clear. No matter what happens in coming weeks until a nominee is chosen, a party split into two fervent factions means there will be a tough, perhaps bitter competition. How will that play out? And how will it affect Democrats’ chances this fall? The way Clinton handled it Monday night may not bode well. Assuming she is the nominee, it will help her to connect with the people her campaign will need to win — especially Sanders’ younger, fresher and more passionate grassroots base. He won an astounding 70 percent of Iowa Democrats under age 30. When Clinton spoke Monday night after the caucuses, she said, “It is rare that we have the opportunity we do now to have a real contest of ideas; to really think hard about what the Democratic Party stands for and what we want the future of our country to look like.” And she added a perhaps misguided pitch to Sanders’ crowd. “I am a progressive that gets things done for people.” It is revealing that last line brought boos from Sanders’ supporters. But there’s more to this than simply saying the party will be debating what Democrats truly stand for and who’s best suited to carry that message. The fact that Clinton didn’t lose—but didn’t clearly win—Iowa’s caucuses—quite possibly becauseIowa’s Democratic Party deliberately slowed down announcing the night’s results—underscores both Clinton’s weaknesses and what her campaign lacks. For months, polls have found enthusiasm levels for Clinton backers to be low, while questions about her trustworthiness especially high among young voters. Clinton’s advisors said Tuesday they knew Iowa was not going to be a strong showing, just as they predicted that its similarity to Sanders’ nearly all-white home state of Vermont would play to his advantage. Clinton’s supporters also were saying she was best under pressure and we will soon see that side of Hillary as she goes to New Hampshire as an underdog, given Sanders’ double-digit lead in polls there. But Americans and the Sanders team saw the real Clinton on Monday night, when she announced that she won before the results were tallied, pushing the headlines into saying victory or tie — but not a loss. On Tuesday, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver said there were many unanswered questions about how the Iowa party tallied and awarded delegates. “As an empirical matter, we’re not likely to ever know what the actual result was,” he said, citing the razor-thin finish, “arcane” caucus rules, delayed reporting of precincts and counting technology used. Sanders won’t contest the result, his campaign said. Both candidates will end up essentially splitting Iowa’s delegates. But Clinton’s headline-grabbing move does not endear her to Sanders supporters, who are ready to follow him all the way to the Democratic National Convention next summer. In the shortest of short runs, the odds are in Sanders’ favor. In New Hampshire, he’s ahead by double-digits. But then the contest literally goes south to primaries and caucuses in Nevada, South Carolina and a dozen states on March 1. Clinton is favored in many of the big post-New Hampshire states, because of decades of relationships with politicians, leaders in communities of color and party activists. Clinton is still the party’s presumed nominee in 2016. Several hundred so-called super delegates, who are the top elected Democratic officials in Congress and the states, support her. That calculus still holds despite Sanders’ photo finish in Iowa and his lead going into New Hampshire. It’s one thing for Clinton and Sanders to debate whether Democrats need an idealist or realist — and which one of them fits that bill. But if she relies on tactics to win in the short run — like grabbing the progressive mantle in Monday night’s speech prematurely claiming victory — it could haunt her come the fall if she’s the nominee, because it may alienate the young Democrats her campaign will need. In politics, winning is almost everything. But how one wins matters, especially when one of the top themes raised by your opponent—in this case, Sanders—is restoring fairness across America and challenging a rigged system.
February 5, 2016
The special hell of a Ted Cruz rally: What it’s like to spend an evening with the GOP’s oiliest operator
There is a boisterous Oath Keeper leaking alcohol from every pore sitting three seats away from me in a Nashua, New Hampshire, middle school auditorium hosting a Ted Cruz town hall. I’m wondering if it’s too late to change seats. The guy is wearing a camouflage jacket that doesn’t quite hide the bulging middle-age belly straining at the faded Patriots T-shirt underneath. He’s carrying a sign that reads “Like a Cruz missile, Ted will destroy ISIS” on one side and “Cruzin West” on the other, a plea for the Texas senator to pick former Florida congressman Allen West as his vice-presidential candidate. He’s loudly telling everyone within earshot that we need to start a Cruz/West chant at some point and is met with approving responses from some of the people around me. I decide not to move. If the Oath Keeper or anyone else spies my reporter’s notebook and asks what outlet I’m with, I’ll say World Net Daily and hope no one pulls out an iPhone to check. It’s all part of the carnival atmosphere of a Ted Cruz event being held at Elm Street Middle School, an imposing Gothic building that, as I drove up in the dark amidst a driving rain, made me think of an insane asylum in a movie, a comparison that felt more than appropriate once I was inside. Old men in baseball caps bearing the names of military units, moms holding babies in one hand and Ted Cruz signs in the other. Three people by the stage waving flags (from left to right: American, Israeli, Gadsden). Two flat-screen TVs on either side of the stage are showing a campaign film of more cheering crowds, backed by patriotic music and conservative activist Brent Bozell talking about all the reasons he loves Ted Cruz. This is the New Hampshire I came to find. This is the polished and professional political rally of the true believers, ecstatic in their fervor and their belief in the rightness of their cause. It’s exhilarating and terrifying. As the late great Hunter S. Thompson might have said, this is the belly of the beast. Cruz is often described as “oily,” but that word doesn’t really do him justice. In fact, he’s so oleaginous he reminds one of the puddles covering the stained cement floor of a Jiffy Lube. It’s not just a physical characteristic – though there is that; the man has a sheen about him – but also one of affect. When he strides out to a rapturous greeting from the crowd and walks along the edge of the stage slapping hands with people in the front row, it feels so studied that I can picture college-age Ted Cruz practicing this move in his Princeton dorm room. The speech is filled with the usual bullshit that no one will call him on, even in a GOP debate, because all the candidates are trying to appeal to a base that has gone beyond reason and Earth’s orbit. But it’s worth rebutting a few of the lies here, if only for the benefit of future archaeologists picking through the ruins of our civilization if Ted Cruz winds up leading it. For economic policy, Cruz has a plan to turbocharge the American economy. It seems to go something like this: Repeal Obamacare Institute a flat tax on all personal and business income Economic growth!!!!! Never mind that this plan would yank health insurance from millions of people and blow a hole in the deficit, adding mountains to the nation’s $19 trillion debt that he decried elsewhere in his sermon. “Repeal Obamacare” and “flat tax” are words that appeal to the deepest, most primitive part of the conservative lizard brain. Any downsides can just be blamed on liberals later on. Another Cruz proposal involves eliminating five major government agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service. Which raises the question: Who will collect the taxes that people and businesses would still be paying even with a flat tax in place? You may as well just tell the crowd you’re eliminating taxes altogether. On his proposal to “carpet-bomb” ISIS, Cruz has been getting blasted by military leaders for weeks for a) not seeming to know what carpet bombing actually is, and b) not knowing that it’s a war crime. But he hasn’t changed his pitch. In Nashua he tells the crowd that during the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States flew 1,100 sorties a day against the Iraqi army, “carpet-bombing” it into oblivion so that all our ground forces had to do once the invasion began was mop up the shattered remnants of Sadaam Hussein’s forces. This understanding of carpet bombing is wildly inaccurate. Cruz either does not know this, or more likely he does not care. I’m betting on the latter. That's because he needs this audience, and every other audience, to believe in the holy rightness of his crusade. And if this crowd is any indication, he’s succeeding. This rally has the feel of a campaign that could go all the way, no matter how dangerous the proposals driving it are. Because these are the true believers, and true believers know that they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but evil and stupid. (When Cruz mocks some environmental protesters who briefly interrupt him, the man sitting directly behind me yells with unsuppressed fury, “They’re Bolsheviks!” I can almost feel the spittle on the back of my neck.) This is a darker place than the Donald Trump rally I attended the night before. There, one got the sense Trump’s support was a mile wide but an inch deep. This, though, this is something more primal. It’s all enough to make one despair, and to pray to a God you don’t believe in that something can stop this train, that some part of the GOP establishment can still rally to knock down this campaign or that there is a very finite percentage of even conservative voters to whom it will appeal. And also to get out of this auditorium before Cruz pulls a couple of vipers from a sack and everyone starts speaking in tongues.There is a boisterous Oath Keeper leaking alcohol from every pore sitting three seats away from me in a Nashua, New Hampshire, middle school auditorium hosting a Ted Cruz town hall. I’m wondering if it’s too late to change seats. The guy is wearing a camouflage jacket that doesn’t quite hide the bulging middle-age belly straining at the faded Patriots T-shirt underneath. He’s carrying a sign that reads “Like a Cruz missile, Ted will destroy ISIS” on one side and “Cruzin West” on the other, a plea for the Texas senator to pick former Florida congressman Allen West as his vice-presidential candidate. He’s loudly telling everyone within earshot that we need to start a Cruz/West chant at some point and is met with approving responses from some of the people around me. I decide not to move. If the Oath Keeper or anyone else spies my reporter’s notebook and asks what outlet I’m with, I’ll say World Net Daily and hope no one pulls out an iPhone to check. It’s all part of the carnival atmosphere of a Ted Cruz event being held at Elm Street Middle School, an imposing Gothic building that, as I drove up in the dark amidst a driving rain, made me think of an insane asylum in a movie, a comparison that felt more than appropriate once I was inside. Old men in baseball caps bearing the names of military units, moms holding babies in one hand and Ted Cruz signs in the other. Three people by the stage waving flags (from left to right: American, Israeli, Gadsden). Two flat-screen TVs on either side of the stage are showing a campaign film of more cheering crowds, backed by patriotic music and conservative activist Brent Bozell talking about all the reasons he loves Ted Cruz. This is the New Hampshire I came to find. This is the polished and professional political rally of the true believers, ecstatic in their fervor and their belief in the rightness of their cause. It’s exhilarating and terrifying. As the late great Hunter S. Thompson might have said, this is the belly of the beast. Cruz is often described as “oily,” but that word doesn’t really do him justice. In fact, he’s so oleaginous he reminds one of the puddles covering the stained cement floor of a Jiffy Lube. It’s not just a physical characteristic – though there is that; the man has a sheen about him – but also one of affect. When he strides out to a rapturous greeting from the crowd and walks along the edge of the stage slapping hands with people in the front row, it feels so studied that I can picture college-age Ted Cruz practicing this move in his Princeton dorm room. The speech is filled with the usual bullshit that no one will call him on, even in a GOP debate, because all the candidates are trying to appeal to a base that has gone beyond reason and Earth’s orbit. But it’s worth rebutting a few of the lies here, if only for the benefit of future archaeologists picking through the ruins of our civilization if Ted Cruz winds up leading it. For economic policy, Cruz has a plan to turbocharge the American economy. It seems to go something like this: Repeal Obamacare Institute a flat tax on all personal and business income Economic growth!!!!! Never mind that this plan would yank health insurance from millions of people and blow a hole in the deficit, adding mountains to the nation’s $19 trillion debt that he decried elsewhere in his sermon. “Repeal Obamacare” and “flat tax” are words that appeal to the deepest, most primitive part of the conservative lizard brain. Any downsides can just be blamed on liberals later on. Another Cruz proposal involves eliminating five major government agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service. Which raises the question: Who will collect the taxes that people and businesses would still be paying even with a flat tax in place? You may as well just tell the crowd you’re eliminating taxes altogether. On his proposal to “carpet-bomb” ISIS, Cruz has been getting blasted by military leaders for weeks for a) not seeming to know what carpet bombing actually is, and b) not knowing that it’s a war crime. But he hasn’t changed his pitch. In Nashua he tells the crowd that during the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States flew 1,100 sorties a day against the Iraqi army, “carpet-bombing” it into oblivion so that all our ground forces had to do once the invasion began was mop up the shattered remnants of Sadaam Hussein’s forces. This understanding of carpet bombing is wildly inaccurate. Cruz either does not know this, or more likely he does not care. I’m betting on the latter. That's because he needs this audience, and every other audience, to believe in the holy rightness of his crusade. And if this crowd is any indication, he’s succeeding. This rally has the feel of a campaign that could go all the way, no matter how dangerous the proposals driving it are. Because these are the true believers, and true believers know that they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but evil and stupid. (When Cruz mocks some environmental protesters who briefly interrupt him, the man sitting directly behind me yells with unsuppressed fury, “They’re Bolsheviks!” I can almost feel the spittle on the back of my neck.) This is a darker place than the Donald Trump rally I attended the night before. There, one got the sense Trump’s support was a mile wide but an inch deep. This, though, this is something more primal. It’s all enough to make one despair, and to pray to a God you don’t believe in that something can stop this train, that some part of the GOP establishment can still rally to knock down this campaign or that there is a very finite percentage of even conservative voters to whom it will appeal. And also to get out of this auditorium before Cruz pulls a couple of vipers from a sack and everyone starts speaking in tongues.There is a boisterous Oath Keeper leaking alcohol from every pore sitting three seats away from me in a Nashua, New Hampshire, middle school auditorium hosting a Ted Cruz town hall. I’m wondering if it’s too late to change seats. The guy is wearing a camouflage jacket that doesn’t quite hide the bulging middle-age belly straining at the faded Patriots T-shirt underneath. He’s carrying a sign that reads “Like a Cruz missile, Ted will destroy ISIS” on one side and “Cruzin West” on the other, a plea for the Texas senator to pick former Florida congressman Allen West as his vice-presidential candidate. He’s loudly telling everyone within earshot that we need to start a Cruz/West chant at some point and is met with approving responses from some of the people around me. I decide not to move. If the Oath Keeper or anyone else spies my reporter’s notebook and asks what outlet I’m with, I’ll say World Net Daily and hope no one pulls out an iPhone to check. It’s all part of the carnival atmosphere of a Ted Cruz event being held at Elm Street Middle School, an imposing Gothic building that, as I drove up in the dark amidst a driving rain, made me think of an insane asylum in a movie, a comparison that felt more than appropriate once I was inside. Old men in baseball caps bearing the names of military units, moms holding babies in one hand and Ted Cruz signs in the other. Three people by the stage waving flags (from left to right: American, Israeli, Gadsden). Two flat-screen TVs on either side of the stage are showing a campaign film of more cheering crowds, backed by patriotic music and conservative activist Brent Bozell talking about all the reasons he loves Ted Cruz. This is the New Hampshire I came to find. This is the polished and professional political rally of the true believers, ecstatic in their fervor and their belief in the rightness of their cause. It’s exhilarating and terrifying. As the late great Hunter S. Thompson might have said, this is the belly of the beast. Cruz is often described as “oily,” but that word doesn’t really do him justice. In fact, he’s so oleaginous he reminds one of the puddles covering the stained cement floor of a Jiffy Lube. It’s not just a physical characteristic – though there is that; the man has a sheen about him – but also one of affect. When he strides out to a rapturous greeting from the crowd and walks along the edge of the stage slapping hands with people in the front row, it feels so studied that I can picture college-age Ted Cruz practicing this move in his Princeton dorm room. The speech is filled with the usual bullshit that no one will call him on, even in a GOP debate, because all the candidates are trying to appeal to a base that has gone beyond reason and Earth’s orbit. But it’s worth rebutting a few of the lies here, if only for the benefit of future archaeologists picking through the ruins of our civilization if Ted Cruz winds up leading it. For economic policy, Cruz has a plan to turbocharge the American economy. It seems to go something like this: Repeal Obamacare Institute a flat tax on all personal and business income Economic growth!!!!! Never mind that this plan would yank health insurance from millions of people and blow a hole in the deficit, adding mountains to the nation’s $19 trillion debt that he decried elsewhere in his sermon. “Repeal Obamacare” and “flat tax” are words that appeal to the deepest, most primitive part of the conservative lizard brain. Any downsides can just be blamed on liberals later on. Another Cruz proposal involves eliminating five major government agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service. Which raises the question: Who will collect the taxes that people and businesses would still be paying even with a flat tax in place? You may as well just tell the crowd you’re eliminating taxes altogether. On his proposal to “carpet-bomb” ISIS, Cruz has been getting blasted by military leaders for weeks for a) not seeming to know what carpet bombing actually is, and b) not knowing that it’s a war crime. But he hasn’t changed his pitch. In Nashua he tells the crowd that during the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States flew 1,100 sorties a day against the Iraqi army, “carpet-bombing” it into oblivion so that all our ground forces had to do once the invasion began was mop up the shattered remnants of Sadaam Hussein’s forces. This understanding of carpet bombing is wildly inaccurate. Cruz either does not know this, or more likely he does not care. I’m betting on the latter. That's because he needs this audience, and every other audience, to believe in the holy rightness of his crusade. And if this crowd is any indication, he’s succeeding. This rally has the feel of a campaign that could go all the way, no matter how dangerous the proposals driving it are. Because these are the true believers, and true believers know that they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but evil and stupid. (When Cruz mocks some environmental protesters who briefly interrupt him, the man sitting directly behind me yells with unsuppressed fury, “They’re Bolsheviks!” I can almost feel the spittle on the back of my neck.) This is a darker place than the Donald Trump rally I attended the night before. There, one got the sense Trump’s support was a mile wide but an inch deep. This, though, this is something more primal. It’s all enough to make one despair, and to pray to a God you don’t believe in that something can stop this train, that some part of the GOP establishment can still rally to knock down this campaign or that there is a very finite percentage of even conservative voters to whom it will appeal. And also to get out of this auditorium before Cruz pulls a couple of vipers from a sack and everyone starts speaking in tongues.
Cam Newton is becoming the face of the NFL — and that scares the hell out of the racists who’ve been trying to tear him down
“Newton's actions on and off the field relate to hip hop, much like Michael Vick's did in his prime and Allen Iverson to a larger extent.” – NFL.com “I said it since Day One: I’m an African-American quarterback that may scare a lot of people because they haven’t seen nothing that they can compare me to. — Cam Newton On Sunday, Peyton Manning will take the field for what will likely be his final NFL game. Manning may be hobbled, waning and dogged by allegations of PED use, but a Broncos victory would be the ultimate grace note for one of football’s great careers. Except nobody’s talking about Peyton Manning’s chance at a memorable exit. Instead, the run-up to Super Bowl 50 has focused almost entirely on Panthers QB Cam Newton, who this season established himself as the most dominant, galvanic and charismatic figure in the league. Newton, who has overcome early questions about his judgment, maturity and accuracy, lead Carolina to a 15-1 record while overshadowing nearly every other story in football. The putative MVP is also a born pitchman, striking the perfect balance between excitable and cool. Cam Newton also happens to be proudly, unapologetically black. Cam Newton wouldn’t be the first African-American signal caller to win a Super Bowl. That distinction belongs to Doug Williams, who won with the Redskins in Super Bowl XXII. But given how prominently Newton’s race has figured into the conversation, it feels like he’s the one on the verge of breaking one of sports’ last remaining color lines. A win for the Panthers would make Cam Newton into the new face of the NFL. And because Newton is so comfortable with being himself at all times, this scares the hell out of some people. Cam celebrates vociferously after a big play, dabs on the field, and plays with a joy and expressiveness that’s almost alien to football’s grim, militarized landscape. He rocks Louboutin footwear and pals around with rappers like Young Jeezy and Future; his speech is peppered with phrases that are new to the ears of many Americans. And then there’s his omnipresent smile, which, depending on who you ask, is either life-affirming or unbearably smug. If Cam Newton wins a Super Bowl, he becomes the new face of the NFL and in the process changes the complexion of football. And this scares the hell out of some people because Cam brings with him a level of cultural baggage—and the possibility of sweeping change—that’s not supposed to creep into this conservative, hidebound game. That’s why, all season long, we’ve seen an increasingly desperate campaign to discredit Cam Newton. As Greg Howard detailed in his excellent history, black QBs have long faced undue criticism and resistance. They’ve been dismissed as “running quarterbacks,” or convinced outright to convert to another position. Phenoms like Randall Cunningham and Michael Vick shattered the convention but could be easily marginalized for it. At every given turn, there were questions about their legitimacy, based on the stinging assumption made that African-America athletes just don’t posses the range of skills needed to fill football’s single most important position. The fear of a black quarterback, as Tommy Craggs put it, has always been assuaged by finding creative ways to minimize their performance. Except at this point, Cam Newton’s play is beyond reproach. What makes him so subversive is just how un-subversive his play is at this point, how readily he could slide into that role of quarterback of record. Newton has grown into the ultimate modern QB and succeeded to such a degree that his on-field credibility simply isn’t up for debate. That’s why his critics have been forced to resort to a culture-based critique of the Panthers superstar. The very qualities that make Cam Newton an unprecedented figure in the NFL have, at least in theory, become points of contention. He’s arrogant, pompous, loud, showy, lacking in humility, a walking sideshow. His shoes are too expensive and his pants are too bright. One Tennessee mom wrote a letter to the editor calling him an unfit role model and, implicitly, a hyper-virile menace to society. Even the NFL’s official website can’t help but liken Newton not only to Vick but also to NBA icon Allen Iverson, whose disruptive style has nothing in common with the way Newton plays football. Iverson—magnetic as he was—frequently presented himself as snarling or defensive. Newton is nothing if not diplomatic. All they have common in this so-called affinity for “hip-hop,” code so unmistakable, and in this case desperate, that it hardly warrants an explanation. Cam Newton’s play legitimates “hip-hop,” rather than it being some sort of professional burden for him. This is, in essence, a war over whether Cam Newton’s blackness is an asset or a liability. And give his immense popularity, the latter seems to be taking the lead, to such a degree that lately a “not that many people hate Cam Newton” meme has taken hold—as if his detractors had now become desperate dead-enders, grasping at any excuse to call Cam out and hope that, just this once, his actions or attitude would be viewed in a wholly negative light. All this week, Cam Newton has gracefully, openly fielded questions about race to an almost unprecedented degree. It’s an unfair imposition and Newton has no choice but to smile and play along. But his candor has been remarkable, for the simple fact that he’s acutely aware of and willing to discuss what he represents to the American public. If Newton wins a Super Bowl, he becomes the NFL’s standard-bearer. And this could potentially bring about a sea change in the way people play and view the sport, or at least provide a much-needed distraction from the league’s never-ending public relations crisis. Over the weekend, Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson announced his retirement at age 31, citing health concerns. Cam Newton could, at least superficially, cast football as an entertaining, downright fun sport to watch and play, rather than a grim morass of grave bodily harm and nameless, faceless acts of self-sacrifice. He could even influence younger athletes to ditch the joyless warrior mentality and view the game as more expressive and exciting. There’s more to football than violence and self-effacement, and Cam Newton proves it every single game. But when Cam Newton dabs, we don’t just see football forced to catch up with the rest of American society, which has over the last few years been more open to embracing figures like Cam and publicly discussing issues of race — let’s not forget, we elected Barack Obama president of the United States. We see the possibility that Newton could not only bring something new and invigorating to football but also potentially use it as a platform to make society itself a more open, inviting place. Football could go from retrograde to progressive, from a place where old attitudes die to one where new ones are forged. Maybe that’s too much to put on one 26-year-old. But if Cam Newton wins on Sunday, there’s no telling what will happen in his wake.“Newton's actions on and off the field relate to hip hop, much like Michael Vick's did in his prime and Allen Iverson to a larger extent.” – NFL.com “I said it since Day One: I’m an African-American quarterback that may scare a lot of people because they haven’t seen nothing that they can compare me to. — Cam Newton On Sunday, Peyton Manning will take the field for what will likely be his final NFL game. Manning may be hobbled, waning and dogged by allegations of PED use, but a Broncos victory would be the ultimate grace note for one of football’s great careers. Except nobody’s talking about Peyton Manning’s chance at a memorable exit. Instead, the run-up to Super Bowl 50 has focused almost entirely on Panthers QB Cam Newton, who this season established himself as the most dominant, galvanic and charismatic figure in the league. Newton, who has overcome early questions about his judgment, maturity and accuracy, lead Carolina to a 15-1 record while overshadowing nearly every other story in football. The putative MVP is also a born pitchman, striking the perfect balance between excitable and cool. Cam Newton also happens to be proudly, unapologetically black. Cam Newton wouldn’t be the first African-American signal caller to win a Super Bowl. That distinction belongs to Doug Williams, who won with the Redskins in Super Bowl XXII. But given how prominently Newton’s race has figured into the conversation, it feels like he’s the one on the verge of breaking one of sports’ last remaining color lines. A win for the Panthers would make Cam Newton into the new face of the NFL. And because Newton is so comfortable with being himself at all times, this scares the hell out of some people. Cam celebrates vociferously after a big play, dabs on the field, and plays with a joy and expressiveness that’s almost alien to football’s grim, militarized landscape. He rocks Louboutin footwear and pals around with rappers like Young Jeezy and Future; his speech is peppered with phrases that are new to the ears of many Americans. And then there’s his omnipresent smile, which, depending on who you ask, is either life-affirming or unbearably smug. If Cam Newton wins a Super Bowl, he becomes the new face of the NFL and in the process changes the complexion of football. And this scares the hell out of some people because Cam brings with him a level of cultural baggage—and the possibility of sweeping change—that’s not supposed to creep into this conservative, hidebound game. That’s why, all season long, we’ve seen an increasingly desperate campaign to discredit Cam Newton. As Greg Howard detailed in his excellent history, black QBs have long faced undue criticism and resistance. They’ve been dismissed as “running quarterbacks,” or convinced outright to convert to another position. Phenoms like Randall Cunningham and Michael Vick shattered the convention but could be easily marginalized for it. At every given turn, there were questions about their legitimacy, based on the stinging assumption made that African-America athletes just don’t posses the range of skills needed to fill football’s single most important position. The fear of a black quarterback, as Tommy Craggs put it, has always been assuaged by finding creative ways to minimize their performance. Except at this point, Cam Newton’s play is beyond reproach. What makes him so subversive is just how un-subversive his play is at this point, how readily he could slide into that role of quarterback of record. Newton has grown into the ultimate modern QB and succeeded to such a degree that his on-field credibility simply isn’t up for debate. That’s why his critics have been forced to resort to a culture-based critique of the Panthers superstar. The very qualities that make Cam Newton an unprecedented figure in the NFL have, at least in theory, become points of contention. He’s arrogant, pompous, loud, showy, lacking in humility, a walking sideshow. His shoes are too expensive and his pants are too bright. One Tennessee mom wrote a letter to the editor calling him an unfit role model and, implicitly, a hyper-virile menace to society. Even the NFL’s official website can’t help but liken Newton not only to Vick but also to NBA icon Allen Iverson, whose disruptive style has nothing in common with the way Newton plays football. Iverson—magnetic as he was—frequently presented himself as snarling or defensive. Newton is nothing if not diplomatic. All they have common in this so-called affinity for “hip-hop,” code so unmistakable, and in this case desperate, that it hardly warrants an explanation. Cam Newton’s play legitimates “hip-hop,” rather than it being some sort of professional burden for him. This is, in essence, a war over whether Cam Newton’s blackness is an asset or a liability. And give his immense popularity, the latter seems to be taking the lead, to such a degree that lately a “not that many people hate Cam Newton” meme has taken hold—as if his detractors had now become desperate dead-enders, grasping at any excuse to call Cam out and hope that, just this once, his actions or attitude would be viewed in a wholly negative light. All this week, Cam Newton has gracefully, openly fielded questions about race to an almost unprecedented degree. It’s an unfair imposition and Newton has no choice but to smile and play along. But his candor has been remarkable, for the simple fact that he’s acutely aware of and willing to discuss what he represents to the American public. If Newton wins a Super Bowl, he becomes the NFL’s standard-bearer. And this could potentially bring about a sea change in the way people play and view the sport, or at least provide a much-needed distraction from the league’s never-ending public relations crisis. Over the weekend, Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson announced his retirement at age 31, citing health concerns. Cam Newton could, at least superficially, cast football as an entertaining, downright fun sport to watch and play, rather than a grim morass of grave bodily harm and nameless, faceless acts of self-sacrifice. He could even influence younger athletes to ditch the joyless warrior mentality and view the game as more expressive and exciting. There’s more to football than violence and self-effacement, and Cam Newton proves it every single game. But when Cam Newton dabs, we don’t just see football forced to catch up with the rest of American society, which has over the last few years been more open to embracing figures like Cam and publicly discussing issues of race — let’s not forget, we elected Barack Obama president of the United States. We see the possibility that Newton could not only bring something new and invigorating to football but also potentially use it as a platform to make society itself a more open, inviting place. Football could go from retrograde to progressive, from a place where old attitudes die to one where new ones are forged. Maybe that’s too much to put on one 26-year-old. But if Cam Newton wins on Sunday, there’s no telling what will happen in his wake.“Newton's actions on and off the field relate to hip hop, much like Michael Vick's did in his prime and Allen Iverson to a larger extent.” – NFL.com “I said it since Day One: I’m an African-American quarterback that may scare a lot of people because they haven’t seen nothing that they can compare me to. — Cam Newton On Sunday, Peyton Manning will take the field for what will likely be his final NFL game. Manning may be hobbled, waning and dogged by allegations of PED use, but a Broncos victory would be the ultimate grace note for one of football’s great careers. Except nobody’s talking about Peyton Manning’s chance at a memorable exit. Instead, the run-up to Super Bowl 50 has focused almost entirely on Panthers QB Cam Newton, who this season established himself as the most dominant, galvanic and charismatic figure in the league. Newton, who has overcome early questions about his judgment, maturity and accuracy, lead Carolina to a 15-1 record while overshadowing nearly every other story in football. The putative MVP is also a born pitchman, striking the perfect balance between excitable and cool. Cam Newton also happens to be proudly, unapologetically black. Cam Newton wouldn’t be the first African-American signal caller to win a Super Bowl. That distinction belongs to Doug Williams, who won with the Redskins in Super Bowl XXII. But given how prominently Newton’s race has figured into the conversation, it feels like he’s the one on the verge of breaking one of sports’ last remaining color lines. A win for the Panthers would make Cam Newton into the new face of the NFL. And because Newton is so comfortable with being himself at all times, this scares the hell out of some people. Cam celebrates vociferously after a big play, dabs on the field, and plays with a joy and expressiveness that’s almost alien to football’s grim, militarized landscape. He rocks Louboutin footwear and pals around with rappers like Young Jeezy and Future; his speech is peppered with phrases that are new to the ears of many Americans. And then there’s his omnipresent smile, which, depending on who you ask, is either life-affirming or unbearably smug. If Cam Newton wins a Super Bowl, he becomes the new face of the NFL and in the process changes the complexion of football. And this scares the hell out of some people because Cam brings with him a level of cultural baggage—and the possibility of sweeping change—that’s not supposed to creep into this conservative, hidebound game. That’s why, all season long, we’ve seen an increasingly desperate campaign to discredit Cam Newton. As Greg Howard detailed in his excellent history, black QBs have long faced undue criticism and resistance. They’ve been dismissed as “running quarterbacks,” or convinced outright to convert to another position. Phenoms like Randall Cunningham and Michael Vick shattered the convention but could be easily marginalized for it. At every given turn, there were questions about their legitimacy, based on the stinging assumption made that African-America athletes just don’t posses the range of skills needed to fill football’s single most important position. The fear of a black quarterback, as Tommy Craggs put it, has always been assuaged by finding creative ways to minimize their performance. Except at this point, Cam Newton’s play is beyond reproach. What makes him so subversive is just how un-subversive his play is at this point, how readily he could slide into that role of quarterback of record. Newton has grown into the ultimate modern QB and succeeded to such a degree that his on-field credibility simply isn’t up for debate. That’s why his critics have been forced to resort to a culture-based critique of the Panthers superstar. The very qualities that make Cam Newton an unprecedented figure in the NFL have, at least in theory, become points of contention. He’s arrogant, pompous, loud, showy, lacking in humility, a walking sideshow. His shoes are too expensive and his pants are too bright. One Tennessee mom wrote a letter to the editor calling him an unfit role model and, implicitly, a hyper-virile menace to society. Even the NFL’s official website can’t help but liken Newton not only to Vick but also to NBA icon Allen Iverson, whose disruptive style has nothing in common with the way Newton plays football. Iverson—magnetic as he was—frequently presented himself as snarling or defensive. Newton is nothing if not diplomatic. All they have common in this so-called affinity for “hip-hop,” code so unmistakable, and in this case desperate, that it hardly warrants an explanation. Cam Newton’s play legitimates “hip-hop,” rather than it being some sort of professional burden for him. This is, in essence, a war over whether Cam Newton’s blackness is an asset or a liability. And give his immense popularity, the latter seems to be taking the lead, to such a degree that lately a “not that many people hate Cam Newton” meme has taken hold—as if his detractors had now become desperate dead-enders, grasping at any excuse to call Cam out and hope that, just this once, his actions or attitude would be viewed in a wholly negative light. All this week, Cam Newton has gracefully, openly fielded questions about race to an almost unprecedented degree. It’s an unfair imposition and Newton has no choice but to smile and play along. But his candor has been remarkable, for the simple fact that he’s acutely aware of and willing to discuss what he represents to the American public. If Newton wins a Super Bowl, he becomes the NFL’s standard-bearer. And this could potentially bring about a sea change in the way people play and view the sport, or at least provide a much-needed distraction from the league’s never-ending public relations crisis. Over the weekend, Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson announced his retirement at age 31, citing health concerns. Cam Newton could, at least superficially, cast football as an entertaining, downright fun sport to watch and play, rather than a grim morass of grave bodily harm and nameless, faceless acts of self-sacrifice. He could even influence younger athletes to ditch the joyless warrior mentality and view the game as more expressive and exciting. There’s more to football than violence and self-effacement, and Cam Newton proves it every single game. But when Cam Newton dabs, we don’t just see football forced to catch up with the rest of American society, which has over the last few years been more open to embracing figures like Cam and publicly discussing issues of race — let’s not forget, we elected Barack Obama president of the United States. We see the possibility that Newton could not only bring something new and invigorating to football but also potentially use it as a platform to make society itself a more open, inviting place. Football could go from retrograde to progressive, from a place where old attitudes die to one where new ones are forged. Maybe that’s too much to put on one 26-year-old. But if Cam Newton wins on Sunday, there’s no telling what will happen in his wake.
How Coldplay became cool: Haters keep saying they’re too soft, too earnest, too dorky — and they still don’t care
At this juncture, it's safe to say the Super Bowl halftime show is nearly as popular as the football game itself. Although a recent New York Times article rather astutely characterized the 12-minute performance as "a gleaming confluence of big-time corporate agendas — N.F.L., TV networks, sponsors and brand-name performers all promoting something — that masquerades as a brief but over-the-top party," the paper also notes the show "has drawn more than 115 million viewers" in the recent past. The carrot for many viewers seems to be the element of surprise: Katy Perry's 2015 performance produced a fire Missy Elliott cameo and the indelible Left Shark meme, while past years have spawned a Destiny's Child reunion, M.I.A. flipping a middle finger to the camera and the infamous Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake wardrobe malfunction. Yet it's likely no accident that in the wake of the latter incident, the halftime show subsequently featured a string of boomer-friendly rock & roll artists—e.g., Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones, the Who, Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band. (This string was only interrupted by a performance from Prince, whose 2007 appearance is widely regarded as one of the best of all time.) In recent years, however, the Super Bowl has eased back toward the spectacle of pop stars and flashy special guests. And so in 2016, viewers are being treated to an appearance from U.K. stadium-rock juggernauts Coldplay, who will perform with a youth orchestra and two returning Super Bowl veterans, Beyoncé and Bruno Mars. While Beyoncé's presence is mollifying critics somewhat, many people are not pleased with the decision to feature Coldplay. A common complaint is that the band's music is boring or sleepy. That's not necessarily wrong: At their least successful, Coldplay are indeed soporific and mellow (see: 2014's "Magic"), and coast on frothy falsetto and saccharine sentiments (e.g., "Every Teardrop Is a Waterfall") rather than structure. As Andy Gill wrote in 2008, "Their music sounds like Radiohead with all the spiky, difficult, interesting bits boiled out of it, resulting in something with the sonic consistency of wilted spinach; it retains the crowd-pleasing hooks and sing-along choruses while dispensing with the more challenging, dissonant aspects and sudden, 90-degree shifts in direction." However, the band's certainly sensitive to such jabs. In 2005, the Associated Press noted that "when the New York Daily News panned its concert as dull because of a concentration of slow-moving songs, Coldplay changed its set." More recently, the band's moved to freshen up their sound: In a change from the muted approach of 2014's "Ghost Stories," their latest LP, "A Head Full of Dreams," boasts both contemporary-sounding synthpop and brighter production from Norwegian producers Stargate. "We wanted to marry all the music that we love, from Drake to Oasis," Chris Martin told Rolling Stone about the record. "There was a feeling that we don't have anything to lose. We're very comfortable now with the fact that we're not for everybody." Sure, the last statement is one only massive superstars have the luxury of saying—Coldplay's not hurting for fans, so critical barbs don't make a dent in their trajectory—but it does underscore that they're self-aware about their place in music. Indeed, the band's never come off as defensive about being so blatantly earnest. At times, Martin has almost relished being disliked. “That’s the great thing about people who hate us,” he said in 2005. “We can suck out the energy and make it into something positive. It’s like in 'Back to the Future,' where you have this device that can turn garbage into a time traveler.” In fact, despite their reputation, the members of Coldplay don't take themselves very seriously: Martin dropped an f-bomb in a live pre-Super Bowl press conference and hilariously inducted Peter Gabriel into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. (He also does a decent Mick Jagger impression.) Besides being a good way to deflect criticism, this lighthearted attitude also goes a long way toward insulating them from pomposity—it takes the edge off, as it were. Much of the condemnation of Coldplay tends not to judge them as they are (sensitive pop balladeers with emotive, sincere lyrics) but chide them for not being something else—more ambitious or boundary-pushing, perhaps. Thing is, the band isn't afraid of evolving or stretching themselves; they're just not very flashy about it. They sampled Kraftwerk on the chilly early career highlight "Talk" and have covered Echo & The Bunnymen's beloved '80s hit "Lips Like Sugar," while the song "Clocks" was remixed by respected artists Röyksopp and Fedde Le Grand. The 2008 album "Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends," meanwhile, was produced by Brian Eno, who pushed the band to merge grand atmospherics with intimate expressions of spirituality. And the band's reputation for being a dreck-driven, midtempo ballad machine isn't quite earned: Both 2002's "A Rush of Blood to the Head" and 2005's "X&Y" contain sleek, modern-sounding music that steered the pop conversation rather than followed existing threads. Coldplay will be the first ones to admit they just do their own thing and follow their muse, even if they're led in bizarre directions. The band's certainly not subversive—and neither are their collaborators—but they're also not suppressing their odd detours for the sake of commercial concessions or being palatable. (How else to explain the ridiculous, ape-driven "Adventure of a Lifetime" video?) And they'll freely admit when things aren't working: Martin has mocked his own lyrics in the past, and when talking about David Bowie nixing a Coldplay collaboration, the vocalist was cheerful about the rejection. "He was so wonderfully humorous and kind in his dismissal!" Martin told CBS Sunday Morning. "We were on the phone, and I said, 'What do you think about this?' He said, 'Oh, it's not one of your best, Chris.' And that was it. I was like, 'You know what? He's right. This is s***!'" It's refreshing to hear a band continually redefining who they are, thanks to rigorous self-examination and adoption of modern trends. In an age when every pop star move and gesture is carefully choreographed, Martin's carefree confidence—some might even say swagger—is wholly entertaining. He's certainly taking his cues from Bono, who's the king of self-deprecation. In fact, the longer they're around, the more it's clear Coldplay faces the same kind of cynical disapproval lobbed at U2. Favoring uplifting music and unabashedly gigantic, populist anthems is enough to become a magnet for hate, an object of derision. Of course, being so secure and cheerfully self-effacing doesn't give Coldplay the right to be above reproach. After all, the band's wince-inducing tendency toward cultural appropriation and stereotypes, as seen in their video imagery, is problematic and shouldn't just be ignored (or perpetuated). For a band so involved in issues of global health and human rights, it's vital that they're more sensitive about how they portray other cultures and incorporate genres. If they're smart, Coldplay will simply let their music make grand statements during the Super Bowl performance. "I spoke to one of the other artists who did it a few years ago, and he said, 'It's gotta be muscle memory,'" Martin said during that same recent "CBS Sunday Morning" appearance. "Well, I'll tell you, it was Bruce Springsteen, 'cause I realized I was starting to do his gruff accent: 'You gotta know every note, man. Twelve minutes. It ain't long, but it's long enough!'"
Brave new world: Shouldn’t we all be fighting for men’s right to decide the fate of frozen embryos formed from their DNA?
Those of us on the left like to say that we’re all “in it” together: rich, poor; white, brown; queer, straight; old, young; secular, devout; and even other species. In fact, this may be the most fundamental value of movement progressives. To inspire each other and remind ourselves of our ideals, we use terms like "Solidarity," "Better Together," "Every Voice," "Win-Win" and "El Pueblo Unido." The growing campaign to secure Medicaid coverage for abortion is called “All Above All” to underscore the idea that the full range of family planning options available to advantaged women should be available to everyone. But does “all” include the half of humanity born without a uterus? Does the Supreme Court’s second trimester logic extend to men, too? New reproductive technologies are forcing us to confront the question. Women the “Deciders” because of Gestation Until recently, embryonic human life existed only within the womb of a human woman, but today almost a million frozen embryos exist in cryogenic storage, created in vitro by couples with fertility problems or facing chemotherapy. The existence of these embryos expands our conversation about reproductive rights. When an embryo has implanted inside a woman, most Americans agree that the decision of whether to carry forward or terminate that pregnancy is hers. In many cases, a couple faced with an unexpected pregnancy chooses together to either terminate the pregnancy or carry it forward. But when they disagree, the decision defaults to the person most affected, the woman. It’s her body, we say. She is the one who must gestate that embryo during nine arduous months, feeding it from her blood and bones and risking long-term disability or even death in order to create a new child. Who could possibly have a right to choose that for someone else? Chosen Lives, Chosen Loves, Flourishing Families But when advocates like me talk about why abortion is a positive social good, we don’t talk just about the risks and challenges of gestating a fetus. We say that abortion is important for the same reasons that sexual health literacy and contraception are important: because these tools allow women to live the lives of their choosing, form the families of their choosing, and bring children into the world when they are ready to welcome and nurture them. We say that being able to manage our fertility allows women to finish school. We say it allows us to be better parents, with partners we love when the time is right. We say that when a woman is able to delay or limit childbearing, she and her children are less likely to fall into poverty and get stuck there. All of this is true—empirically so. But here is something we have been remiss in acknowledging: Being able to govern the timing and circumstances of parenthood is as important for men as it is for women. Men, too, may suffer mental health harms—or the loss of educational, economic, and personal growth opportunities—when parenthood comes before they are ready. They too may find their dreams shattered or find themselves stuck in an unexpected dependency rather than being able to choose a loving parenthood partnership. So, when an embryo is sitting in a deep freeze and therefore circumstances have taken a woman’s health and bodily autonomy out of the equation, shouldn’t a man have as much right to abort the process as a woman does? Shouldn’t producing a child require the consent of both parties? Fetal “Personhood” Groups See Opportunity This is one argument being raised in the Missouri case of a divorced couple who froze embryos together before their marriage disintegrated. The man is asking that nobody incubate the embryos to create a child without his consent. He wants the right of choice rather than forced parenthood—as most women would. At present he isn’t asking for the male equivalent of abortion—the right to eject the frozen embryos from their current state of suspended animation in a laboratory freezer. Nonetheless, his ex-wife, a conservative Catholic and an attorney, has called in the legal arm of the Pro-Life movement to argue that the case should be decided on a child welfare basis, claiming that the frozen embryos have rights superseding those of the persons who created them. Abortion foes see this as an opportunity to advance the idea that a fertilized egg is a person. In other words, they see it as an opportunity to ensconce and extend legal logic that they hope to apply more broadly in debates about the formation of fetal life, including contraception, abortion, cloning, and genetic enhancements. All Together or Only Underdogs? Like the religious right, those of us who care about voluntary, freely chosen parenthood have an opportunity to think about how this scenario relates to our broader values and goals and how we plan to defend those values and goals in the long run. But it also puts many progressives and especially feminists like me in an awkward position. It requires us to acknowledge that the reproductive agency of men, like the reproductive agency of women, is a human right and matter of justice. In other words, advancing our values about voluntary and freely chosen reproduction may require us to include, as part of our “all,” people that some feminists see as privileged oppressors. The Shape of the Future Cases like this one offer us a glimpse of the future. As assistive reproductive technologies advance, we will face an increasing number of cases in which the question of voluntary parenthood is divorced from any question of a woman’s body as a human incubator. Reproductive rights and justice advocates will be forced to clarify whether we are advocating the right to freely chosen pregnancy or freely chosen parenthood, because the two have become separable. For centuries, family formation, sexual intimacy and parenthood were bound tightly together in the social structure of traditional, patriarchal marriage. Now, increasingly, each of these can be chosen independent of the other two. Soon, the same will be true of creating an embryo and incubating a child. Choice has always been about much more than the right to terminate an ill-conceived pregnancy, but now the possibilities are multiplying. Integrity and Pragmatics If social and religious conservatives have their way, the rights of embryos will trump the rights of both women and men, but to date our public discourse almost exclusively centers on women. I would argue that reproductive rights and justice advocates ignore half of this equation—the male half—at a cost. At an abstract level, the cost is lost integrity: It is hard to make a powerful argument about universal human rights that leave some people out. At a practical level, it may be impossible to attain a norm of actively and freely chosen parenthood when men lack the ability to manage their fertility. If we believe that family planning is a universal human right and powerful lever for advancing family wellbeing, then justice demands that men have rights that are equivalent to those of women. Today the top contraceptives for women require no action for years at a time, are easily reversed, and produce a yearly pregnancy rate as low as 1 in 2,000. Men are forced to choose between condoms, with a 1 in 6 annual pregnancy rate, and vasectomy, which cannot reliably be reversed. To top this off, neither male method is covered under the Obamacare contraceptive mandate, which is classed as female preventive care. Whether or not reproductive rights and justice advocates fight for better male-controlled contraceptive technologies, and insurance coverage for existing male methods, and the right of men to decide the fate of frozen embryos formed from their DNA will send a message to the world about whether “all” means all.
The special hell of a Ted Cruz rally: What it’s like to spend an evening with the GOP’s oiliest operator
There is a boisterous Oath Keeper leaking alcohol from every pore sitting three seats away from me in a Nashua, New Hampshire, middle school auditorium hosting a Ted Cruz town hall. I’m wondering if it’s too late to change seats. The guy is wearing a camouflage jacket that doesn’t quite hide the bulging middle-age belly straining at the faded Patriots T-shirt underneath. He’s carrying a sign that reads “Like a Cruz missile, Ted will destroy ISIS” on one side and “Cruzin West” on the other, a plea for the Texas senator to pick former Florida congressman Allen West as his vice-presidential candidate. He’s loudly telling everyone within earshot that we need to start a Cruz/West chant at some point and is met with approving responses from some of the people around me. I decide not to move. If the Oath Keeper or anyone else spies my reporter’s notebook and asks what outlet I’m with, I’ll say World Net Daily and hope no one pulls out an iPhone to check. It’s all part of the carnival atmosphere of a Ted Cruz event being held at Elm Street Middle School, an imposing Gothic building that, as I drove up in the dark amidst a driving rain, made me think of an insane asylum in a movie, a comparison that felt more than appropriate once I was inside. Old men in baseball caps bearing the names of military units, moms holding babies in one hand and Ted Cruz signs in the other. Three people by the stage waving flags (from left to right: American, Israeli, Gadsden). Two flat-screen TVs on either side of the stage are showing a campaign film of more cheering crowds, backed by patriotic music and conservative activist Brent Bozell talking about all the reasons he loves Ted Cruz. This is the New Hampshire I came to find. This is the polished and professional political rally of the true believers, ecstatic in their fervor and their belief in the rightness of their cause. It’s exhilarating and terrifying. As the late great Hunter S. Thompson might have said, this is the belly of the beast. Cruz is often described as “oily,” but that word doesn’t really do him justice. In fact, he’s so oleaginous he reminds one of the puddles covering the stained cement floor of a Jiffy Lube. It’s not just a physical characteristic – though there is that; the man has a sheen about him – but also one of affect. When he strides out to a rapturous greeting from the crowd and walks along the edge of the stage slapping hands with people in the front row, it feels so studied that I can picture college-age Ted Cruz practicing this move in his Princeton dorm room. The speech is filled with the usual bullshit that no one will call him on, even in a GOP debate, because all the candidates are trying to appeal to a base that has gone beyond reason and Earth’s orbit. But it’s worth rebutting a few of the lies here, if only for the benefit of future archaeologists picking through the ruins of our civilization if Ted Cruz winds up leading it. For economic policy, Cruz has a plan to turbocharge the American economy. It seems to go something like this: Repeal Obamacare Institute a flat tax on all personal and business income Economic growth!!!!! Never mind that this plan would yank health insurance from millions of people and blow a hole in the deficit, adding mountains to the nation’s $19 trillion debt that he decried elsewhere in his sermon. “Repeal Obamacare” and “flat tax” are words that appeal to the deepest, most primitive part of the conservative lizard brain. Any downsides can just be blamed on liberals later on. Another Cruz proposal involves eliminating five major government agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service. Which raises the question: Who will collect the taxes that people and businesses would still be paying even with a flat tax in place? You may as well just tell the crowd you’re eliminating taxes altogether. On his proposal to “carpet-bomb” ISIS, Cruz has been getting blasted by military leaders for weeks for a) not seeming to know what carpet bombing actually is, and b) not knowing that it’s a war crime. But he hasn’t changed his pitch. In Nashua he tells the crowd that during the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States flew 1,100 sorties a day against the Iraqi army, “carpet-bombing” it into oblivion so that all our ground forces had to do once the invasion began was mop up the shattered remnants of Sadaam Hussein’s forces. This understanding of carpet bombing is wildly inaccurate. Cruz either does not know this, or more likely he does not care. I’m betting on the latter. That's because he needs this audience, and every other audience, to believe in the holy rightness of his crusade. And if this crowd is any indication, he’s succeeding. This rally has the feel of a campaign that could go all the way, no matter how dangerous the proposals driving it are. Because these are the true believers, and true believers know that they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but evil and stupid. (When Cruz mocks some environmental protesters who briefly interrupt him, the man sitting directly behind me yells with unsuppressed fury, “They’re Bolsheviks!” I can almost feel the spittle on the back of my neck.) This is a darker place than the Donald Trump rally I attended the night before. There, one got the sense Trump’s support was a mile wide but an inch deep. This, though, this is something more primal. It’s all enough to make one despair, and to pray to a God you don’t believe in that something can stop this train, that some part of the GOP establishment can still rally to knock down this campaign or that there is a very finite percentage of even conservative voters to whom it will appeal. And also to get out of this auditorium before Cruz pulls a couple of vipers from a sack and everyone starts speaking in tongues.There is a boisterous Oath Keeper leaking alcohol from every pore sitting three seats away from me in a Nashua, New Hampshire, middle school auditorium hosting a Ted Cruz town hall. I’m wondering if it’s too late to change seats. The guy is wearing a camouflage jacket that doesn’t quite hide the bulging middle-age belly straining at the faded Patriots T-shirt underneath. He’s carrying a sign that reads “Like a Cruz missile, Ted will destroy ISIS” on one side and “Cruzin West” on the other, a plea for the Texas senator to pick former Florida congressman Allen West as his vice-presidential candidate. He’s loudly telling everyone within earshot that we need to start a Cruz/West chant at some point and is met with approving responses from some of the people around me. I decide not to move. If the Oath Keeper or anyone else spies my reporter’s notebook and asks what outlet I’m with, I’ll say World Net Daily and hope no one pulls out an iPhone to check. It’s all part of the carnival atmosphere of a Ted Cruz event being held at Elm Street Middle School, an imposing Gothic building that, as I drove up in the dark amidst a driving rain, made me think of an insane asylum in a movie, a comparison that felt more than appropriate once I was inside. Old men in baseball caps bearing the names of military units, moms holding babies in one hand and Ted Cruz signs in the other. Three people by the stage waving flags (from left to right: American, Israeli, Gadsden). Two flat-screen TVs on either side of the stage are showing a campaign film of more cheering crowds, backed by patriotic music and conservative activist Brent Bozell talking about all the reasons he loves Ted Cruz. This is the New Hampshire I came to find. This is the polished and professional political rally of the true believers, ecstatic in their fervor and their belief in the rightness of their cause. It’s exhilarating and terrifying. As the late great Hunter S. Thompson might have said, this is the belly of the beast. Cruz is often described as “oily,” but that word doesn’t really do him justice. In fact, he’s so oleaginous he reminds one of the puddles covering the stained cement floor of a Jiffy Lube. It’s not just a physical characteristic – though there is that; the man has a sheen about him – but also one of affect. When he strides out to a rapturous greeting from the crowd and walks along the edge of the stage slapping hands with people in the front row, it feels so studied that I can picture college-age Ted Cruz practicing this move in his Princeton dorm room. The speech is filled with the usual bullshit that no one will call him on, even in a GOP debate, because all the candidates are trying to appeal to a base that has gone beyond reason and Earth’s orbit. But it’s worth rebutting a few of the lies here, if only for the benefit of future archaeologists picking through the ruins of our civilization if Ted Cruz winds up leading it. For economic policy, Cruz has a plan to turbocharge the American economy. It seems to go something like this: Repeal Obamacare Institute a flat tax on all personal and business income Economic growth!!!!! Never mind that this plan would yank health insurance from millions of people and blow a hole in the deficit, adding mountains to the nation’s $19 trillion debt that he decried elsewhere in his sermon. “Repeal Obamacare” and “flat tax” are words that appeal to the deepest, most primitive part of the conservative lizard brain. Any downsides can just be blamed on liberals later on. Another Cruz proposal involves eliminating five major government agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service. Which raises the question: Who will collect the taxes that people and businesses would still be paying even with a flat tax in place? You may as well just tell the crowd you’re eliminating taxes altogether. On his proposal to “carpet-bomb” ISIS, Cruz has been getting blasted by military leaders for weeks for a) not seeming to know what carpet bombing actually is, and b) not knowing that it’s a war crime. But he hasn’t changed his pitch. In Nashua he tells the crowd that during the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States flew 1,100 sorties a day against the Iraqi army, “carpet-bombing” it into oblivion so that all our ground forces had to do once the invasion began was mop up the shattered remnants of Sadaam Hussein’s forces. This understanding of carpet bombing is wildly inaccurate. Cruz either does not know this, or more likely he does not care. I’m betting on the latter. That's because he needs this audience, and every other audience, to believe in the holy rightness of his crusade. And if this crowd is any indication, he’s succeeding. This rally has the feel of a campaign that could go all the way, no matter how dangerous the proposals driving it are. Because these are the true believers, and true believers know that they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but evil and stupid. (When Cruz mocks some environmental protesters who briefly interrupt him, the man sitting directly behind me yells with unsuppressed fury, “They’re Bolsheviks!” I can almost feel the spittle on the back of my neck.) This is a darker place than the Donald Trump rally I attended the night before. There, one got the sense Trump’s support was a mile wide but an inch deep. This, though, this is something more primal. It’s all enough to make one despair, and to pray to a God you don’t believe in that something can stop this train, that some part of the GOP establishment can still rally to knock down this campaign or that there is a very finite percentage of even conservative voters to whom it will appeal. And also to get out of this auditorium before Cruz pulls a couple of vipers from a sack and everyone starts speaking in tongues.There is a boisterous Oath Keeper leaking alcohol from every pore sitting three seats away from me in a Nashua, New Hampshire, middle school auditorium hosting a Ted Cruz town hall. I’m wondering if it’s too late to change seats. The guy is wearing a camouflage jacket that doesn’t quite hide the bulging middle-age belly straining at the faded Patriots T-shirt underneath. He’s carrying a sign that reads “Like a Cruz missile, Ted will destroy ISIS” on one side and “Cruzin West” on the other, a plea for the Texas senator to pick former Florida congressman Allen West as his vice-presidential candidate. He’s loudly telling everyone within earshot that we need to start a Cruz/West chant at some point and is met with approving responses from some of the people around me. I decide not to move. If the Oath Keeper or anyone else spies my reporter’s notebook and asks what outlet I’m with, I’ll say World Net Daily and hope no one pulls out an iPhone to check. It’s all part of the carnival atmosphere of a Ted Cruz event being held at Elm Street Middle School, an imposing Gothic building that, as I drove up in the dark amidst a driving rain, made me think of an insane asylum in a movie, a comparison that felt more than appropriate once I was inside. Old men in baseball caps bearing the names of military units, moms holding babies in one hand and Ted Cruz signs in the other. Three people by the stage waving flags (from left to right: American, Israeli, Gadsden). Two flat-screen TVs on either side of the stage are showing a campaign film of more cheering crowds, backed by patriotic music and conservative activist Brent Bozell talking about all the reasons he loves Ted Cruz. This is the New Hampshire I came to find. This is the polished and professional political rally of the true believers, ecstatic in their fervor and their belief in the rightness of their cause. It’s exhilarating and terrifying. As the late great Hunter S. Thompson might have said, this is the belly of the beast. Cruz is often described as “oily,” but that word doesn’t really do him justice. In fact, he’s so oleaginous he reminds one of the puddles covering the stained cement floor of a Jiffy Lube. It’s not just a physical characteristic – though there is that; the man has a sheen about him – but also one of affect. When he strides out to a rapturous greeting from the crowd and walks along the edge of the stage slapping hands with people in the front row, it feels so studied that I can picture college-age Ted Cruz practicing this move in his Princeton dorm room. The speech is filled with the usual bullshit that no one will call him on, even in a GOP debate, because all the candidates are trying to appeal to a base that has gone beyond reason and Earth’s orbit. But it’s worth rebutting a few of the lies here, if only for the benefit of future archaeologists picking through the ruins of our civilization if Ted Cruz winds up leading it. For economic policy, Cruz has a plan to turbocharge the American economy. It seems to go something like this: Repeal Obamacare Institute a flat tax on all personal and business income Economic growth!!!!! Never mind that this plan would yank health insurance from millions of people and blow a hole in the deficit, adding mountains to the nation’s $19 trillion debt that he decried elsewhere in his sermon. “Repeal Obamacare” and “flat tax” are words that appeal to the deepest, most primitive part of the conservative lizard brain. Any downsides can just be blamed on liberals later on. Another Cruz proposal involves eliminating five major government agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service. Which raises the question: Who will collect the taxes that people and businesses would still be paying even with a flat tax in place? You may as well just tell the crowd you’re eliminating taxes altogether. On his proposal to “carpet-bomb” ISIS, Cruz has been getting blasted by military leaders for weeks for a) not seeming to know what carpet bombing actually is, and b) not knowing that it’s a war crime. But he hasn’t changed his pitch. In Nashua he tells the crowd that during the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States flew 1,100 sorties a day against the Iraqi army, “carpet-bombing” it into oblivion so that all our ground forces had to do once the invasion began was mop up the shattered remnants of Sadaam Hussein’s forces. This understanding of carpet bombing is wildly inaccurate. Cruz either does not know this, or more likely he does not care. I’m betting on the latter. That's because he needs this audience, and every other audience, to believe in the holy rightness of his crusade. And if this crowd is any indication, he’s succeeding. This rally has the feel of a campaign that could go all the way, no matter how dangerous the proposals driving it are. Because these are the true believers, and true believers know that they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but evil and stupid. (When Cruz mocks some environmental protesters who briefly interrupt him, the man sitting directly behind me yells with unsuppressed fury, “They’re Bolsheviks!” I can almost feel the spittle on the back of my neck.) This is a darker place than the Donald Trump rally I attended the night before. There, one got the sense Trump’s support was a mile wide but an inch deep. This, though, this is something more primal. It’s all enough to make one despair, and to pray to a God you don’t believe in that something can stop this train, that some part of the GOP establishment can still rally to knock down this campaign or that there is a very finite percentage of even conservative voters to whom it will appeal. And also to get out of this auditorium before Cruz pulls a couple of vipers from a sack and everyone starts speaking in tongues.
Donald Trump’s Iran idiocy: The interview that should have ended his candidacy once and for all
Donald Trump gave an interview this week all of his potential supporters should watch. In his own words, Trump lays bare the very reasons why he would be such a disastrous choice for president. The interview with Anderson Cooper on Thursday, which can be seen here, took place in New Hampshire where Trump is campaigning for the upcoming Republican primary in New Hampshire, and the setting included a small group of ordinary New Hampshire voters. The topic turns to President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Trump unwittingly displays for all to see that he simply does not understand the most basic elements of the agreement. Trump proclaims his familiar boast that he is the best deal-maker ever and the best negotiator ever, and that the Obama administration completely botched the negotiation with Iran. And then Trump graced us with an inside account of how he, as a master deal-maker, would have negotiated the agreement with Iran and obtained a much better outcome for America. Primarily, Trump would have spared America from having to pay $150 billion to Iran. (I won’t quibble with the dollar amount even though it is likely inaccurate). As Trump explained, he would have said to the Iranians:
“Fellas, we [as America] owe $19 trillion [in debt]. We’re a country that has no money. We can’t give you the $150 [billion dollars].” The Iranians would have said, “But we want it!” And Trump would have responded, “We can’t give it! We don’t have it! We don’t have it!”Trump would have stood his ground and absolutely refused to pay the $150 billion. At that point, the meeting would have broken-up with no agreement. But then, two days later, the Iranians would have folded by calling Trump and saying, “Let’s make a deal.” Iran would then have agreed that America would not be required to pay the $150 billion. Wow. Now there’s a genius negotiator for you. What an amazing display of virtuosity. Unfortunately, however, there is one little problem with Trump’s entire analysis. And this problem is that the $150 billion was, in fact, readily available. The reason it was readily available is because all of this money actually belonged to Iran, not to America. This was Iran’s own money. This was Iranian money that America had seized and frozen. It was never American money. Not one penny. American money was never at stake. Rather, America was simply returning Iran’s own money that America had seized and was holding in frozen accounts pending the resolution of the sanctions against Iran. Trump obviously had no clue that this money belonged to Iran. Trump was utterly ignorant about the facts of the deal. Yet this did not prevent Trump from spouting off and denouncing the deal to the American public. This is classic Trump. Even though he may appear to some to be authoritative, the truth is that his demeanor is superficial and he actually has no idea what he is talking about in substance. There was another little humorous aspect on the subject of this Iranian agreement as well. In his typical bluster, Trump bragged that as part of this deal he would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran. And how, exactly, would Trump have accomplished this? Again, Trump graced us with a master lesson in his wondrous negotiating ability. Trump said that he would have demanded the return of the prisoners upfront. Trump would not have even begun talks with the Iranians until they first returned the prisoners. When the Iranians refused, Trump would have walked out of the meeting. Oh, now there’s a real novel idea. Does Trump really think that the professional American negotiators never thought of this? In fact, America had already demanded the return of the prisoners numerous times, and America had already been engaged in all sorts of diplomatic efforts to secure their return. But Iran was still refusing to release the prisoners. Yet according to Trump, his simplistic maneuver of refusing to negotiate would have somehow magically secured the release of the prisoners “within 24 hours.” This is simply ridiculous. In fact, we all witnessed a real-life example of how Trump’s supposedly brilliant negotiating skills work-out in reality. This unfolded right before our very eyes in the fiasco Trump created over the presidential debate with Fox News just days before the Iowa caucuses. Trump demanded that the Fox News host Megyn Kelly be removed as a moderator of the debate. This is akin to Trump demanding that Iran release the prisoners. Fox refused to remove Kelly, just as Iran would have refused to release the prisoners. Trump then deployed his “tough-guy” tactics of walking away and refusing to participate in the debate. How did that work out for Trump? Well, not so hot. Fox News didn’t exactly fold within 24 hours and yield to the almighty will of Trump. Instead, Fox ignored Trump’s ridiculous demands and went forward with the debate without him. Trump proceeded to lose the Iowa caucuses even though he had been significantly ahead in the polls prior to dropping-out of the debate. Here we see what happens in real life when Trump’s ridiculous course of action is followed. Utter failure. The entire nation would encounter a similar fate if it followed Trump as president. In another segment of the video, a local man from the audience explained that he was raising three young daughters, and given Trump’s many insults, disparaging comments about women and foreigners, and profanity, Trump as president would not seem to make a good role model for his daughters. Trump’s reaction was stunning. Trump immediately accused the man of being a plant. “Who asked you to give this question?” Trump demanded. Did Anderson put you up to this? “This is a CNN set-up!” Unbelievable. This was highly revealing of Trump’s character. He exhibits a tendency toward paranoia, he immediately concludes that others are conspiring against him without a shred of evidence, and he perceives himself as being victimized. These are traits that are not exactly well suited for a leader of a nation. In another encounter, a lady from the audience expressed concern that Trump had not provided enough specificity about his policies. Trump’s answer was that he prefers not to provide detailed policies because he desires to remain unpredictable. Seriously? A presidential candidate running on a platform of unpredictability? Hey, why don’t we just select our president through a national random lottery? Actually, come to think of it, I’ll take those odds over Trump. Donald Trump gave an interview this week all of his potential supporters should watch. In his own words, Trump lays bare the very reasons why he would be such a disastrous choice for president. The interview with Anderson Cooper on Thursday, which can be seen here, took place in New Hampshire where Trump is campaigning for the upcoming Republican primary in New Hampshire, and the setting included a small group of ordinary New Hampshire voters. The topic turns to President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Trump unwittingly displays for all to see that he simply does not understand the most basic elements of the agreement. Trump proclaims his familiar boast that he is the best deal-maker ever and the best negotiator ever, and that the Obama administration completely botched the negotiation with Iran. And then Trump graced us with an inside account of how he, as a master deal-maker, would have negotiated the agreement with Iran and obtained a much better outcome for America. Primarily, Trump would have spared America from having to pay $150 billion to Iran. (I won’t quibble with the dollar amount even though it is likely inaccurate). As Trump explained, he would have said to the Iranians:
“Fellas, we [as America] owe $19 trillion [in debt]. We’re a country that has no money. We can’t give you the $150 [billion dollars].” The Iranians would have said, “But we want it!” And Trump would have responded, “We can’t give it! We don’t have it! We don’t have it!”Trump would have stood his ground and absolutely refused to pay the $150 billion. At that point, the meeting would have broken-up with no agreement. But then, two days later, the Iranians would have folded by calling Trump and saying, “Let’s make a deal.” Iran would then have agreed that America would not be required to pay the $150 billion. Wow. Now there’s a genius negotiator for you. What an amazing display of virtuosity. Unfortunately, however, there is one little problem with Trump’s entire analysis. And this problem is that the $150 billion was, in fact, readily available. The reason it was readily available is because all of this money actually belonged to Iran, not to America. This was Iran’s own money. This was Iranian money that America had seized and frozen. It was never American money. Not one penny. American money was never at stake. Rather, America was simply returning Iran’s own money that America had seized and was holding in frozen accounts pending the resolution of the sanctions against Iran. Trump obviously had no clue that this money belonged to Iran. Trump was utterly ignorant about the facts of the deal. Yet this did not prevent Trump from spouting off and denouncing the deal to the American public. This is classic Trump. Even though he may appear to some to be authoritative, the truth is that his demeanor is superficial and he actually has no idea what he is talking about in substance. There was another little humorous aspect on the subject of this Iranian agreement as well. In his typical bluster, Trump bragged that as part of this deal he would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran. And how, exactly, would Trump have accomplished this? Again, Trump graced us with a master lesson in his wondrous negotiating ability. Trump said that he would have demanded the return of the prisoners upfront. Trump would not have even begun talks with the Iranians until they first returned the prisoners. When the Iranians refused, Trump would have walked out of the meeting. Oh, now there’s a real novel idea. Does Trump really think that the professional American negotiators never thought of this? In fact, America had already demanded the return of the prisoners numerous times, and America had already been engaged in all sorts of diplomatic efforts to secure their return. But Iran was still refusing to release the prisoners. Yet according to Trump, his simplistic maneuver of refusing to negotiate would have somehow magically secured the release of the prisoners “within 24 hours.” This is simply ridiculous. In fact, we all witnessed a real-life example of how Trump’s supposedly brilliant negotiating skills work-out in reality. This unfolded right before our very eyes in the fiasco Trump created over the presidential debate with Fox News just days before the Iowa caucuses. Trump demanded that the Fox News host Megyn Kelly be removed as a moderator of the debate. This is akin to Trump demanding that Iran release the prisoners. Fox refused to remove Kelly, just as Iran would have refused to release the prisoners. Trump then deployed his “tough-guy” tactics of walking away and refusing to participate in the debate. How did that work out for Trump? Well, not so hot. Fox News didn’t exactly fold within 24 hours and yield to the almighty will of Trump. Instead, Fox ignored Trump’s ridiculous demands and went forward with the debate without him. Trump proceeded to lose the Iowa caucuses even though he had been significantly ahead in the polls prior to dropping-out of the debate. Here we see what happens in real life when Trump’s ridiculous course of action is followed. Utter failure. The entire nation would encounter a similar fate if it followed Trump as president. In another segment of the video, a local man from the audience explained that he was raising three young daughters, and given Trump’s many insults, disparaging comments about women and foreigners, and profanity, Trump as president would not seem to make a good role model for his daughters. Trump’s reaction was stunning. Trump immediately accused the man of being a plant. “Who asked you to give this question?” Trump demanded. Did Anderson put you up to this? “This is a CNN set-up!” Unbelievable. This was highly revealing of Trump’s character. He exhibits a tendency toward paranoia, he immediately concludes that others are conspiring against him without a shred of evidence, and he perceives himself as being victimized. These are traits that are not exactly well suited for a leader of a nation. In another encounter, a lady from the audience expressed concern that Trump had not provided enough specificity about his policies. Trump’s answer was that he prefers not to provide detailed policies because he desires to remain unpredictable. Seriously? A presidential candidate running on a platform of unpredictability? Hey, why don’t we just select our president through a national random lottery? Actually, come to think of it, I’ll take those odds over Trump. Donald Trump gave an interview this week all of his potential supporters should watch. In his own words, Trump lays bare the very reasons why he would be such a disastrous choice for president. The interview with Anderson Cooper on Thursday, which can be seen here, took place in New Hampshire where Trump is campaigning for the upcoming Republican primary in New Hampshire, and the setting included a small group of ordinary New Hampshire voters. The topic turns to President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Trump unwittingly displays for all to see that he simply does not understand the most basic elements of the agreement. Trump proclaims his familiar boast that he is the best deal-maker ever and the best negotiator ever, and that the Obama administration completely botched the negotiation with Iran. And then Trump graced us with an inside account of how he, as a master deal-maker, would have negotiated the agreement with Iran and obtained a much better outcome for America. Primarily, Trump would have spared America from having to pay $150 billion to Iran. (I won’t quibble with the dollar amount even though it is likely inaccurate). As Trump explained, he would have said to the Iranians:
“Fellas, we [as America] owe $19 trillion [in debt]. We’re a country that has no money. We can’t give you the $150 [billion dollars].” The Iranians would have said, “But we want it!” And Trump would have responded, “We can’t give it! We don’t have it! We don’t have it!”Trump would have stood his ground and absolutely refused to pay the $150 billion. At that point, the meeting would have broken-up with no agreement. But then, two days later, the Iranians would have folded by calling Trump and saying, “Let’s make a deal.” Iran would then have agreed that America would not be required to pay the $150 billion. Wow. Now there’s a genius negotiator for you. What an amazing display of virtuosity. Unfortunately, however, there is one little problem with Trump’s entire analysis. And this problem is that the $150 billion was, in fact, readily available. The reason it was readily available is because all of this money actually belonged to Iran, not to America. This was Iran’s own money. This was Iranian money that America had seized and frozen. It was never American money. Not one penny. American money was never at stake. Rather, America was simply returning Iran’s own money that America had seized and was holding in frozen accounts pending the resolution of the sanctions against Iran. Trump obviously had no clue that this money belonged to Iran. Trump was utterly ignorant about the facts of the deal. Yet this did not prevent Trump from spouting off and denouncing the deal to the American public. This is classic Trump. Even though he may appear to some to be authoritative, the truth is that his demeanor is superficial and he actually has no idea what he is talking about in substance. There was another little humorous aspect on the subject of this Iranian agreement as well. In his typical bluster, Trump bragged that as part of this deal he would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran. And how, exactly, would Trump have accomplished this? Again, Trump graced us with a master lesson in his wondrous negotiating ability. Trump said that he would have demanded the return of the prisoners upfront. Trump would not have even begun talks with the Iranians until they first returned the prisoners. When the Iranians refused, Trump would have walked out of the meeting. Oh, now there’s a real novel idea. Does Trump really think that the professional American negotiators never thought of this? In fact, America had already demanded the return of the prisoners numerous times, and America had already been engaged in all sorts of diplomatic efforts to secure their return. But Iran was still refusing to release the prisoners. Yet according to Trump, his simplistic maneuver of refusing to negotiate would have somehow magically secured the release of the prisoners “within 24 hours.” This is simply ridiculous. In fact, we all witnessed a real-life example of how Trump’s supposedly brilliant negotiating skills work-out in reality. This unfolded right before our very eyes in the fiasco Trump created over the presidential debate with Fox News just days before the Iowa caucuses. Trump demanded that the Fox News host Megyn Kelly be removed as a moderator of the debate. This is akin to Trump demanding that Iran release the prisoners. Fox refused to remove Kelly, just as Iran would have refused to release the prisoners. Trump then deployed his “tough-guy” tactics of walking away and refusing to participate in the debate. How did that work out for Trump? Well, not so hot. Fox News didn’t exactly fold within 24 hours and yield to the almighty will of Trump. Instead, Fox ignored Trump’s ridiculous demands and went forward with the debate without him. Trump proceeded to lose the Iowa caucuses even though he had been significantly ahead in the polls prior to dropping-out of the debate. Here we see what happens in real life when Trump’s ridiculous course of action is followed. Utter failure. The entire nation would encounter a similar fate if it followed Trump as president. In another segment of the video, a local man from the audience explained that he was raising three young daughters, and given Trump’s many insults, disparaging comments about women and foreigners, and profanity, Trump as president would not seem to make a good role model for his daughters. Trump’s reaction was stunning. Trump immediately accused the man of being a plant. “Who asked you to give this question?” Trump demanded. Did Anderson put you up to this? “This is a CNN set-up!” Unbelievable. This was highly revealing of Trump’s character. He exhibits a tendency toward paranoia, he immediately concludes that others are conspiring against him without a shred of evidence, and he perceives himself as being victimized. These are traits that are not exactly well suited for a leader of a nation. In another encounter, a lady from the audience expressed concern that Trump had not provided enough specificity about his policies. Trump’s answer was that he prefers not to provide detailed policies because he desires to remain unpredictable. Seriously? A presidential candidate running on a platform of unpredictability? Hey, why don’t we just select our president through a national random lottery? Actually, come to think of it, I’ll take those odds over Trump. Donald Trump gave an interview this week all of his potential supporters should watch. In his own words, Trump lays bare the very reasons why he would be such a disastrous choice for president. The interview with Anderson Cooper on Thursday, which can be seen here, took place in New Hampshire where Trump is campaigning for the upcoming Republican primary in New Hampshire, and the setting included a small group of ordinary New Hampshire voters. The topic turns to President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Trump unwittingly displays for all to see that he simply does not understand the most basic elements of the agreement. Trump proclaims his familiar boast that he is the best deal-maker ever and the best negotiator ever, and that the Obama administration completely botched the negotiation with Iran. And then Trump graced us with an inside account of how he, as a master deal-maker, would have negotiated the agreement with Iran and obtained a much better outcome for America. Primarily, Trump would have spared America from having to pay $150 billion to Iran. (I won’t quibble with the dollar amount even though it is likely inaccurate). As Trump explained, he would have said to the Iranians:
“Fellas, we [as America] owe $19 trillion [in debt]. We’re a country that has no money. We can’t give you the $150 [billion dollars].” The Iranians would have said, “But we want it!” And Trump would have responded, “We can’t give it! We don’t have it! We don’t have it!”Trump would have stood his ground and absolutely refused to pay the $150 billion. At that point, the meeting would have broken-up with no agreement. But then, two days later, the Iranians would have folded by calling Trump and saying, “Let’s make a deal.” Iran would then have agreed that America would not be required to pay the $150 billion. Wow. Now there’s a genius negotiator for you. What an amazing display of virtuosity. Unfortunately, however, there is one little problem with Trump’s entire analysis. And this problem is that the $150 billion was, in fact, readily available. The reason it was readily available is because all of this money actually belonged to Iran, not to America. This was Iran’s own money. This was Iranian money that America had seized and frozen. It was never American money. Not one penny. American money was never at stake. Rather, America was simply returning Iran’s own money that America had seized and was holding in frozen accounts pending the resolution of the sanctions against Iran. Trump obviously had no clue that this money belonged to Iran. Trump was utterly ignorant about the facts of the deal. Yet this did not prevent Trump from spouting off and denouncing the deal to the American public. This is classic Trump. Even though he may appear to some to be authoritative, the truth is that his demeanor is superficial and he actually has no idea what he is talking about in substance. There was another little humorous aspect on the subject of this Iranian agreement as well. In his typical bluster, Trump bragged that as part of this deal he would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran. And how, exactly, would Trump have accomplished this? Again, Trump graced us with a master lesson in his wondrous negotiating ability. Trump said that he would have demanded the return of the prisoners upfront. Trump would not have even begun talks with the Iranians until they first returned the prisoners. When the Iranians refused, Trump would have walked out of the meeting. Oh, now there’s a real novel idea. Does Trump really think that the professional American negotiators never thought of this? In fact, America had already demanded the return of the prisoners numerous times, and America had already been engaged in all sorts of diplomatic efforts to secure their return. But Iran was still refusing to release the prisoners. Yet according to Trump, his simplistic maneuver of refusing to negotiate would have somehow magically secured the release of the prisoners “within 24 hours.” This is simply ridiculous. In fact, we all witnessed a real-life example of how Trump’s supposedly brilliant negotiating skills work-out in reality. This unfolded right before our very eyes in the fiasco Trump created over the presidential debate with Fox News just days before the Iowa caucuses. Trump demanded that the Fox News host Megyn Kelly be removed as a moderator of the debate. This is akin to Trump demanding that Iran release the prisoners. Fox refused to remove Kelly, just as Iran would have refused to release the prisoners. Trump then deployed his “tough-guy” tactics of walking away and refusing to participate in the debate. How did that work out for Trump? Well, not so hot. Fox News didn’t exactly fold within 24 hours and yield to the almighty will of Trump. Instead, Fox ignored Trump’s ridiculous demands and went forward with the debate without him. Trump proceeded to lose the Iowa caucuses even though he had been significantly ahead in the polls prior to dropping-out of the debate. Here we see what happens in real life when Trump’s ridiculous course of action is followed. Utter failure. The entire nation would encounter a similar fate if it followed Trump as president. In another segment of the video, a local man from the audience explained that he was raising three young daughters, and given Trump’s many insults, disparaging comments about women and foreigners, and profanity, Trump as president would not seem to make a good role model for his daughters. Trump’s reaction was stunning. Trump immediately accused the man of being a plant. “Who asked you to give this question?” Trump demanded. Did Anderson put you up to this? “This is a CNN set-up!” Unbelievable. This was highly revealing of Trump’s character. He exhibits a tendency toward paranoia, he immediately concludes that others are conspiring against him without a shred of evidence, and he perceives himself as being victimized. These are traits that are not exactly well suited for a leader of a nation. In another encounter, a lady from the audience expressed concern that Trump had not provided enough specificity about his policies. Trump’s answer was that he prefers not to provide detailed policies because he desires to remain unpredictable. Seriously? A presidential candidate running on a platform of unpredictability? Hey, why don’t we just select our president through a national random lottery? Actually, come to think of it, I’ll take those odds over Trump. Donald Trump gave an interview this week all of his potential supporters should watch. In his own words, Trump lays bare the very reasons why he would be such a disastrous choice for president. The interview with Anderson Cooper on Thursday, which can be seen here, took place in New Hampshire where Trump is campaigning for the upcoming Republican primary in New Hampshire, and the setting included a small group of ordinary New Hampshire voters. The topic turns to President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Trump unwittingly displays for all to see that he simply does not understand the most basic elements of the agreement. Trump proclaims his familiar boast that he is the best deal-maker ever and the best negotiator ever, and that the Obama administration completely botched the negotiation with Iran. And then Trump graced us with an inside account of how he, as a master deal-maker, would have negotiated the agreement with Iran and obtained a much better outcome for America. Primarily, Trump would have spared America from having to pay $150 billion to Iran. (I won’t quibble with the dollar amount even though it is likely inaccurate). As Trump explained, he would have said to the Iranians:
“Fellas, we [as America] owe $19 trillion [in debt]. We’re a country that has no money. We can’t give you the $150 [billion dollars].” The Iranians would have said, “But we want it!” And Trump would have responded, “We can’t give it! We don’t have it! We don’t have it!”Trump would have stood his ground and absolutely refused to pay the $150 billion. At that point, the meeting would have broken-up with no agreement. But then, two days later, the Iranians would have folded by calling Trump and saying, “Let’s make a deal.” Iran would then have agreed that America would not be required to pay the $150 billion. Wow. Now there’s a genius negotiator for you. What an amazing display of virtuosity. Unfortunately, however, there is one little problem with Trump’s entire analysis. And this problem is that the $150 billion was, in fact, readily available. The reason it was readily available is because all of this money actually belonged to Iran, not to America. This was Iran’s own money. This was Iranian money that America had seized and frozen. It was never American money. Not one penny. American money was never at stake. Rather, America was simply returning Iran’s own money that America had seized and was holding in frozen accounts pending the resolution of the sanctions against Iran. Trump obviously had no clue that this money belonged to Iran. Trump was utterly ignorant about the facts of the deal. Yet this did not prevent Trump from spouting off and denouncing the deal to the American public. This is classic Trump. Even though he may appear to some to be authoritative, the truth is that his demeanor is superficial and he actually has no idea what he is talking about in substance. There was another little humorous aspect on the subject of this Iranian agreement as well. In his typical bluster, Trump bragged that as part of this deal he would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran. And how, exactly, would Trump have accomplished this? Again, Trump graced us with a master lesson in his wondrous negotiating ability. Trump said that he would have demanded the return of the prisoners upfront. Trump would not have even begun talks with the Iranians until they first returned the prisoners. When the Iranians refused, Trump would have walked out of the meeting. Oh, now there’s a real novel idea. Does Trump really think that the professional American negotiators never thought of this? In fact, America had already demanded the return of the prisoners numerous times, and America had already been engaged in all sorts of diplomatic efforts to secure their return. But Iran was still refusing to release the prisoners. Yet according to Trump, his simplistic maneuver of refusing to negotiate would have somehow magically secured the release of the prisoners “within 24 hours.” This is simply ridiculous. In fact, we all witnessed a real-life example of how Trump’s supposedly brilliant negotiating skills work-out in reality. This unfolded right before our very eyes in the fiasco Trump created over the presidential debate with Fox News just days before the Iowa caucuses. Trump demanded that the Fox News host Megyn Kelly be removed as a moderator of the debate. This is akin to Trump demanding that Iran release the prisoners. Fox refused to remove Kelly, just as Iran would have refused to release the prisoners. Trump then deployed his “tough-guy” tactics of walking away and refusing to participate in the debate. How did that work out for Trump? Well, not so hot. Fox News didn’t exactly fold within 24 hours and yield to the almighty will of Trump. Instead, Fox ignored Trump’s ridiculous demands and went forward with the debate without him. Trump proceeded to lose the Iowa caucuses even though he had been significantly ahead in the polls prior to dropping-out of the debate. Here we see what happens in real life when Trump’s ridiculous course of action is followed. Utter failure. The entire nation would encounter a similar fate if it followed Trump as president. In another segment of the video, a local man from the audience explained that he was raising three young daughters, and given Trump’s many insults, disparaging comments about women and foreigners, and profanity, Trump as president would not seem to make a good role model for his daughters. Trump’s reaction was stunning. Trump immediately accused the man of being a plant. “Who asked you to give this question?” Trump demanded. Did Anderson put you up to this? “This is a CNN set-up!” Unbelievable. This was highly revealing of Trump’s character. He exhibits a tendency toward paranoia, he immediately concludes that others are conspiring against him without a shred of evidence, and he perceives himself as being victimized. These are traits that are not exactly well suited for a leader of a nation. In another encounter, a lady from the audience expressed concern that Trump had not provided enough specificity about his policies. Trump’s answer was that he prefers not to provide detailed policies because he desires to remain unpredictable. Seriously? A presidential candidate running on a platform of unpredictability? Hey, why don’t we just select our president through a national random lottery? Actually, come to think of it, I’ll take those odds over Trump.
The right’s birthday messages for Trayvon Martin will make you physically ill
Trayvon Martin would have turned 21 on Friday had he not been shot and killed in 2012, at age 17, by George Zimmerman. Martin’s death and subsequent backlash sparked the Black Lives Matters movement.
Unfortunately, another byproduct of the movement is its gun-toting, chest-thumping, right-wing critics who still champion the acquitted Zimmerman — despite his unending shittiness — as poster child for their cause.
Regardless of where one stands on Black Lives Matter or stand-your-ground laws, any sympathetic human person should be able to recognize the inherent tragedy in the killing of a teenager.
Or, if that's too much to ask, maybe just shut up and take a long nap on what would be the victim's birthday?
https://twitter.com/NolteNC/status/69... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/andieiamwhoiam/st... https://twitter.com/Heidicapped/statu... https://twitter.com/Gunservatively/st... https://twitter.com/FlorentineHill/st... https://twitter.com/_JusConrad/status... https://twitter.com/DET1969/status/69... https://twitter.com/FiveRights/status...Trayvon Martin would have turned 21 on Friday had he not been shot and killed in 2012, at age 17, by George Zimmerman. Martin’s death and subsequent backlash sparked the Black Lives Matters movement.
Unfortunately, another byproduct of the movement is its gun-toting, chest-thumping, right-wing critics who still champion the acquitted Zimmerman — despite his unending shittiness — as poster child for their cause.
Regardless of where one stands on Black Lives Matter or stand-your-ground laws, any sympathetic human person should be able to recognize the inherent tragedy in the killing of a teenager.
Or, if that's too much to ask, maybe just shut up and take a long nap on what would be the victim's birthday?
https://twitter.com/NolteNC/status/69... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/andieiamwhoiam/st... https://twitter.com/Heidicapped/statu... https://twitter.com/Gunservatively/st... https://twitter.com/FlorentineHill/st... https://twitter.com/_JusConrad/status... https://twitter.com/DET1969/status/69... https://twitter.com/FiveRights/status...
Bernie Sanders says he wants a revolution: Demanding reparations for racial injustice should be his next move
For many viewers, Hillary Clinton's closing statement during last night's debate may have come as a surprise. “We didn't even get to talk about the continuing struggles that Americans face with racism,” Clinton said. As she had noted in her opening statement two hours earlier, seemingly in response to Bernie Sanders' condemnation of a “rigged economy,” “Yes, of course, the economy has not been working for most Americans...But there's also the continuing challenges of racism, of sexism, of discrimination against the LGBT community.” By Sanders' responses, audience members would have thought that race was at the forefront of the debate. “Too many innocent people, including minorities, African-Americans, have been executed when they were not guilty,” he noted. “One wonders if this were a white suburban community what kind of response their would have been,” he posited on the crisis in Flint. He bemoaned the state of “a broken criminal justice system, which today allows us to have more people in jail than in any other country – largely African-American and Latino.” None of the candidates' comments were glaringly noteworthy, but they did reflect an ongoing tension simmering beneath the surface of the Democratic primary — and in particular, the question of whether Sanders' platform of economic justice is missing a crucial component.
***
During the ABC News Debate in late December, David Muir highlighted Hillary Clinton's friendly relationship with business executives. “The last time you ran for president, Fortune Magazine put you on its cover with the headline Business Loves Hillary, pointing out your support for many CEOs in corporate America,” Muir said. “Eight years later, should corporate America love Hillary Clinton?” “Everybody should,” Clinton responded to laughter and applause. “I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful.” Sanders, asked the same question, took a different tact. “No, I think they won't,” he answered bluntly, inspiring laughter and applause as well. “The CEOs of large multinationals may like Hillary. They ain't going to like me and Wall Street is going to like me even less.” Sanders could certainly have taken a different approach, and, like Clinton, invoked the tone of a grand unifier. He could have appealed to more high-minded tenets of a healthy society, claiming that, on a fundamental level, we all benefit from living in a community wherein the sick are treated and the hungry are fed and the curious are educated. Instead, he recognized that his policies were likely to leave wealthy executives immediately, materially worse off. He further recognized that voters are primarily concerned with self-interest — that is, in fact, how democracies function. And so he, both in that moment and throughout the course of his campaign, made clear that he neither needed nor wanted the support of the 1 percent. Sanders' tone when addressing the racist and xenophobic appeals of Republican frontrunners was strikingly different. Rather than speaking to the concerns of minority communities, he addressed the anxiety of the racists and xenophobes, claiming that economic insecurity left them ripe for exploitation. “Somebody like a Trump comes along and says, 'I know the answers. The answer is that...we've got to hate the Mexicans...We've got to hate the Muslims.' Meanwhile, the rich get richer.” Sanders made an appeal to Trump supporters to deeply consider Trump's policy proposals, proposals which he argued would only intensify their economic woes. A grand unifier in some regards, he made clear who the real enemy was. “Let's create an America that works for all of us, not the handful on top,” he closed. This approach, and the question of whether class inequity leads to race inequity or vice versa, lies at the heart of an ongoing debate about Sanders' refusal to support reparations for racist government policies. Asked whether he supported reparations for slavery, Sanders responded “No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.” Ta-Nehisi Coates writes, “The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as 'divisive' (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist.” Whether Sanders is truly a pragmatist is up for debate. Sanders' policies, with the notable exception of single-payer healthcare, tend to have high levels of public support. Some argue that these policies only seem radical because of the corrupting influence of moneyed interest, but aren't truly out of step with the American electorate. But on the question of divisiveness, Sanders has indisputably attempted to sharpen and benefit from class tension. Reparations aren't unacceptable to Sanders because they are a divisive issue amongst the American people, but because they're a divisive issue amongst the coalition he's trying to build. Sanders isn't wrong, by the way, to note that economic hardship makes people uniquely susceptible to demagoguery. However, his debate night plea was implicitly an ask that minorities, whose support Democrats have traditionally relied upon, make bedfellows out of those who, by Sanders' own admission, don't much care for them. For such voters, the question of reparations is a pressing one. One can point to Sanders' policies and argue what the senator hinted at last night– that they are hugely beneficial to black Americans, who disproportionately languish in poverty and in prisons. But such voters are pragmatic as well. Presidents are not dictators; policy proposals during a campaign are all rhetorical. They aren't concretely representative of the laws that will be passed, but symbolic statements of broader governing philosophies. Black voters, who Sanders hopes will align with those who have historically despised them, are as interested as Wall Street bankers in tangible outcomes. They want to know that their best interests will not be sacrificed in the messy process of turning campaign promises into political realities. That Sanders only supports moral policy when it has majority support isn't especially comforting to the minority. Particularly because, much as Sanders' policies are unlikely to make him friends in the board room, redressing racial injustice in America must, inherently, materially benefit racial minorities at the majority's expense. Since Coates's seminal Case for Reparations was published in 2014, a common refrain has been to deny this reality, suggesting that reparations can be paid via policies like criminal justice reform and poverty alleviation. At the very least, we ought to recognize that these are not reparations at all. Providing citizens with clean water and preventing their slaughter by armed agents of the state are baseline requirements of a competent government. Establishing a healthy, functioning economy, rather than one distorted by high levels of income inequality, providing public goods where private markets fall short, ensuring baseline standards of living — this is all the work of governing. These are entirely separate issues from compensating citizens for their government's explicit sins against them and attempting, belatedly, to make them whole. Good governance and reparations are not mutually exclusive; both are obligatory. But unlike good governance, racial justice is not a means. It is an end. Sanders' supporters like to respond to critiques of his policy by arguing that he's better than the alternatives. Why pick on him, they say, when, if we take all the candidates' proposals at face value, black voters stand to gain the most from a Sanders presidency? But the primary is precisely the time to play out these disputes publicly. The candidates who are asking for, who will indeed rely upon, minority support are the ones who are most likely to formulate policies that, in turn, support those minorities. Those policies are not set in stone — they are the result of messy and heated negotiations between a candidate and the electorate. Those negotiations are toothless if they come with a default presumption of support. Sanders supporters are flouting the conventional wisdom that change must come in painstakingly slow increments, and are unapologetically advancing their own interests. And just as lower class voters have the right to advance those interests by emphasizing government benefits, black voters have the right– arguably, the civic responsibility – to emphasize racial economic justice. And there's nothing petty about doing so. If citizens can't demand that candidates do more, and do better, during an election year, why bother having elections at all?For many viewers, Hillary Clinton's closing statement during last night's debate may have come as a surprise. “We didn't even get to talk about the continuing struggles that Americans face with racism,” Clinton said. As she had noted in her opening statement two hours earlier, seemingly in response to Bernie Sanders' condemnation of a “rigged economy,” “Yes, of course, the economy has not been working for most Americans...But there's also the continuing challenges of racism, of sexism, of discrimination against the LGBT community.” By Sanders' responses, audience members would have thought that race was at the forefront of the debate. “Too many innocent people, including minorities, African-Americans, have been executed when they were not guilty,” he noted. “One wonders if this were a white suburban community what kind of response their would have been,” he posited on the crisis in Flint. He bemoaned the state of “a broken criminal justice system, which today allows us to have more people in jail than in any other country – largely African-American and Latino.” None of the candidates' comments were glaringly noteworthy, but they did reflect an ongoing tension simmering beneath the surface of the Democratic primary — and in particular, the question of whether Sanders' platform of economic justice is missing a crucial component.***
During the ABC News Debate in late December, David Muir highlighted Hillary Clinton's friendly relationship with business executives. “The last time you ran for president, Fortune Magazine put you on its cover with the headline Business Loves Hillary, pointing out your support for many CEOs in corporate America,” Muir said. “Eight years later, should corporate America love Hillary Clinton?” “Everybody should,” Clinton responded to laughter and applause. “I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful.” Sanders, asked the same question, took a different tact. “No, I think they won't,” he answered bluntly, inspiring laughter and applause as well. “The CEOs of large multinationals may like Hillary. They ain't going to like me and Wall Street is going to like me even less.” Sanders could certainly have taken a different approach, and, like Clinton, invoked the tone of a grand unifier. He could have appealed to more high-minded tenets of a healthy society, claiming that, on a fundamental level, we all benefit from living in a community wherein the sick are treated and the hungry are fed and the curious are educated. Instead, he recognized that his policies were likely to leave wealthy executives immediately, materially worse off. He further recognized that voters are primarily concerned with self-interest — that is, in fact, how democracies function. And so he, both in that moment and throughout the course of his campaign, made clear that he neither needed nor wanted the support of the 1 percent. Sanders' tone when addressing the racist and xenophobic appeals of Republican frontrunners was strikingly different. Rather than speaking to the concerns of minority communities, he addressed the anxiety of the racists and xenophobes, claiming that economic insecurity left them ripe for exploitation. “Somebody like a Trump comes along and says, 'I know the answers. The answer is that...we've got to hate the Mexicans...We've got to hate the Muslims.' Meanwhile, the rich get richer.” Sanders made an appeal to Trump supporters to deeply consider Trump's policy proposals, proposals which he argued would only intensify their economic woes. A grand unifier in some regards, he made clear who the real enemy was. “Let's create an America that works for all of us, not the handful on top,” he closed. This approach, and the question of whether class inequity leads to race inequity or vice versa, lies at the heart of an ongoing debate about Sanders' refusal to support reparations for racist government policies. Asked whether he supported reparations for slavery, Sanders responded “No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.” Ta-Nehisi Coates writes, “The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as 'divisive' (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist.” Whether Sanders is truly a pragmatist is up for debate. Sanders' policies, with the notable exception of single-payer healthcare, tend to have high levels of public support. Some argue that these policies only seem radical because of the corrupting influence of moneyed interest, but aren't truly out of step with the American electorate. But on the question of divisiveness, Sanders has indisputably attempted to sharpen and benefit from class tension. Reparations aren't unacceptable to Sanders because they are a divisive issue amongst the American people, but because they're a divisive issue amongst the coalition he's trying to build. Sanders isn't wrong, by the way, to note that economic hardship makes people uniquely susceptible to demagoguery. However, his debate night plea was implicitly an ask that minorities, whose support Democrats have traditionally relied upon, make bedfellows out of those who, by Sanders' own admission, don't much care for them. For such voters, the question of reparations is a pressing one. One can point to Sanders' policies and argue what the senator hinted at last night– that they are hugely beneficial to black Americans, who disproportionately languish in poverty and in prisons. But such voters are pragmatic as well. Presidents are not dictators; policy proposals during a campaign are all rhetorical. They aren't concretely representative of the laws that will be passed, but symbolic statements of broader governing philosophies. Black voters, who Sanders hopes will align with those who have historically despised them, are as interested as Wall Street bankers in tangible outcomes. They want to know that their best interests will not be sacrificed in the messy process of turning campaign promises into political realities. That Sanders only supports moral policy when it has majority support isn't especially comforting to the minority. Particularly because, much as Sanders' policies are unlikely to make him friends in the board room, redressing racial injustice in America must, inherently, materially benefit racial minorities at the majority's expense. Since Coates's seminal Case for Reparations was published in 2014, a common refrain has been to deny this reality, suggesting that reparations can be paid via policies like criminal justice reform and poverty alleviation. At the very least, we ought to recognize that these are not reparations at all. Providing citizens with clean water and preventing their slaughter by armed agents of the state are baseline requirements of a competent government. Establishing a healthy, functioning economy, rather than one distorted by high levels of income inequality, providing public goods where private markets fall short, ensuring baseline standards of living — this is all the work of governing. These are entirely separate issues from compensating citizens for their government's explicit sins against them and attempting, belatedly, to make them whole. Good governance and reparations are not mutually exclusive; both are obligatory. But unlike good governance, racial justice is not a means. It is an end. Sanders' supporters like to respond to critiques of his policy by arguing that he's better than the alternatives. Why pick on him, they say, when, if we take all the candidates' proposals at face value, black voters stand to gain the most from a Sanders presidency? But the primary is precisely the time to play out these disputes publicly. The candidates who are asking for, who will indeed rely upon, minority support are the ones who are most likely to formulate policies that, in turn, support those minorities. Those policies are not set in stone — they are the result of messy and heated negotiations between a candidate and the electorate. Those negotiations are toothless if they come with a default presumption of support. Sanders supporters are flouting the conventional wisdom that change must come in painstakingly slow increments, and are unapologetically advancing their own interests. And just as lower class voters have the right to advance those interests by emphasizing government benefits, black voters have the right– arguably, the civic responsibility – to emphasize racial economic justice. And there's nothing petty about doing so. If citizens can't demand that candidates do more, and do better, during an election year, why bother having elections at all?
Ted Cruz’s Benghazi moment: Ben Carson slams his rival for shrugging off accusations of cheating in Iowa
Ben Carson just won't let up. Refusing to drop out of the Republican presidential race and dogging Ted Cruz's campaign with continued allegations of impropriety, the retired neurosurgeon and soon-to-be also-ran is now invoking Republicans' favorite boogeyman of Benghazi to undermine Cruz's first place finish in the Iowa caucuses. Defending his decision to leave the campaign trail following his loss in Iowa to return home to change clothes during an interview with right-wing radio host Todd Starnes Thursday evening, Carson called the detour to Florida "representative of how I would do things in government, too." "I'm not going to go out and spend the tax payers money willy-nilly," Carson promised, explaining that unlike other Republican presidential candidates he grew up understanding the value of recycling old clothes. "In my upbringing we didn't just throw away the clothes that needed to be dry cleaned or washed." Carson then turned to what he called "major irregularities" with Monday's election and the Cruz's campaign's "dirty tricks." Friday morning, the Carson campaign released voicemails reportedly left by Cruz staffers the night of the Iowa caucuses instructing precinct captains to encourage Carson supporters to vote for Cruz instead: Cruz has already issued a half-hearted apology to the Carson campaign for falsely suggesting that he had dropped out of the race, but the Texas senator has not yet sanctioned any campaign staffers. Asked if Cruz handled the kerfuffle in a Christian-like matter, Carson essentially said no. “I would have said if I didn’t agree with what’s being said — which he did say that — I would make sure that it didn’t happen again. And I would take corrective action,” Carson said. "Not to take corrective action is tacitly saying it’s okay," Carson told Starnes, comparing Cruz's apology to conservatives' most derided bit of congressional testimony of the last decade. "It’s sort of like, as Hillary Clinton said after Benghazi, ‘what difference does it make?’” “I’m not saying that it rises to the level up Benghazi," Carson not-so quickly followed-up. "I’m saying it’s the same kind of attitude ... The attitude being, it’s water under the bridge, it’s gone by, let’s not deal with it.” “Did they cross the line in terms of the law?" Carson continued. "I don’t think so, but I do think there comes a time when you do what’s right rather than what’s legal. And I don’t think that it was the right thing to do.” https://twitter.com/RealBenCarson/sta... Listen to Carson's comments about Cruz, via Buzzfeed:
