Showing posts with label GOP Failure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP Failure. Show all posts

October 29, 2016

The Way Hillary Clinton Can Win the GOP Civil War

 Like in the civil war there are times due to the differences of core beliefs, neighbors, friends and families face each with weapons on hands. This could be the GOP because of Donald Trump, rich fellow with self grandiose ideas and lack of knowledge and concern of humans not connected to him. (adamfoxie*)


If Hillary Clinton wins the election on Nov. 8, as seems likely, and Republicans retain control of at least the House of Representatives, which also seems probable, there will be countless areas of contention between the president and the GOP majority. But there will also be one powerful goal they share: driving the last, bedraggled moderates, and even a few frustrated conservatives, clear out of the Republican Party.

Donald Trump has done his best to send moderate suburban women fleeing. His campaign vacillates between a general theme of Men Behaving Badly and the more specific genre of Men Behaving Badly Toward Women. His uncanny surrogates Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich remain staples of the cable shows, with Gingrich this week seeking to duck questions about Trump's alleged sexual predations by chastising Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly for being obsessed with sex.

 When Megyn Kelly interviews Newt Gingrich………………………………
Newt Gingrich, a Donald Trump surrogate, and Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly got into an on-air dispute regarding media coverage of Trump and Bill Clinton’s sexual assault accusers.

We don't yet know the nature of the war Trump and his campaign chief Steve Bannon intend to wage against the party after November. But the anticipated civil strife will not be a cleanly drawn affair, with Trumpists on one side and sensible conservatives on the other. It will be a battle between pro-Trump reactionaries and anti-Trump reactionaries. The increasingly marginalized GOP professional class, and the neoconservative GOP foreign-policy establishment, will be battling both, seeking to regain lost ground amid a fog of war.

Both Trumpists and anti-Trumpists believe the U.S. faces an existential crisis that requires suspending "business as usual" — that is, democratic norms and practices — to empower themselves. The quantifiable distinction is that the anti-Trumpists also want to destroy the welfare state while the Trump faction wants to appropriate it.
The 2016 Sedona is premium comfort with the power to transform. From the spacious driver cockpit to its versatile seating, the Sedona is intuitive control and flexibility that keeps pace with you.

Don't expect more than a handful of congressional Republicans — hello, Senator Lindsey Graham — to acknowledge the party's responsibility for its presidential fiasco. With the election almost two weeks away, some appear already to have moved beyond it, focusing on new and better ways to make their party a compelling purveyor of lunacy.

It's not just the reckless talk of "impeachment," which conservative media and some Republicans have started even before their target ("Lock her up!") is elected.

More pressing, it seems, is the need to crush House Speaker Paul Ryan on the grounds that he's insufficiently "conservative" — a word that has lost all meaning inside the GOP.

In a Bloomberg Politics survey of voters who lean or identify as Republican, 51 percent said Trump better represents their idea of the GOP compared with 33 percent who said Ryan does. One quarter of the party thinks the 70-year-old Trump should be its public face even if he loses.

Will the Republican civil war carry on after Donald Trump?
Perhaps views will shift in the event of a Trump defeat. But as Norman Ornstein detailed in the Atlantic, Ryan's hold on power is precarious. In one of the most remarkable quotes of a remarkable season, a Ryan loyalist, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, told Bloomberg View columnist Al Hunt that perhaps it's time Ryan moved on. "As his friend," Cole said, "it may be best for him to wrap up business and think about his future."

Making Ryan walk the plank, as they did with John Boehner before him, might make sense if the party planned to move in a more moderate direction. The opposite is the case. Ryan's ideology demands shrinking Washington to a fraction of its size and cutting aid to tens of millions. Many of his colleagues lack Ryan's eye for detail; they simply want to burn something, anything down.

Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is readying kindling. In The Washington Post this week, the Trump agnostic — Chaffetz will vote for Trump but won't endorse him, a kind of conservative metaphysics — promised "years" of investigations into President Hillary Clinton. It's almost as if Chaffetz is unaware that previous years of investigations have led his party to the very threshold of President Hillary Clinton.

Governing is not the GOP's thing; oversight, Chaffetz told The Post, is "where the action is." Meanwhile, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said he wants his Select Committee on Benghazi, the eighth congressional committee to investigate the topic, to continue into the next Congress. Why should Chaffetz get all the action?

A Trump failure at the polls may also require new improvisations concerning the Supreme Court. Seeking to regain reactionary mojo lost to Trump, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz this week suggested that perhaps deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia shouldn't be replaced at all. Arizona Sen. John McCain had previously raised the notion of blocking all Clinton court nominees — as Republicans have blocked Obama's nominee for most of the year — before McCain backtracked.

The problem, of course, is that Republicans keep losing presidential elections but still want the power over court nominations that the Constitution awards to the winner. Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa has said his Republican colleagues can't stonewall forever. But Grassley is not a courageous man; he will cave if pressure is applied.

To the extent that there is a GOP strategy at work, beyond massive resistance to what America, circa 2016, actually is, it banks on the peculiar unpopularity of Clinton. She is not well liked, and she is even less well trusted. Republicans are hoping to erode her shaky support, and hound and harass her into despair.
The bottomless ignorance of Donald Trump
But the presidency is a powerful platform. And Clinton, her self-damaging penchant for secrecy aside, is a more skilled politician than many realize. Trump's crusade to alienate a record number of college-educated white women voters seems likely to succeed. A vicious war waged by congressional Republicans against the first woman president may do for women what unscrupulous attacks against the nation's first black president appear to have done for nonwhite voters: moved most of them beyond the GOP's reach.

Republican attacks on a new president will take place while the party's own factions are busy clawing at the broken husk of the GOP. It will likely be an energizing time for the party base, which will want revenge for an election it has been told is rigged. Fox News and Breitbart should be lively.

But many old-school conservatives will be on the outside looking in at the madness. And suburban married women, a Republican constituency, and even some of their college-educated Republican husbands, may find themselves acquiring an unexpected affinity for pantsuits.

Bloomberg View

Francis Wilkinson writes on politics and domestic policy for Bloomberg View.

adamfoxie*blog is posting this story and it endorses it 100%

July 9, 2016

GOP Asks State Dept. to cancel Clinton aides’ clearances as well as Hers’


The Republican lawmakers having been caught off guard by one of their own (GOP) FBI Director Comey in not prosecuting Hillary Clinton, not getting the outcome they wanted they are trying a couple of different strategies that are almost guarantee to work.  If not by removing her as a candidate against their Trump but by bringing or keeping up the pressure of bad publicity and then making her job tougher if she becomes president. Now that the email investigation seemed to run its course not everyone accepted the conclusion but if you are not happy with this justice you got and get another one.
Republicans officially petitioned the administration Thursday to deny Hillary Clinton access to secret information as Democrats’ presidential nominee, and some GOP lawmakers said if the intelligence community won’t do it, they’ll pass a bill to do it themselves, On wether she lied or didn’t lie to congress but regardless they first want to deprive Mrs. Clinton of her right to appoint to people that she trusts to help her with the transition of government if she wins.  But they are going further, they want Mrs. Clinton clearance be suspended and have the customary intelligence briefings cancel to her. Not Trump because he has never done anything wrong particularly lying to the courts nor the government. 

The GOP knows how slim the chances of Donald with his trumped-mouth would be to get elected. 
As experts in playing dirty on elections on the background like suspending voters and closing polls without notice on States with GOP governors,  Now they bring the fight in the open to have hearings wether she lied (Clinton) to the committee and on her security clearance.  They are not even throwing things on the wall and see what sticks but have a strategy to sour the independents and GOP voters upset with Trump’s mouth, they want them back and away from ‘Lying Hillary'. 

The security clearance is not going to be lifted on her because that will take a law and for that they need Democrats since they wont have all the votes (Dems. wont go for it) for the majority and certainly the President wont sign such a law. Unfortunedly for her aides the GOP wont need a law for them but simply disciplinary hearings by the appropriate agency in which they would have no chance to overcome it loosing clearance to work for Clinton or the private industry.

That will deprive her in their minds from having the people she wants and it would be bad press now. Is this good for the Country to deprive the Commander in chief of the experience people she knows and trusts?  No but the GOP never operates on that basis. If you would like to say the same for the Democrats that is fine but certainly the republicans from before the days of Tricky Dick (Nixon) have  gotten caught the most times with their dirty feet in the cookie jar with the most outrageous things (watergate, contras, the count in Fl.) Besides nothing like this has ever been done to a presumptive nominee with a good shot of becoming president. 


The White House has said it won’t deny Mrs. Clinton access, saying it is a tradition for both the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees to be briefed so they can effect an orderly transition if they are elected.

But Republicans said Mrs. Clinton’s behavior with her private email server while secretary of state was so egregious that it should trump tradition and cost her the chance to see secret, sensitive material. They cited FBI Director James Comey’s admonition that while Mrs. Clinton’s behavior wasn’t criminal, it was “extremely careless” and would likely result in sanctions that could include loss of security privileges. 

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper officially asking him not to grant Mrs. Clinton the traditional briefings.
A high-powered group of Senate Republicans went further, asking that Mrs. Clinton’s top aides have their clearances revoked.

“We believe that is clear from Director Comey’s statement and the FBI investigation that the State Department should immediately suspend the clearances of Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and other former State Department employees for security violations if they still maintain them,” the senators wrote, naming the three top Clinton aides who formed her inner circle at the State Department, and whom Mr. Comey signaled were likewise reckless with secret information.

GOP Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and John Cornyn of Texas even introduced legislation they dubbed the Trust Act, which would revoke the clearances by law.

But Mr. Ryan doubted Congress had that power, and it’s unlikely the legislation will see a vote. Congress leaves town at the end of next week for a vacation lasting through Labor Day.
Mrs. Clinton will claim her party’s nomination during that break, meaning unless the administration acts on its own, she’ll start getting the briefings soon.

Two of Mrs. Clinton’s aides, Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Mills, reportedly retain security clearances so they could help Mrs. Clinton go through her records.

Late Thursday, the State Department said it would reopen its investigation into how classified information was handled during Mrs. Clinton’s time in office. Spokesman John Kirby said they would be “as expeditious as possible,” but refused to set a deadline.

That could give the administration the excuse it needs to refuse Republican demands, saying the matter is under investigation and any action would be premature.
Mr. Kirby also said he can’t promise they’ll be able to release the results of the review.
Democrats said they’re comfortable with Mrs. Clinton still having access to government secrets despite the FBI’s damning findings.

“I think that both of the candidates for president of the United States should have access to the security that is appropriate,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.
Senate Democrats said they’d vote against the bill to strip clearances if it ever reaches the floor.
“I think it is a terrible idea,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin Democrat.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Democrat, said anyone running for president should be able to get access to information.
“We want whoever gets elected to have as much background and knowledge as possible,” she said.

 - The Washington Times 

June 17, 2016

365 days Anniversary of Trump and Why He is Here


On this one year anniversary of Trump it was going to be on what Hillary Clinton had to say about him or the Washington Post which He hates slightly less but only slightly. The Washington Post with 5 memorable points it learned about The Donald in this 365 days since he came down the grand golden elevator of the Towers to be with the people like you and me won hands down.
Three hundred and sixty-five days ago, Donald Trump announced that he was running for president.

I can't remember a less predictable, more watchable, less policy-focused, more humbling candidacy than his. When he rode down that beautiful, classy elevator at Trump Tower on June 16, 2015, there was no one — up to and including Trump — who thought, a year later, he would be the party's presumptive presidential nominee.

How he got here — and where he is going — will be the subject of political science classes for years. I don't claim to that level of academic excellence, but I have spent a lot — and I do mean A LOT — of time thinking about the lesson Trump has already taught me. (NOTE: These lessons apply only to the Republican primary. Trump's struggles in the six weeks since he's been the party's presumptive general election nominee suggest how he won the primary is not transferable to the general election.)

1.  Assume nothing

When Trump got into the race, he was greeted with eye rolls by, well, almost everyone. He was treated as a circus sideshow, someone who would give the late-night TV hosts fodder for the summer and then would disappear back into the world of reality TV.

Why? The assumption was that someone with Trump's profile generally (an egotistical self-promoter) and within the GOP more specifically (two-thirds of Republicans had an unfavorable opinion of him) could never be a serious challenger for the highest office in the country. People like Trump, the saying went, don't get elected president or even the Republican nominee.

Nope. Basically every assumption made about Trump by me and others — he wouldn't run, he wouldn't file his financial paperwork, he couldn't win a primary, his controversial statements would catch up with him, he could never win a one-on-one race — were proven wrong over the last year.

So, stop assuming. What has always been true is true only until it stops being true. And that is now.

2. Money is overrated

Remember how the 2016 election was going to the super PAC election? If that were true, Jeb Bush would have cruised to the nomination. He didn't. Trump did — and, yes, "cruised" is the right word for how Trump won — by spending the least money of almost any candidate running for either party's nomination.

Yes, Trump bragged repeatedly about how he was self-funding his campaign — not accurate — but he was remarkably thrifty when it came to spending money (his own or other people's) in this race. Trump LIVED on free media, regularly having his rallies broadcast in full on cable television and calling in at will to virtually every show across the networks.

That flood-the-zone media presence coupled with Trump's celebrity (and social media presence) made traditional TV ads like the ones Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida were running almost totally useless.

Not only that, but “big money” candidates became symbols, in Trump's worldview, of the problem with politics — beholden to major donors and their whims. 

3. Organization is overrated

Trump made only the thinnest of attempts at building anything like the organization his rivals were spending millions of dollars on. A real organization in a state like Iowa, for example, might have made the difference for Trump. But it wound up not mattering anyway.

When Trump went to a state set to hold a primary, he drew wall-to-wall coverage that drowned out all of his rivals. People were excited to see him, they felt like they were up close to true fame. Precinct captains and GOTV lists felt small and inadequate next to the rollicking Trump tour.

Had Trump done any significant organizing, he would have likely won the nomination even more easily than he did. But he won without any real organization — the one sine qua non of primary politics. Stunning.

4. All press is good press

There was an assumption — see Point No. 1 above — that sure, Trump got lots of press, but lots and lots of it was bad press over the many controversial things he said. So it didn't do him any good and might actually hurt him.

Turns out that there were two things wrong with that idea.  The first was that Trump didn't get all the negative press we thought he got. (The chart below comes from a Shorenstein Center study of coverage from 2015.)

The second was that all press related to Trump wound up being good press. In some cases, more people than anyone thought agreed with Trump's proposals (the wall, banning Muslims). In others in which people didn't agree, they didn't really hold Trump accountable for any one thing he said. That's just Trump being Trump, they thought. And, more importantly, Trump was on their mind — which netted out to a win for him.
5. You can't go too far in bashing your party

Pre-Trump ("PT") there was a belief that even if you were running as an outsider for president,  generally speaking, you played nice with the party elders for fear that they would seek retribution against you.

What Trump proves is that the emperor had no clothes when it came to any alleged "retribution" that the party leaders could or would seek against him for attacking them. He laid waste to the Republican National Committee, along with Mitt Romney, George W. Bush and virtually every other major figure within the party over the past few decades.

And while some of those éminence grise — like Bob Dole — pushed back against Trump, the real estate mogul understood that Republican primary voters were much more on his side than Dole's. They felt sold out by the GOP leaders too — and they liked someone who was willing to tell those elders exactly what they did wrong and why they were dumb.

There were no lines that GOP voters didn't want crossed. Trump got that. And here he is

June 7, 2016

“Death by a Thousand Cuts” GOP on Trump


Donald Trump has said he prefers war heroes who weren't captured. He said Mexico was sending "rapists" and "criminals" to the United States. He proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country. He falsely claimed that "thousands" of Muslims were celebrating in northern New Jersey on Sept. 11, 2001.  He said Fox News's Megyn Kelly was mean to him in a debate because she had blood pouring out of her "wherever."  He said he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his supporters would continue to back him. He suggested that Ted Cruz's father was part of a plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy. He created a fake spokesman to tout himself.

Any of these things would have ended — or at the very least, badly hamstrung — a normal campaign. None of them had that effect on Trump. Quite the opposite.  His proposal to build a wall with Mexico sent him surging in the polls in the early days of the race. His reaction to the Paris and San Bernardino attacks — the Muslim ban — wound up being the key to a second Trump surge that effectively won him the nomination.

The up-is-down-ism of Trump's primary campaign led — and leads — many people to conclude that nothing he says or does will have any negative impact on his chances of winning the White House. Nothing hurts this guy!  He tells it like it is and people love it!

I'm less certain of that — even while acknowledging that Trump's campaign to date has succeeded by doing the exact opposite of what conventional political wisdom would suggest.

Witness the reaction to Trump's comments over the past few days regarding Gonzalo Curiel and the allegation that the judge's Mexican heritage effectively disqualifies him from offering an unbiased view of a pending case regarding Trump University.

Unlike even a few months ago when Trump was making offensive comments, the condemnation from across the spectrum of the Republican party has been both swift and biting. Newt Gingrich, widely rumored to be a member of Trump's vice presidential shortlist, called the comment "inexcusable" and described it as the "worst mistake" Trump has made in the campaign to date. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a day after he endorsed Trump, said that he "completely disagree[d] with the thinking" behind Trump's comment on Curiel. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he "couldn't disagree more with a statement like that."  Maine Sen. Susan Collins tweeted out her disapproval Monday morning.

As of Monday afternoon, the piling-on of Trump from all corners of the GOP showed no signs of abating — and Hillary Clinton's campaign had seized on the controversy with a brutal Web video detailing all of Trump's Republican critics.

So what, you say? Lots of Republicans have called out Trump before for things he said — and it helped him! And Clinton attacking Trump is nothing but good for Trump as he tries to unite the GOP!

I'm not so sure. As I noted above, I think the number of Republicans condemning Trump and the language they are using to do it is qualitatively different than in the past. I also think Trump's circumstances have changed markedly since he made most of his most famous/infamous comments.

Trump is no longer one of a crowd of candidates running for the Republican nomination. He is the presumptive Republican nominee. He is the de facto head of the Republican party, responsible not only for himself but also for the broader brand up and down the ballot in November.  There are greater stakes now than at any other time in the past when Trump has said something controversial. He now speaks for the entire party — and doesn’t seem to realize it or, more frighteningly for the GOP, doesn’t care. 

That new reality means that Trump's comments can't simply be dismissed by Republican leaders as "Donald being Donald." What Trump says and does now matters more. Which means that the likes of Ryan and McConnell, who are desperately trying to preserve some semblance of the party they know and love, have to be more outspoken and confrontational when Trump goes off the rails.

Then there is the fact that Trump isn't running for the Republican nomination anymore. He's running to be president of the entire United States, which means that simply carving out a bigger-than-anyone-else-can-carve piece of the GOP primary pie isn't close to enough anymore.

Consider this: Trump is likely to win the Republican primary race with somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.5 million votes. Mitt Romney got 60 million votes in 2012 while losing convincingly to President Obama.  Trump needs to massively scale upward in terms of his voter pool to have a serious chance against Clinton. And the sort of voters he needs to appeal to are not the hardcore Republicans who are already for him. They are establishment GOP types, moderates and even some Reagan Democrats. They are, by and large, also not the sort of people who will respond well to Trump's Curiel comments.

No one can dispute that Trump broke every rule in the Republican primary and won. But winning a primary and winning a general election are not even close to the same thing. (Think about it like being a star in college basketball and a star in the pros.  Some people can do both but the skill set required is not the same.)

This is a whole new ballgame for Donald Trump. He doesn't seem to understand that.  

Republican lawmakers past and present reacted to Donald Trump's comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel over the weekend, carefully distancing themselves from Trump's position. ( /The Washington Post)

May 14, 2016

GOP Going Down the School’s Pee Pot

Image result for gop down the toilet

The Lieutenant Gov of Texas was saying on my TV that now female students would have to shower with boys. It’s hard to have a debate with people that don’t know the truth and if they know it they don’t use it. When did the fairness to let transgender kids use the bathroom becomes the right of boys to shower with girls? This kind of talk works when people don’t know who the transgenders are but this doesn’t last long because people will get curious and find out. Soon everybody will know who a transgender is and then decide wether they deserve fairness and respect at the expense of ignorance and homophobia.

President Obama has picked the perfect time to enforce a law that has been in the books. Nothing new on the law except the enforcement of it. It started with North Carolina and spreading through Texas and most of the states that fought same sex marriage and equal treatment of the LGBT community by passing their own laws with have been struck down or are in the process of being sent the way of the ‘Martians are Coming’. 

It’s going to be interesting how GOP Senators which have their seats on the line this coming election will deal with this hot potato. Are they going to join the laws being passed by some states which not only knocks down the civil rights laws already in the books and the fairness and dignity to be afforded to transgender kids which up to the moment had no problem with the bathrooms.  LGBT equal protections have either been passed by the courts or by the federal government though executive orders. These governors and local lawmakers decided in some cases that if they were going to be irrational and unfair to the transgender kids, lets bring in the gays into the mix. These Senators trying to defend their seats are going to find a tough time getting elected as people begin to find out who their transgenders are just like when they found out who the gay kids where (their own kids). 

In homophobic states it might not be tough to carry this type of water of denying the bathroom to kids but in most states this wont fly no matter what the main media might be saying through interviews and air time given to these states.

They are interviewing the states with the problem with transgender kids and adults but as you take this issue country wide these GOP politicians wont find friendly faces because polls already show that the majority of the nation wants transgender kids and adults just like gays to be treated fairly. There are politicians running for their seats in those states. Who are they going to defend? The states where homophobia still grows will see this as a protection from Transgender kids. They are so scare for people that are religious. Afraid of the Muslims the Transgender, Gays but they are compared to the whole nation a minority.

There only 8 senators which currently hold the majority in the senate, with this whole non issue based on homophobia and bias might just be the difference for the GOP to loose the senate. This summer and fall the GOP will have to defend “The Donald” without tax returns (first time ever) and his plan to deport Mexicans and Moslems and the bias against the transgender populace against using bathrooms but mainly kids in school. There comes a time in which the septic tank van only hold so much and then cracks and spills because it can’t hold anymore. 

What happens when a biological male who identifies as a female uses the women’s restroom?

The question is at the core of a struggle – and a suddenly intense debate – over the rights of transgender individuals. That battle transcends what happens in bathrooms, certainly, but the issue has prompted a wave of unnecessary fears and unnecessary laws, including North Carolina’s HB 2.

This week, the Obama administration tried to get in front of the clash, first with a Department of Justice lawsuit over HB 2, then on Friday with a letter to U.S. school districts ordering them to acknowledge and accommodate transgender students. The letter doesn’t carry the weight of law, but it does carry a big stick – the implied withholding of federal dollars from school districts that don’t abide by the administration’s guidelines.

That threat is sure to bring more heat to the bathroom debate, but eventually the decree should have the opposite effect. It will bring acceptance, as these measures do, by showing that the answer to what happens in bathrooms is a lot less fearsome than the question.

Republicans in North Carolina have made the most of those fears, framing HB 2 as a law that protects the safety and privacy of women and children. Those safety issues are political fiction – non-transgender men wouldn’t have been allowed in women’s bathrooms under the Charlotte ordinance that HB 2 killed, and the 200 or so cities with similar ordinances have had no incidents involving bathroom predators.

That leaves the issue of privacy and the oft-stated notion of women and girls sharing bathrooms and locker rooms with someone who has different genitalia. It’s an image that’s uncomfortable even for some who are sympathetic to the transgender cause.

The administration’s letter addresses that uneasiness head on, at least with regards to schools. The letter includes a 25-page attachment detailing “emerging practices” at U.S. districts that already are supporting transgender students. Along with policies on issues such as dress codes and transgender student records, the document provides examples of how districts address the privacy needs of all students in bathrooms and locker rooms.

In Washington state, guidelines urge schools to provide all students access to an alternative restroom or changing area. In New York, one principal determined that students could be given more privacy by having curtains installed alongside benches in locker rooms. In Kentucky, one district offered both curtains and private changing areas, plus separate changing schedules for students wanting privacy.

The measures follow a simple premise: Offer those who are uncomfortable a chance to be comfortable, but give choice to everyone instead of taking it away from some.

That Kentucky district and others have discovered something else that’s instructive, by the way: There have been no incidents involving locker rooms and bathrooms because of transgender policies. It is, eventually, a non-issue.

This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday. Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms – and vice versa – might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort – with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage – then realizing that it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.

Intro by Adam Gonzalez

March 18, 2016

Speaker Ryan Makes it Clear an Open Convention is a good Possibility

Image result for 1968 convention



Image result for 1968 convention


 Would this be back to the future 1968? No one knows but if Speaker Ryan is serious and all indication are that he is, there would be fireworks,  I guarantee you. Trump did not have to threaten  riots on the streets for us to know it will surpass that classic year in Chicago.
The GOP has cheapened the Presidency so much, much more than when Nixon resigned. 
 They impeached president Clinton over sex. There used to be an unwritten rule of not criticizing a president during a time of war.
Once a black President was elected all the rules were thrown out the capital windows by the GOP.  From top republicans, senators, house members asking for a birth certificate “just so we can put this behind us”. The president could not have been more attacked that during the scale down of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two wars which were stared by a Republican President. It was for Obama to clean up a n economy in shambles and two failed wars and then to still fight the people that made the mess. President Obama by following his instinct and a good consistent governing style has brought a lot of dignity back but it was still not what it was and then there was a front runner in the GOP calling for violence on the streets, following his calls for violence on his speech events.  This is why there has to be an open convention because the GOP after having been knocking the President and Presidency for 8 consecutive years, having a violent, racist, uncontrollable, ignorant on policy, etiquette and overall rules of a domesticated human being the Presidency could go to this man. To get this kind of man was too much to grasp for the GOP since its tough to see death rolling on a car to you and if that was not enough, you bought the car and its gas. The fire line is an open convention!
 Adam Gonzalez

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday it’s looking “more likely” the Republican Party will face an open convention in July – meaning, a floor fight to pick a nominee – and that Donald Trump and the party might want to accept that “reality.”

Ryan discussed the possibility with reporters as he noted he’s the chairman of the convention and will have to “bone up on all the rules.” He openly acknowledged that – even as Trump puts away another round of primary victories – a convention where no candidate has reached the necessary 1,237 delegates could actually happen this year.  

“Nothing has changed other than the perception that this is more likely to become an open convention than we thought before,” Ryan said. “So, we're getting our minds around the idea that this could very well become a reality, and therefore those of us who are involved in the convention need to respect that.”

He said his role as speaker is to be “dispassionate and to be Switzerland,” and ensure that delegates abide by the rules in making their decisions.

Ryan also tried to tamp down speculation he might be put forward as an eleventh-hour alternative to front-runner Trump. This, after ex-Speaker John Boehner made an off-the-cuff comment that he’d back Ryan if Republicans are stymied on choosing one of the three remaining candidates.

Ryan said Thursday he’s essentially told Boehner to “knock it off.”
“It's not going to be me. It should be somebody running for president,” Ryan told reporters.

Trump, with each set of wins, has tried to look ahead to the general election contest, which he presumes will be against Hillary Clinton. He declared once again Tuesday that he would win the nomination.

But speculation swirls over the possibility that Trump might not clinch the nomination before July.

Meanwhile, Capitol Hill leaders once again found themselves debating Trump’s candidacy Thursday.

On the Democratic side, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of fostering the conditions for years that allowed Trump’s candidacy to thrive. Reid said if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wonders where Trump came from, “He should take a look in the mirror.”

He said the anti-Muslim rhetoric on the right “spawned Donald Trump,” as did “anti-Latino” sentiments.

“The Republican Party has become without question the party of Trump,” Reid said.

Ryan said Thursday he doesn’t think he’ll have to denounce Trump’s campaign overall based on his rhetoric.

But he did scold Trump over a comment that there could be “riots” if he doesn’t win at the convention.
Ryan said to hint at violence is “unacceptable.”

March 15, 2016

Senators Blocking a Supreme Justice Being Appointed R targeted by”Do Your Job”

As members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin G. Hatch, seated left, and Charles E. Grassley, right, have been facing pressure from activist groups on the Republicans’ reluctance to consider a Supreme Court nominee.

As Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah addressed the conservative Federalist Society luncheon on Friday at a Chinatown restaurant, young protesters from the liberal group Generation Progress suddenly broke into loud chants of “Do your job,” disrupting the staid legal discussion. 

On Sunday in Iowa, outside courthouses in Waterloo and Des Moines, activists from the progressive organization Why Courts Matter Iowa hammered Senator Charles E. Grassley with made-for-media protests in which participants shouted, “Hey, Chuck, do your job.”

Those protests aimed at the two most senior Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with more than 40 similar events around the country in the last week, provide clear evidence of the emerging Democratic strategy to break the Senate Republican blockade against President Obama’s forthcoming nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Democrats intend to try to make life as miserable as possible for Senate Republicans — particularly those on the Judiciary Committee or up for re-election in November — both back home and in Washington until they relent and agree to take up the nomination.

“Senate Republicans who refuse to do their jobs are already seeing the consequences of their inaction,” said Amy Brundage, a former White House deputy communications director who is coordinating communications around the court campaign. “Hardworking Americans don’t get to choose to stop doing their jobs. So we will continue to put pressure on Senate Republicans back home and force them to explain why they won’t fulfill their constitutional responsibility to their voters and constituents.”

The tone and frequency of the organized activities against Republicans — news conferences, petitions, protests at offices, letter-writing campaigns, rallies — is only going to escalate once President Obama announces his choice and puts a face on a fight that now focuses mainly on the Senate process of considering a nominee.

Democratic strategists believe that if they can make Senate Republicans squirm as they are forced to constantly defend the party’s stance, those Republicans will in turn lean on the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to back off his blanket refusal to allow a confirmation hearing.

The way Democrats believe they can best make their point is to have activists do whatever they can to get under the skin of senators like Mr. Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman who is getting some of the worst Iowa press coverage of his long career because of his now almost daily declaration that he has no intention of considering Mr. Obama’s choice for the court.

Mr. Grassley, who is up for re-election this year, is a particular target of Democrats who see him as a potential weak link in the Republican chain of resistance. But they also plan to be relentless against other Republican senators facing tough re-election fights, including Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Videos show that the protest at the Hatch luncheon at Tony Cheng’s restaurant seemed to catch the usually button-down crowd by surprise as the activists began shouting and holding up yellow placards that said, “Fill the Supreme Court Vacancy.” Angry members of the otherwise conservative audience began yelling for the activists to be removed, and they were eventually ushered out after a few minutes. An organizer of the lunch drew applause when he thanked the protesters for paying the $20 fee.

“I don’t mind protesters speaking their minds, but I don’t appreciate when they try to prevent others from expressing differing views,” Mr. Hatch, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Monday in a statement. “That a respectful discussion among attorneys was disrupted by professional activists wielding materials from Organizing for Action — a political arm of the White House and the Democratic National Committee — demonstrates what I’ve been saying all along: Considering a nominee in the midst of a presidential election campaign would further inject toxic political theater into an already politicized confirmation process.”

Republicans are developing their own strategy for combating the Democrats and have stressed their message that Democrats should let voters decide the makeup of the court through their vote for president. A conservative activist group has already begun airing ads critical of potential nominees.

Mr. Hatch touched on what some Republicans consider to be a risk for Democrats — and an advantage for them: Democrats may press their case too hard. Republicans will try to paint the protests as a left-wing effort to place a liberal on the court to replace Mr. Scalia, a conservative icon. And they will accuse the White House of using the court fight mainly to stir up Democratic voters in advance of the election, noting that efforts against Republicans are being coordinated by former senior White House and Obama campaign aides.

“I am resolved to prevent what should be serious consideration of a weighty lifetime appointment from turning into an election-year political circus, as many on the left seem to want,” Mr. Hatch said.

Democrats aren’t worried about the pushback. They note that national surveys show that the American public is already on their side and that their task now is to make Republican realize their resistance is politically untenable.

They have work to do if Mr. Hatch is any example. He seemed to take the protest in stride and even autographed one of the placards left behind for a luncheon guest. He told the audience that he is accustomed to such tense fights over the court and can take it. Democratic groups intend to put that proposition to the test for Mr. Hatch and his Senate colleagues.

January 3, 2016

GOP Candidate Ben Carson’s Fibbing did Him in


The article below appeared the afternoon before New Year’s and one of the news we heard approximate 48 hrs.latter, GOP Candidate Carson was that he got out of the race. Many people thought about time but remember he was the first dog out unto the track even ahead of Trump. Because of that fact and because he kept reasonable numbers most people thought he would stay until the convention. 

The chicken came home to roost for him on his playing with words, with the facts with science and almost everything else. He would come out with something outrageous about gays and how sick they are and so forth and no one would call him to the carpet on it. When there was a question here and there from a reporter he will bring the bible and his views about it and he will be given a pass because he used to be a medical surgeon. So He went through his campaign and keeping some numbers by being outrageous, his supporters came from the radical part of the GOP.  So his fibbing was kind of disguise as an opinion and his supporters are very loose with the truth as long is their truth. An opinion can be a lie but then the right is given to the listener to call this person on it.

Ben Carson went too far in his fibbing, he lied to his own staff.  You know the ones whose job it is to explain his fibs to the media. Lie to all but not the ones that push your wagon. Just before the ball at times square dropped his whole staff quit. A restaurant with a cook and no servers cannot stay open. 
That is precisely what happened within 48 hrs Ben Carson had written his last prescription for the Republican party. He quit. 

[Hours after the below news report about this staff quitting, Ben also quit. The below articled appeared on Dec 31 on]


Ben Carson’s top aides have resigned, casting the retired neurosurgeon’s campaign into chaos just a month before the Iowa caucuses.

Carson’s campaign manager Barry Bennett and communications director Doug Watts announced Thursday they will leave the team.

In an exit interview with The Hill, Bennett blamed Carson’s close friend and adviser Armstrong Williams for a handful of political missteps and accused him of railroading the retired neurosurgeon’s White House bid. 

“I called Ben this morning…and explained to him the root of the problem is that you told me Armstrong is not involved in the campaign but he clearly is,” Bennett said. “My frustration level is boiling over so I told him I think it’s best that I leave."
Bennett said he believes “a lot more” staffers will follow him out the door and predicted the campaign team will be “decimated.”

Williams does not have an official role with the campaign, but he’s a longtime friend of Carson’s and has his ear on everything from politics to business deals to life.

Williams, who often sets up media interviews for Carson without the campaign’s knowledge, and the top advisers have been on a collision course for some time.

Things came to a head last week when Williams arranged for several media outlets to interview Carson at his Maryland home, and Carson openly mused about a staff shake-up.

The interviews caught the campaign off guard and infuriated Carson’s top aides.

“I’ve been in politics 30 years and don’t know anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to have your candidate go on national TV and announce they’re taking charge of the campaign,” said Bennett. “That’s the most obscure idea I've ever heard.”

In a subsequent interview with The Hill, Carson insisted his top aides were safe and that he was happy with their work, but the damage had been done.

“The entire team was left wondering if they had a job,” Bennett said. “It made for a great Christmas.”

Bennett also blamed Williams for his input in an unflattering New York Times story in which one of Carson’s foreign policy advisers criticized his ability to understand matters related to national security.

Williams on Thursday was unapologetic.

“They’ve got to blame somebody,” Williams said. “At least they’re not blaming Dr. Carson. Let them blame me.”

Williams said Carson has already moved to put a new team in place. The new campaign manager will be retired Gen. Robert Dees, who presently advises Carson on foreign policy.

"We've moved on," said Williams. "Our focus now is on Iowa and South Carolina. This shake-up isn't a surprise, Dr. Carson talked openly about how it coming."

But it comes at a tough time for the Carson campaign.

Carson continues to raise enormous sums of money, having pulled in $23 million this quarter, the most of any Republican candidate.

But his campaign is spending at just as fast a clip. The campaign’s treasurer told The Hill earlier this month that they may have blown through half of the $11.5 million in reserves they claimed at the start of the quarter.

Carson’s campaign has been under scrutiny for spending the bulk of its donations on expensive small-dollar fundraising.

Critics have charged that the operation is merely enriching consultants and advisers.

The campaign has pushed back furiously, noting that, as a political newcomer, Carson did not have a fundraising base when he launched his bid for president and that it’s expensive to build one out from the ground up.

Meanwhile, Carson’s polling numbers have collapsed as the focus of the GOP race has turned to foreign policy in the wake of several high-profile terror attacks.

Close allies of Carson defended Carson and Williams and blamed the “political consultants” brought in to run the campaign.

Terry Giles, a friend of Carson's who set up the candidate's original campaign and hired both Bennett and Watts, says he lays the blame for Carson's fall entirely at their feet.

"I think you've got to put it almost completely on their shoulders," Giles told The Hill.

"The political consultants, and I count both Bennett and Watts as political consultants — they always want to turn their candidates into vanilla," Giles added.

Giles has known Watts for decades, dating back to their days as fraternity brothers at college, but he says he feels burned that the communications director wanted him out of the campaign. Giles left for good in late October.

"It was a surprise to me because Doug and I go back a long time," Giles said. "And I brought Doug into the campaign."

Giles says he thinks Carson can recover but only if he surrounds himself with good people. "I think he's got a better chance of recovering without these folks in his campaign than he would have had with them."

Jeff Reeter, a Houston businessman who runs the pro-Carson super-PAC "Our Children's Future," told The Hill that the resignations of Bennett and Watts are only going to be good for the campaign. He also foreshadowed more political operators leaving the campaign.

"I have a hunch that Dr. Carson is going to move forward in a very positive and powerful way to tell the American people that these associations with political folks and their politicizing his campaign pursuits are not his way forward," Reeter said.

Reeter said that Bennett's and Watts' political skills were not what the campaign needed and that Carson needs to get back to being a non-politician.

Amazon SearchBox Use it for All Meerchandise

The Forest Needs help

Summer Athlete

Adamfoxie Blog Int.

Adamfoxie Blog Int.


Relief World Hunger

Taylor Made 2016 Family Clubs

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Amazon EcHo

Blog Archive/White No# Stories per Month/year

Popular Posts

Everyday at the Movies

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest

The Gay Man in You♥ or Him