So Much For Family Ties

"You're not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency."






So asserted John Ellis Bush to Donald Trump last December.  George Prescott Bush (among others) is out to prove him wrong.

At the end of May, Texas land commissioner George P. Bush, son of John Ellis Bush, was already someone of questionable ethics. He then  was named as the GOP's 2016 Victory chairperson with the assignment, reported the Austin American-Statesman, of "raising money and running the statewide campaign to 'annihilate the Democrats up-and-down the ballot this November.'"

This ordinarily is not a difficult task in the State of Texas. The state's voters elect the 15 members of the State Board of Education, of whom ten are Republicans; eighteen judges, of whom 17 are Republican, and nine other important officials, all of whom belong to the GOP.  Texas invariably votes for the GOP presidential nominee, boasts a state legislature dominated by Republicans, and has two Republican Senators as well as a U.S. House delegation which is predominately Republican.

This shouldn't be a difficult job either for George P., whom we now find is strategically unbothered by family loyalty.  So while dad, uncle George, and grandfather George (as well as their wives) have refused to endorse GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump- who repeatedly taunted and trolled JEB during the campaign-  George P. feels no such compunction and

Addressing state GOP activists Saturday, Bush said it was time to put aside any lingering animosity from the primaries — where Trump defeated Bush's dad, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, among others — and get behind Trump. 

"From Team Bush, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but you know what? You get back up and you help the man that won, and you make sure that we stop Hillary Clinton," Bush said, according to video of the remarks provided by an audience member.

This "Team Bush," thanks to George P.,  now seems far more like the Cleveland Browns than the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Having turned the General Land Office into (as his GOP predecessor described it) "an agency where demoralized employees are hunkered down waiting to be summarily fired and walked out of the building with a cardboard box containing a few personal belongings," George P. is now walking out on his family to preserve his political ambition.   Salon's Gary Legum believes after Trump loses

if, as seems likely, the party is going to go through a period of struggle and confusion at both the national level and in at least some states, there will be a need for rising stars to lead it when it comes out on the other side in whatever form it is going to take.

If Bush has any national ambitions, at that time he will be able to point to his actions in encouraging activists who were otherwise loathe to embrace Trump to work for the greater good of the party. He will be able to sell himself as a peacemaker of sorts, a loyal soldier dedicated to the Republican brand even in its lowest moments who still fought to keep Congress and the state legislature dominated by conservative politicians.

He is doing this by turning his back on his father, famously called a "total stiff," a "spoiled child," a "sad sack," a "lightweight," "clueless," "too soft," and "low energy" by the guy the son now has endorsed for President of the United States.  Bush did not take the job years, or even several months, ago. He grabbed it weeks after Ted Cruz and John Kasich had dropped out of the race, leavingTrump the presumptive nominee.  Though Bush could have declined the position, his political future beckoned.

Legum argues he played "rather cunningly" this awkward situation." But maybe it wasn't an awkward situation for George P. Bush, after all.

















Share |

Palin Vs. Ryan. Anybody Vs. Ryan.

The experienced and celebrated blogger Tristero writes

1. Just because Sarah Palin declines to endorse Paul Ryan does not make Ryan a centrist.

2. Just because Sarah Palin declines to endorse Paul Ryan does not make Palin rational. 

Well, yes and no.  CNN reports 

Sarah Palin reiterated her support for Paul Ryan's primary challenger Friday night immediately after her political ally, Donald Trump, endorsed the House speaker.

Trump on Friday evening said in Wisconsin that he would back Ryan in his Republican primary against Paul Nehlen, a little-known challenger. That announcement was a reversal from earlier in the week, when the presidential nominee declined to endorse the speaker.

Minutes after Trump announced his support during a rally in Ryan's home state, Palin wrote on Facebook that she was "proud to be standing with Paul Nehlen since May 9th."

"Wisconsin, please vote for this man 'of the people' this Tuesday!" she wrote.

Evidently, very few people are taking Palin's advice, a blow for the middle class and the poor, Paul Ryan's targets for several years.

After announcement that the US government had transferred $400 million to Iran, exploited by a Republican Party cynically claiming it constituted "ransom" for return of four American hostages, Ryan remarked

If true, this report confirms our longstanding suspicion that the administration paid a ransom in exchange for Americans unjustly detained in Iran. It would also mark another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people to sell this dangerous nuclear deal.

If true that the temperature has not risen above 40 degrees Fahrenheit in Miami this summer, climate change is a hoax.   Unsurprisingly, the temperature has risen to at least 90 degrees for the last twenty days in Miami. However, "if true...."

Five weeks ago, Citizens for Tax Justice reviewed the GOP's latest budget scheme and observed the

“A Better Way” plan would reduce taxes for the top 1 percent of Americans icans (a group with average annual household income of $1.7 million) by an average of $137,780 per year. This massive tax reduction for the rich equals a 60 percent share of all the individual tax cuts. The top 0.1 percent of Americans would receive $798,000 a year in tax cuts or a 35 percent share of the total tax reductions.

CTJ found the plan would "overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent of taxpayers while resulting in a net loss for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers" and would "add $4 trillion to the national debt over a decade."

Ryan's plan would eliminate the estate tax, which (the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out) currently applies to only .2% of estates because it is "levied only on the portion of an estate’s value that exceeds a specified exemption level — $5.43 million per person (effectively $10.86 million per married couple) " Whenever a Republican proposes elimination of what they vilify as a "death tax" (thank you, Frank Luntz), hold on to your wallet because he's diverting your attention while emptying your pockets.

When Ryan was running for vice-president, he told high schoolers outside of Denver

I don't know about you, but when I was growing up, when I was flipping burgers at McDonald's, when I was standing in front of that big Hobart machine washing dishes, or waiting tables, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life.  I thought to myself, I'm the American dream on the path or journey so that I can find happiness however I define it myself.

Ryan may have mentioned that he was six years old when his father died of a heart attack but neglected to note

In the year after his father's death, Ryan's maternal grandmother set up the Ryan-Hutter Investment Partnership, which remains an important part of Ryan's finances with assets of up to half a million dollars, according to the congressman's 2011 financial disclosure statement. Ryan continues as the general partner running the entity for the family.

Court records indicate Ryan's father left a probate estate of $428,000, though the number of assets existing outside the will or the probate remains unknown. Ryan was to receive $50,000 when he turned 30. The will leaves the bulk of the estate to Ryan's mother, who now lives in an oceanfront condo in Florida.

In addition to the Ryan-Hutter Investment Partnership, Ryan also benefits from another family entity, Ryan Limited Partnership, which was established in March 1995 by an aunt. Ryan's share of that is worth up to $500,000. Ryan makes no investment decisions in either partnership, the campaign spokesman said.

By the time Ryan had entered Congress in 1999 at the age of 28 and filed his first disclosure statement, he reported assets between $167,000 and $1.3 million, owned a home and had three rental units.

Ryan opponent Paul Nehlen is from the far right of the far-right Party, though he knows enough to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Sarah Palin is, well, Sarah Palin (two months ago in an alliterative way, below.  But if a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while, this is the former governor's once in a while moment, however she may have happened upon the acorn. Paul Ryan is a very, very dangerous man and as Charlie Pierce has written, is the.... Biggest. Fake. Ever.
















Share |

No Surprise

Was it really a surprise? For some, yes.

Chris Hayes Wednesday evening commented

Recent polls have shown Trump slipping further and further behind Hillary Clinton, the latest from FOX News, giving her a ten-point lead. But what seems to have sent the GOP into full panic mode over the past 24 hours was Trump`s refusal to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan and other top Republicans in their upcoming primaries.

Lindsey McPherson at Roll Call actually believed

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan's initial reluctance to endorse Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump may be coming back to haunt him. Trump is now flipping the script and withholding his endorsement for Ryan ahead of the Wisconsin Republican's August 9 primary.

Maybe she should have read the next sentence when she wrote

“I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country,” Trump said in an interview Tuesday with The Washington Post. “We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’m not quite there yet.”

Astonishingly, McPherson and Hayes weren't alone in believing Trump might not come along. Yet, three days earlier he had said he would: "I'm just not quite there yet. I'm not quite there yet."  When in December, 2010 President Obama said of same-sex marriage "My feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this," he was telegraphing the support he would not publicly admit until Joe Biden came out for it during the 2008 campaign.

And just as Obama told us he eventually would eventually be a proponent of same-sex marriage (as most Americans already realized he would), Grump indicated that he would ultimately endorse Ryan, as he did Friday, depicted in the hostage tape below.  Similarly, he is telling us what will occur if- as expected- he loses in November.

He will not go quietly into that good night.  Monday night he declared "I'm afraid the election's going to be rigged. I have to be honest," fittingly in the state- Ohio- in which the election was rigged in 2004.

There are two possible perspectives on Trump's remark.  The more unlikely, Machiavellian yet plausible, explanation is that he knows it will be rigged because he intends to promote the actual rigging, which many voting machines are practically crying out for.

This explanation, however, violates the law of parsimony, which would suggest that Trump believes that he will lose and at that time will emphasize the "rigging" of the election. He will not graciously accept defeat while congratulating Hillary Clinton and pledging his support for the new Administration.  He will cry foul and use every legal means at his disposal to upend the results of the election.

At that time, the media will express some sort of surprise at Trump's stubborness and  elfishness. But as with his support of Ryan, Obama's welcome of gay marriage, and Sanders' figurative embrace at the Democratic convention of Hillary Clinton, it has been well advertised.

The only surprise should be Trump's assertion "I have to be honest." There is, however, a first time for everything.








Share |

Giving Boys A Start On Domestic Violence

The Omaha World-Herald reports

A parade float featuring a Hillary Clinton lookalike wearing a prison jumpsuit and being pelted with water balloons left some in Arcadia, Iowa, laughing and others grumbling Saturday.

The Clinton character was inside a cage hauled through town during a parade celebrating the centennial of the Arcadia Fire Department, according to photos published by the Daily Times Herald newspaper of nearby Carroll, Iowa.

Clinton is the Democratic candidate for president and the first woman nominee of a major party.

The Carroll paper reported that Kyle Julin of Manilla, Iowa, and two other area men, Josh Reetz and Adam Corky, built the float. Corky served as the Clinton impersonator.

“Only one group booed us,” Julin told the Daily Times Herald. “My consensus from that was 99 percent to 1 percent liked it.”

Adults are bad enough. Worse yet would be teaching youth the wrong lesson. Mission accomplished:

The Carroll paper’s story depicted a young boy running into the street, taking aim and hurling the balloon toward the float, and then walking away with “the prideful smile of a job well done.”

Tim Tracy of rural Carroll, chairman of the Carroll County Democratic Central Committee, told The World-Herald that he found the float inappropriate.

“It is “not appropriate to be handing water balloons to little children and inviting them to throw” them at such a display, Tracy said. “I’m sure there are some that wondered, ‘Why is that lady in a cage? Why are they being mean? Why are they throwing water balloons at her?’ ”

Why, indeed. At least no one would be thinking about hitting a woman directly.  However, where there is bad taste, can Rush Limbaugh be far behind?  It seems a 13-year-old boy named whom Rush first identified as Walker, and later as Chad, Haber called Limbaugh today because he had convinced his social studies class that

all socialism does is make everyone in the society lazy. Because no matter if you're sitting on your couch all day or working as hard as you can, you still get paid the same amount of money.  And communism is even worse, because they don't give you money; they give you exactly what you need and don't let you have the freedom to use your money how.

Fortunately, most 13-year-olds are not growing up with such a simplistic view of government and economics and harsh view of poor and handicapped Americans. And they could benefit by viewing Joseph Stiglitz's video (below).








However, it got worse when Walker touted his own ingenuity, explaining

Because over the summer, because of this, I built an app.  It's a Hillary Clinton app where you tap her face and every time you tap, it's like a whack-a-mole game where she pops out of the White House. Every time you tap her face, she says one of her silly quotes.  It's called "Never Hillary Clinton."

This got Rush so worked up that during the break his people found the application and he remarked

we've got the link.  It will be up at RushLimbaugh.com.  You'll be able to search for it that way.  If you want to search for it at the app store without waiting for the link it's "Never Hillary Clinton" by Chad Haber.  That's how it's listed, and then the description of the app says, "My name is Walker Haber." It's a family project.  But it's his app.  It's Walker's. 

That's very heartening, because there is nothing we men should more encourage in boys than hitting women. Repeatedly. It's a good bet Limbaugh and the the young fellow's parents are proud.








Share |

A Disquieting Thought

Welcome to the mutually assured destruction campaign. Politico reports

During an animated discussion about his former boss Tuesday night on CNN, former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski suggested that President Barack Obama might be concealing his true birthplace by withholding his transcripts from his time at Harvard University.

The discussion began when Angela Rye, a former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus, responded on "CNN Tonight with Don Lemon" to Lewandowski's criticism of President Barack Obama calling Trump "unfit" for office earlier in the day by remarking upon the Republican nominee's history with the so-called birther movement.

“Did he ever release his transcripts from Harvard?” Lewandowski asked, after Rye referenced Trump's past remark that Obama got into Harvard as a result of affirmative action.

Rye hit back, referring to Trump's refusal to release his tax returns.

“You raised the issue. I’m just asking," Lewandowski said. "You raised the issue. Did he, did he ever release his transcripts or his admission to Harvard University. You raised the issue, so just yes or no? The answer is no.”

We put aside the obvious notion that if young Barack Obama did get into Harvard as a result of racial preference, it is the best argument ever made for affirmative action, given that its subject went on to become President of the United States, which suggests a helpful tapping of potential.  Ignore, too, that Barack Obama, unlike Donald Trump, will not be on the presidential ballot this November, or that the matter in question occurred decades ago.

Obviously, college entrance and tax returns are totally unrelated. Give Lewandowski credit, however, for a response pertaining to President Obama, the individual who earlier in the day had called Grump "unfit" for the job.  It could have been worse for Obama's preferred successor and better for Trump.

Angela Rye hits the GOP nominee for failing to release his tax returns. Moreover, investigative journalist David Cay Johnston, who told Chris Hayes on Tuesday evening "Hillary Clinton's returns are all available, complete rturns, back to the '70s. There's no reason for Donald not to release the returns, by his own standard, that are no longer under audit."

While acknowledging that we don't know what is actually in Trump's returns, Johnston speculated that Trump may have spent many years not paying taxes and mentioned the "propriety of business dealings, about where his money is coming from."  There may even be "money coming out of Kazahkstan and other former parts of the Soviet empire to his businesses, which his son, one of his sons has acknowledged.  And all of his travels with the son of the reputed mob boss here in New York City...."

Still, there are too few voices currently calling on the nominee to release his tax returns. An outlier, Warren Buffett Monday raised the issue (video below). However, it has not been emphasized by either the Clinton campaign, the SuperPacs supporting Mrs. Clinton, or the candidate's surrogates.

Lewandowski said, barely less discreetly: so what about Obama getting into school because he was black?  Though his skepticism would have been less bold- the discussion touched on Obama, not Clinton- Lewandoski might have been more effective if he had asked "so how about those Goldman Sachs transcripts"?

As we can only guess what is in Grump's tax returns, we can only speculate about what Hillary Clinton said- and how she acted- during those appearances with Wall Street executives.   It may all have been fairly innocent- or very damning. While it's easy to conclude the latter, she may have little incentive to release them because there has been virtually no pressure on her to do so, and it certainly would't help.

Has anyone seen Hillary (or more likely, Bill) Clinton talking to each other recently? There is no conspiracy here, and probably no collaboration.  But it's important for the public to have access to the transcripts and even more vital to have access to the tax returns. We have neither and it's fair to ask whether there is a tacit understanding between the two campaigns that "we won't embarrass you if you won't embarrass us."

It does not bode well for transparency in the next Administration. But mutually assurred destruction kept the Soviet Union Union and the USA from destroying each other with nuclear weapons.This lack of transparency- which is likely to be the norm the next four years- may be the factor which has not completely destroyed the credibility of the two nominees.

Share |

"No More War!"

At the right side of this site is a list of recommended blogs and websites, the first entry being "Attytood" by Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News.  The following is the text of a letter I e-mailed him today about a recent post of his:

As someone who voted in June for Bernie Sanders and will vote in November for Hillary Clinton, and who has found criticism of "Berniebros" a little overwrought, I appreciated "Why I totally support those 'jerks' chanting "No more war!'"  Additionally, as a Twitter rookie whose blog includes links to your columns (and those of others), it reminded me that I need to follow you.

Although agreeing with several of your individual points, I believe your support for the dissenters on the convention floor should be more nuanced.  You note the "dissidents- mostly pro-Bernie Sanders delegates- loudly chanting 'No more war!' during speeches by folks associated with the military, especially Leon Panetta, the former Defense secretary under President Obama, and retird Gen. John Allen, who showed up to give Hillary Clinton a very loud endorsement."

You recognize "the news today that the U.S. has embarked on yet another round of military adventurism in the Middle East- launching a bombing campaign (a 'precision' bombing campaign, the Pentagon and its chosen mouthpiece Barbara Starr of CNN assure us) against ISIS terrorists in Libya...."

Accurately, you argue "we're afraid of any frank discussion" of what "should be a scandal that the United States drops bombs from flying death robots or our obscenely expensive military jets over countries like Libya, swaths of Africa, or Syria based only on a 15-year-od congressional resolution passed after an attack carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians loyal to a terrorist group that barely exists in 2016."

Your concern about what appears to be "continual warfare" and the national security state (symbolized by the excessively restrictive "security zones") is welcome.  The vocal critics inside the Wells Fargo Center also deserved better than to be drowned out by choreographed chants of "USA USA!".

Surely Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton should not be immune from analysis of their role in extending the overuse of the American military, an approach generally supported by the two officials.

Yet, this approach to foreign affairs has held sway in the USA since at least President Bush, impatient with sanctions, decided to deploy the military to Iraq.  He has received widespread, largely justified, condemnation for his decision.  Notwithstanding a stable of (official and unofficial) advisors, he has been assigned most of the blame for this mistake and a portion of the responsibility for the terrifying impact it has had on global security.

Attaching blame primarily to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces has been less common during the current Administration.  "No more war" was robustly chanted in Philadelphia at former Defense Secretary Panetta and mention of Hilllary Clinton, Secretary of State during Mr. Obama's first term, was often met with boos from Sanders' supporters. To a lesser extent, Obama has been afforded less criticism by the left in this sphere than would be expected given his policies toward the military, indivdual liberties, and transparency.

You pointed out "the recent admission by the Obama adminstration that U.S. military actions in nations with which we're not technically at war have killed 116 innocent civilians." Such analysis should not be, and cannot be, expected by impassioned delegates inside a convention hall. Still, I find it passing strange that the individual who has been present for eight of the last eight years, and at whose desk the buck stops, completely escaped criticism, let alone derision and heckling, at the Democratic National Convention. It's almost as if President Obama does not exist or is at best a helpless victim of the irresistable military fervor of other individuals.

If you have an explanation for this imbalance, I'd surely like to hear it.









Share |

A Curious Relationship

There are lies and then there are lies.

If I claimed that the couple next door has asked me over for cake and coffee, you would not know that it was untrue and would shake it off if told it were because it's inconsequential.  If, however, I mentioned that I was once approached to be the Democratic nominee for the House of Representatives from my congressional district, you would  consider the boast to be a damning lie.

Donald Trump contended that the Republican National Convention took place in Cleveland because "I  wanted it to be here. And, we had lots of choices. I wanted it to be in Ohio. I recommended Ohio." That fell into the first category, significant only because it was uttered by a major party's presidential nominee.

The candidate's relationship with the Russian government is of the latter sort, however.  At a FOX News debate of 11/20/15, Grump bragged

China is a problem, both economically in what they’re doing in the South China Sea, I mean, they are becoming a very, very major force. So, we have more than just Russia. But, as far as the Ukraine is concerned, and you could Syria — as far as Syria, I like — if Putin wants to go in, and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates, and we did very well that night.








Given that Putin was interviewed from Russia and Grump from New York, it is not very likely that they were with each other that night.  However, infomercials cry "but wait" and last Wednesday, the nominee maintained

Right now, we don’t have a good relationship. Putin has said things over the last year that are really bad things, OK? He mentioned the N-word one time. I was shocked to hear him mention the N-word. You know what the N-word is, right? He mentioned it. I was shocked.

Given that there is no evidence of Putin using the term, Grump may have heard it during a private meeting with the Russian strongman. However, as illustrated by Robert Mackey, "this fantasy (of Putin using ni - - - -) does appear to be a common one in the far-right racist precincts of the internet where the candidate gets a lot of his inspiration."

And so it was that on This Week this week, George Stephanopoulos asked "if you have no relationship with Putin, then why did you say in 2013, I do have a relationship" and Trump responded

Because he has said nice things about me over the years. I remember years ago, he said something -- many years ago, he said something very nice about me. I said something good about him when Larry King was on. This was a long time ago. And I said he is a tough cookie or something to that effect.

He said something nice about me. This has been going on. We did "60 Minutes" together. By the way, not together-together, meaning he was probably shot in Moscow...

Trump a moment later asserted

Well, look, you know, I have my own ideas. He's not going into Ukraine, OK? Just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.









Possibly Grump does not consider that part of Ukraine known as Crimea, annexed by Russia, to be a part of Ukraine, perhaps because most of its residents are ethnic Russians, a legacy of Russia's 200+ year involvement in Crimea (map from the BBC). Nonetheless, Russia did appear to have "gone into Ukraine"- and Ukraine proper- when in December

Asked by a Ukrainian reporter an hour into the briefing about two Russian military intelligence officers captured by Kiev and currently on trial in Ukraine, Putin said: “We never said there were not people there who carried out certain tasks including in the military sphere.” He insisted this was not the same as regular Russian troops.

There was no opportunity for a follow-up question to examine how many military specialists Putin believes were in Ukraine and what exact tasks they were carrying out. At key moments in the conflict in east Ukraine there has been much evidence of regular Russian army involvement.

Putin also initially denied the “little green men” present during the annexation of Crimea were Russian soldiers but afterwards admitted they were.

Donald Trump's entire relationship with the Russian government is shrouded in mystery. He likely has some business interests with, or interest in, Russians and/or Moscow, and George Will believes it is a "reasonable surmise" the nominee hasn't released any income tax returns "because he is deeply involved in dealing with Russian oligarchs and others." Siignificantly, Trump did not impose his views upon the framers of the GOP platform- except for demanding (successfully) that the plank advocating supplying the Ukrainian government with lethal weapons be excised.

Whether Trump has met Putin or not, he has lied- with serious implications- at one time or another about his relationship with the Prime Minister, whose control over his country has extended to executing journalists. Yet, Trump has favorably compared Putin's leadership with that of President Obama, leading Joe Scarborough to remark "Hey- I didn't like the Affordable Care Act, either. But he didn't shoot reporters from the Washington Post and The New York Times."














Share |