This link explains how Kaine cosigning letters, if examined, made sense.
The extent to which he'd oppose or be lukewarm on reinstituting Glass-Steagall would define him as a banking capture, or not. Top of the ticket, big time capture, so the second spot pick cannot really be too much a contrast, given how big banking is such a menace when unchecked.
Where is the man on too-failed-to-be-big; the break-'em-up answer to too big to fail? On income disparity and the ever growing wealth, income and power gap between the 1% and the 99%? Is there anything to distinguish him from being strongly pro-banking? Again, the likely answer is look to the top of the ticket to understand.
The warhawk dimension: From Virginia, which is infested with defense contractor leaches from cyber boutiques to major weapon system players, it should be expected, but noted as a flaw to those believing the defense budget should be trimmed to allow more domestic spending (Econ 101, the guns and butter story). Project for a New American Century, Patriot Act, FISA, NSA spying, AIPAC, and Drone Wars are areas where his policy beliefs likely match Clinton, research to be needed to confirm.
Clearly far from being a progressive of the Sanders/Warren/Jill Stein ilk.
Is he neocon? That bad? Answering the question would also require research to answer.
I have not seen anything about being strongly helpful to unions, nor anything about being against them. Not a right to work zealot, (they infest the Republican party, and tread very, very lightly among the Dems, publicly at least).
NOT being a progressive is enough to put him and the Clintons into the same policy bag, at least in the view of this author.
The impression is he does not yearn for money, thus differing him from the Clintons.
UPDATE: Required reading, one from before the Kaine selection (but in anticipation), the other after. The first linked item - has anyone EVER though of EITHER of the Clintons as "progressive?" I did, going into the first Bill "fool me once" term. Boy were my eyes opened. NAFTA and signing Gingrich bills with approval and enthusiasm. From the two linked items Kaine fits well into the Clintons' Republican-lite sad history.
____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Dan Burns at MPP writes, "VP-in-waiting Kaine is strongly pro-public schools." Crabgrass readers are urged to follow the link.
The Kaine position described seems very positive, softening the image of a bad VP choice by a compromised candidate.
Public education exists because it is viewed as a social good, something that the private sector did not provide, and something, (like the land-grant universities), which was believed by past lawmakers to have merit. We benefit, as a nation, by avoiding a nation of illiterate adults. It is so, regardless of how some critics might accuse public education of being "propaganda" that parents and their children and clergy should fear and loath.
The voucher proposals for (primarily Catholic) school alternatives always impressed me as akin to saying if you do not like public committment to investing in transit, you can and should get back a pro rata share of the money earmarked for transit, to invest in a bicycle or automobile. It is simply not how a proper public good should be contorted to fit the whims of a dissident few. If inefficiencies are perceived, the solution is to collectively reorient parts of the public system that are non-optimal, not to gut the thing by swiss-cheesing holes throughout it.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Can't buy her love.
An all time record, days ago. So much for the dog-n-pony "unity" show. In fairness, trends can change.
This link, take the straw poll at the end (after looking at the obscene money imbalance).
(But it can buy influence, favors, Goldman Sachs and Russian Bank speeches. Ask the dynasty.)
This link, take the straw poll at the end (after looking at the obscene money imbalance).
(But it can buy influence, favors, Goldman Sachs and Russian Bank speeches. Ask the dynasty.)
Jill Stein on CSPAN's Washington Journal.
Try this link. It should launch the video for viewing.
Transcript link. Via that link the video can be viewed from within the site or by launching a standalone browser window view, from the site.
Any reader having further trouble is encouraged to try one or more of the sidebar linked Green Party - Jill Stein items.
_____________UPDATE_____________
Bloomberg, i.e., a mainstream outlet finally reports on a Bernie-to-Green mood shift, this link, and an excerpt:
Transcript link. Via that link the video can be viewed from within the site or by launching a standalone browser window view, from the site.
Any reader having further trouble is encouraged to try one or more of the sidebar linked Green Party - Jill Stein items.
_____________UPDATE_____________
Bloomberg, i.e., a mainstream outlet finally reports on a Bernie-to-Green mood shift, this link, and an excerpt:
Restive Bernie Sanders Backers ‘Feel the Bern’ in Jill Stein -- by Terrence Dopp, July 25, 2016 — 9:37 PM EDT
[...] Several hundred people gathered on a hillside in FDR park to hear Stein speak in a white tent as the afternoon stretched to evening and a thunderstorm gathered. In her remarks, Stein accused the Democratic Party of undermining Sanders’s campaign.
"They did much more than say bad things -- they sabotaged a truly revolutionary campaign," Stein told the crowd, moments before the rally was dispersed by rain. "We have news for them. We’re not going away, we’re only getting stronger."
Inside the Wells Fargo Center, though, comedian Sarah Silverman -- a Sanders supporter -- told his supporters to back Clinton. "You’re being ridiculous," she said to holdouts.
‘Never Hill’
Sanders’s supporters erupted in jeers almost from the moment the Democratic convention was called to order Monday, ignoring pleas from their candidate to avoid protests and threatening to undo the party’s carefully crafted display of unity. Outside, demonstrators marched down Broad Street toward the convention site, and about 1,000 protestors rallied behind 10-foot black metal fences.
Police patrolled the scene on bikes and in helicopters, and the demonstrators remained peaceful.
At a pro-Sanders rally earlier in the day, chants included "Hillary Will Lose!" and what has become a common the refrain at protests across Philadelphia: "Hell No DNC, We Won’t Vote For Hillary!"
URANIUM ONE STOCK IS PUBLICLY TRADED. THAT SHOULD MAKE PINNING DOWN OWNERSHIP OVER TIME EASIER.
Three websearchs, here, here and a bifurcated third search - more generally here and then a more focused search, here.
Following links in those searches it is easy to see the online evidence trail of Clinton Foundation substantial contemporaneous prosperity related to the uranium multination mischief/hijinks, but what of the son-in-law's hedge fund and Clinton family participation in the same, and Uranium One stock dealings while the shenanigans were happening? Was the son-in-law's hedge fund active then, was the son-in-law then with Goldman, was Goldman active in Uranium One shares during the dealings involving Bill Clinton and the Wyoming ore body? In total: What sort of insider slushing may have happened? With a Clinton family flavor?
Might the next Assange/Wikileaks email "release trove" touch upon Uranium One? Illegality re same?
These are all relevant questions. Unfortinately, I have no evidence to say anything beyond what already online trails disclose or suggest. My bottom line: With such questions, and no answers, I am going to vote Jill Stein.
For all I know, "Uranium One" might show up in a Goldman-Sachs speech transcript, if released.
BONUS NOTE: Invest the time to check out the new top sidebar item. It segues well into prior following sidebar content. Students under oppressive education debtload, in particular, should pay attention.
Following links in those searches it is easy to see the online evidence trail of Clinton Foundation substantial contemporaneous prosperity related to the uranium multination mischief/hijinks, but what of the son-in-law's hedge fund and Clinton family participation in the same, and Uranium One stock dealings while the shenanigans were happening? Was the son-in-law's hedge fund active then, was the son-in-law then with Goldman, was Goldman active in Uranium One shares during the dealings involving Bill Clinton and the Wyoming ore body? In total: What sort of insider slushing may have happened? With a Clinton family flavor?
Might the next Assange/Wikileaks email "release trove" touch upon Uranium One? Illegality re same?
These are all relevant questions. Unfortinately, I have no evidence to say anything beyond what already online trails disclose or suggest. My bottom line: With such questions, and no answers, I am going to vote Jill Stein.
For all I know, "Uranium One" might show up in a Goldman-Sachs speech transcript, if released.
BONUS NOTE: Invest the time to check out the new top sidebar item. It segues well into prior following sidebar content. Students under oppressive education debtload, in particular, should pay attention.
A simple message to Dem inner party Teachers and Public Employees nationwide, worth a thousand words, regarding your Philadelphia hacks treating progressives like lepers and fools. To remember when you later need someone to turn to and Lloyd Blankfein will not save your bacon. When you may feel a need for progressive ballot box support.
 |
| In their crosshairs all over: Watcha gonna do when they come for you? |
Relying on short term nose count to alienate fresh and vigorous new blood by fobbing off an ethically challenged dynastic haughty warhawk spouse of an earlier dynastic disaster, while haughtily saying "it's her turn like it or love it and so what if it's damaged goods closer to Wall Street than Main Street;" is not without consequences. You cut off your nose, you spite your face. If Trump wins, bless you. In saving your bacon. The other duopoly entity had the sense to not push a Bush.
You prefer dynastic nonsense.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Theories abound. Stein is a focus, whatever may shake out.
This YouTube link. And, here. Okay, what next?
Assange rocks. There was a flurry, temporily forgotten. 13 June, RT.com reporting, headlined, "Wikileaks will publish ‘enough evidence’ to indict Hillary Clinton, warns Assange." Remember how the Gipper said, "You ain't seen nothing yet," well we can hope we see beyond Bill Clinton's tarmac tryst with AG Loretta, w/o indictment, but gee, how sloppy . . . the FBI guy with the other of the duopoly party roots even said all that.
Brietbart, perhaps more hopeful than informed, here June 14, while publishing the AP image.
Now another alternative media outlet, days ago, resurrected the story: "Julian Assange: My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest - Posted on July 24, 2016 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News." The suggestion on timing and Assange saying, "I've got the goods," but waiting for the DNC's event to end before dropping the purported bigger second shoe; is that he favors Trump chances. But suppose instead the Green Party alternative to the duopoly catches fire and makes it the most interesting election going all the way back a century, to Bullmoose Party touting of the Teddy Roosevelt candidacy when the Republicans were through with him (or was he a stalking horse for someone, etc., so forth.) If Assange really has the goods and it results in Jill Stein being the next president, not Trump, his should be the fifth face on Rushmore, next to TR.
Ars Technica, on scant new evidence, nonetheless suggests, "New evidence suggests DNC hackers penetrated deeper than previously thought -- Consultant's Yahoo Mail suspected of being targeted by state-sponsored hackers; by Dan Goodin - Jul 25, 2016 7:43 pm UTC."
National Review, such as it is, days ago:
[you can't easily dispute Assange's stated reasons]
When does the Green Party convene? A dynamite ticket if feasible: Jill Stein, top spot, Tulsi Gabhard, VP; Green Party. A landmark - better than anything over the last seventy years - double female ticket.
AND this one, having both smarts and hearts. (What is lacking with both the Clintons? Each is admittedly smart.)
Leave it there for now - time is not helping us, time is not hurting us.
(Coincidentally, what is too often lacking in mainstream media, besides integrity? Competence in meeting their aims, they have that. But if your aims diverge, perhaps alternative media may help.)
UPDATE: Cumulative, but closer to mainstream, a DC insider boutique outlet, July 25, here.
FURTHER: Townhall again, and while already noted as yesterday's fish; a fitting flashback of flat out total political lying, a flashback still relevant for one still thinking there still is a chance of her own Congressional reelection. There is not.
Assange rocks. There was a flurry, temporily forgotten. 13 June, RT.com reporting, headlined, "Wikileaks will publish ‘enough evidence’ to indict Hillary Clinton, warns Assange." Remember how the Gipper said, "You ain't seen nothing yet," well we can hope we see beyond Bill Clinton's tarmac tryst with AG Loretta, w/o indictment, but gee, how sloppy . . . the FBI guy with the other of the duopoly party roots even said all that.
Now another alternative media outlet, days ago, resurrected the story: "Julian Assange: My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest - Posted on July 24, 2016 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News." The suggestion on timing and Assange saying, "I've got the goods," but waiting for the DNC's event to end before dropping the purported bigger second shoe; is that he favors Trump chances. But suppose instead the Green Party alternative to the duopoly catches fire and makes it the most interesting election going all the way back a century, to Bullmoose Party touting of the Teddy Roosevelt candidacy when the Republicans were through with him (or was he a stalking horse for someone, etc., so forth.) If Assange really has the goods and it results in Jill Stein being the next president, not Trump, his should be the fifth face on Rushmore, next to TR.
Ars Technica, on scant new evidence, nonetheless suggests, "New evidence suggests DNC hackers penetrated deeper than previously thought -- Consultant's Yahoo Mail suspected of being targeted by state-sponsored hackers; by Dan Goodin - Jul 25, 2016 7:43 pm UTC."
National Review, such as it is, days ago:
Will the Election Be Settled by October Surprises? by John Fund July 24, 2016 7:49 PM
Team Hillary is well aware that Assange’s WikiLeaks probably has other surprises in store for the fall campaign. During a June 12 interview with Britain’s ITV, Assange was asked if had any undisclosed e-mails. He responded:
We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great, WikiLeaks has a very big year ahead. We have e-mails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication, that is correct.
He then went on to predict — correctly — that Loretta Lynch would not indict Hillary over her breaches of national security:
Unfortunately, I think what’s going to happen is that the FBI is going to go “We have accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton, we could proceed to an indictment. . . . [But] she’s not going to indict Hillary Clinton.
Assange strongly hinted that other e-mail releases were coming, and sources close to him say they will go beyond the DNC e-mails. Assange himself says he wants to stop Hillary because she is, in his view, a liberal “war hawk” He claims that “a vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war.” He then followed up by saying: “Hillary didn’t just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary’s Iraq and if she becomes president, she will make more.”
[you can't easily dispute Assange's stated reasons]
When does the Green Party convene? A dynamite ticket if feasible: Jill Stein, top spot, Tulsi Gabhard, VP; Green Party. A landmark - better than anything over the last seventy years - double female ticket.
AND this one, having both smarts and hearts. (What is lacking with both the Clintons? Each is admittedly smart.)
Leave it there for now - time is not helping us, time is not hurting us.
(Coincidentally, what is too often lacking in mainstream media, besides integrity? Competence in meeting their aims, they have that. But if your aims diverge, perhaps alternative media may help.)
UPDATE: Cumulative, but closer to mainstream, a DC insider boutique outlet, July 25, here.
FURTHER: Townhall again, and while already noted as yesterday's fish; a fitting flashback of flat out total political lying, a flashback still relevant for one still thinking there still is a chance of her own Congressional reelection. There is not.
JILL STEIN...UPDATED -- A pro-Stein pro-Green Party walkout by Bernie Sanders' DNC convention delegates - you will not, NOT! find covered on $@$#%&*&#$ Mainstream Media.
[UPDATE: This Reddit link notes the Sanders delegate walkout count at 750 of 1850 (numbers via following links). Substantial, but too bad it was not a clear majority. Too many stayed.]
This YouTube video, from yesterdan, July 26.
How big a movement of Sanders supporters, how many now, how many to follow; these things are not clear from the video's focus on Jill Stein and her message that the progressive sentiment has not been killed and trodden under by neoliberal intent.
The owners of Mainstream Media DO NOT WANT you to see one thing about this.
Reader knowledge communicated via comments on the scale of the exit, numbers and the passion, would help.
FURTHER: Shout this out.
How big a movement of Sanders supporters, how many now, how many to follow; these things are not clear from the video's focus on Jill Stein and her message that the progressive sentiment has not been killed and trodden under by neoliberal intent.
The owners of Mainstream Media DO NOT WANT you to see one thing about this.
 |
| WWLS -- What Would Lloyd Say? |
Reader knowledge communicated via comments on the scale of the exit, numbers and the passion, would help.
 |
| UPDATE: Contributions flow - video http://www.jill2016.com/ |
FURTHER: Shout this out.
Hillary Clinton - The morning after.
How does MSM, on home page formatting, say that the nominee's identity/gender was no surprise at this point in time?
Screen captures, with outlet/page link captions, only three - two wire services and Strib, being MN local and which uses one of the wire services. Image use appears interesting. Each screen capture has its date/time stamp (central time zone), linking to its webpage. Captures as/when taken, with timestamping important because home pages get updated.
(The fourth screen capture clearly is not a home page. It's inclusion is a Crabgrass editorial prerogative. Click any image to enlarge it to read.)
There is a silk purse sow's ear saying: The last item is from a Reuters report, and the woman it relates to at her very worse comes across as a fast-talking, verbose, glib, sneaky and arrogant zombie with something to hide, i.e., with baggage suggesting that withholding trust is not foolhardy. There is hubris to a fault with an edge of insensitivity to it.
Per that last screen capture above, the staffer quoted as saying, "we'll work on it" does remind of "I'll think about releasing those transcripts," followed by inartful smoke blowing, fast and furious; thus digging the hole remarkedly deeper.
Stylistically unpresidential.
______________UPDATE_____________
As to editorial image choice, subjectively, the Reuters one seems most favorable and neutral. The AP BigStory one subjectively seems to have a Big Sister Is Watching You aura to it. Strib, third place, is suggestive of a support base that is true in part, but only in part, and hence unrepresentative to a fault.
________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Guardian, here. So Silk Purse has been done above. How about Leopard/Spots?
Screen captures, with outlet/page link captions, only three - two wire services and Strib, being MN local and which uses one of the wire services. Image use appears interesting. Each screen capture has its date/time stamp (central time zone), linking to its webpage. Captures as/when taken, with timestamping important because home pages get updated.
(The fourth screen capture clearly is not a home page. It's inclusion is a Crabgrass editorial prerogative. Click any image to enlarge it to read.)
 |
| www.startribune.com_2016-07-27_08-06-15.png |
 |
| bigstory.ap.org_2016-07-27_08-21-19.png |
 |
| www.reuters.com_2016-07-27_08-15-25.png</td> |
 |
| www.reuters.com_2016-07-27_08-16-31.png |
There is a silk purse sow's ear saying: The last item is from a Reuters report, and the woman it relates to at her very worse comes across as a fast-talking, verbose, glib, sneaky and arrogant zombie with something to hide, i.e., with baggage suggesting that withholding trust is not foolhardy. There is hubris to a fault with an edge of insensitivity to it.
Per that last screen capture above, the staffer quoted as saying, "we'll work on it" does remind of "I'll think about releasing those transcripts," followed by inartful smoke blowing, fast and furious; thus digging the hole remarkedly deeper.
Stylistically unpresidential.
______________UPDATE_____________
As to editorial image choice, subjectively, the Reuters one seems most favorable and neutral. The AP BigStory one subjectively seems to have a Big Sister Is Watching You aura to it. Strib, third place, is suggestive of a support base that is true in part, but only in part, and hence unrepresentative to a fault.
________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Guardian, here. So Silk Purse has been done above. How about Leopard/Spots?
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
It happened on Obama's watch. Not only that . . .
Ars Technica, dateline July 13, 2016; headline and opening two paragraphs (there's more so follow the link):
FOR A CERTAINTY: We know the hack was not done by Hilary Clinton, she's technologically illiterate according to sworn testimony RT.com (gleefully?) reported.
So, the server scrub was done by loyal (i.e. paid) Clinton lawyers, doing keyword search of expected State Department relevant words, (not having security clearances they could not have perused contents); and then anything their search of the quality it was did not deem "official" was scrubbed.
Can that inept woman even access to know what's on hillaryclinton.com?
Image from a different RT.com story. Read the computer illiteracy one. It's a hoot.
FDIC was hacked by China, and CIO covered it up ---
Problems uncovered after employees walk off job with thousands of SSNs on flash drives.
A report published by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology today found that hackers purported to be from China had compromised computers at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation repeatedly between 2010 and 2013. Backdoor malware was installed on 12 workstations and 10 servers by attackers—including the workstations of the chairman, chief of staff, and general counsel of the FDIC. But the incidents were never reported to the US Computer Emergency Response Team (US-CERT) or other authorities and were only brought to light after an Inspector General investigation into another serious data breach at the FDIC in October of 2015.
The FDIC failed at the time of the "advanced persistent threat" attacks to report the incidents. Then-inspector general at the FDIC, Jon Rymer, lambasted FDIC officials for failing to follow their own policies on breach reporting. Further investigation into those breaches led the committee to conclude that former FDIC CIO Russ Pittman misled auditors about the extent of those breaches and told employees not to talk about the breaches by a foreign government so as not to ruin FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg's chances of confirmation.
FOR A CERTAINTY: We know the hack was not done by Hilary Clinton, she's technologically illiterate according to sworn testimony RT.com (gleefully?) reported.
So, the server scrub was done by loyal (i.e. paid) Clinton lawyers, doing keyword search of expected State Department relevant words, (not having security clearances they could not have perused contents); and then anything their search of the quality it was did not deem "official" was scrubbed.
Can that inept woman even access to know what's on hillaryclinton.com?
Image from a different RT.com story. Read the computer illiteracy one. It's a hoot.
Jill Stein.
 |
| This 72 min Oxford Union speaking opportunity |
The equivalent of an elevator speech generally in accord with Bernie's position, called by him "democratic socialism," Jill Stein at this link (websearch for yourself re Bernie on that topic).
This YouTube listening set. The "socialism" brief item is a cut from within the ending question/answer portion of the Oxford Union appearance.
Readers like me, in liking Cornel West and his insight, candor, intelligence and demeanor; should try this item. The "train station" audio problems at the video start notwithstanding, if you've seem additional Cornel West video, and Jill Stein video, you can see that he made what may turn to a common choice of transiting from support of Bernie to support of Jill Stein, as the realities of DNC/Clinton politics, and the pre-convention nose-count led to an inevitability West and Stein continue to oppose.
Video is offered because it allows a chance to not only read about someone, or to read their work, but to see the individual to assess intangibles (as with Sanders or with Clinton). The entire Oxford Union video is worthwhile viewing, with readers urged to try it and like it. In approaching the appearance expect it to be much more a stump speech of one well beyond clownish or cliche political posturing, in style and content; and a lively stump speech, not any manner of somniferous academic lecture.
There remains an active progressive candidate, an excellent one, moving to November. That is the bottom line.
Time to back up for the bigger perspective.
DNC/Clinton convention: Second day, Tuesday, Sanders releases his committed delegates, a roll call vote.
If the Sanders delegates line up like ducklings on the roll call; they are the delegates, I am not. It is their judgment, as part of the Democratic Party, to vote as they believe best, at the time a vote is called.
No criticism for any single one of them, or any collective compromise. It is their party, along with the majority strong hold of the Clinton machine on the thing, and they go home and Clinton campaigns and that was a known thing before they convened. If they cut a back room deal; the hope is they cut a good one and did not sell cheaply.
Not being a party member, deliberately independent but caucusing DFL in Minnesota's caucus system, the basis of my declining to become a party insider is that they are far too conservative for my beliefs; having moved or always been to the right of Minnesota's best moderate, Paul Wellstone.
I will vote Jill Stein, in November, unless something between now and then convinces me to vote otherwise.
My disdain for the mindset of Mike Pence is insufficient for me to at this time support one I believe ethically challenged, at the least, speeches and secreted away transcripts and such, and zombie like in her speaking manerisms.
Again, this video. There is little to add. The video soundtrack was an apt and inspired addition; but it only emphasizes the obvious.
End of post.
If the Sanders delegates line up like ducklings on the roll call; they are the delegates, I am not. It is their judgment, as part of the Democratic Party, to vote as they believe best, at the time a vote is called.
No criticism for any single one of them, or any collective compromise. It is their party, along with the majority strong hold of the Clinton machine on the thing, and they go home and Clinton campaigns and that was a known thing before they convened. If they cut a back room deal; the hope is they cut a good one and did not sell cheaply.
Not being a party member, deliberately independent but caucusing DFL in Minnesota's caucus system, the basis of my declining to become a party insider is that they are far too conservative for my beliefs; having moved or always been to the right of Minnesota's best moderate, Paul Wellstone.
I will vote Jill Stein, in November, unless something between now and then convinces me to vote otherwise.
My disdain for the mindset of Mike Pence is insufficient for me to at this time support one I believe ethically challenged, at the least, speeches and secreted away transcripts and such, and zombie like in her speaking manerisms.
Again, this video. There is little to add. The video soundtrack was an apt and inspired addition; but it only emphasizes the obvious.
End of post.
Robby cannot spin, part 2.
WaPo, here:
It is one of the oldest techniques of distraction rhetoric, if the facts nail your hands to the table, argue process.
Good try Robby, but "experts are telling us" could mean a separate set of "experts" might say it was the Sultan of Brunei behind the hack. After all he was big in Iran-Contra, helping the Republicans finance shenanigans, and since then has been low key, but presumably - as we can presume about Putin - ready to serve if called. So the Sultan did a Trump movement, if you find the right "experts." Or maybe it was Gulen, from the Poconos.
Inept spin, Robby; so just try facing the real facts: bias, influence peddling or the appearance of it - certainly undeniable access peddling, and money hijinks. Those are facts; not speculation about Putin.
Another fact; second sidebar item.
Half a million Russian dollars to the Clintons.
Spin that, Robby.
UPDATE: Strib's editorial board at a July 25 item end, saying the Democratic Party:
A speculation can grow legs by multi-mainstream repetition, but the fact of the Russian uranium dealings re Wyoming natural ore resources and the Clinton half million speech are facts, not speculation; and facts have not surprisingly drawn less mainstream attention than what for now is spinning yarns for the emperor's new clothes; but could actually end with substance.
You can take facts to the bank - indeed a half-million's worth while Russian hacking presently is a story deflection attempt - from bias, trading in access, and money raising and distribution hijinks; to possible processes, oh my, shocked, SHOCKED! Those Rooskies. On Trump's side despite uranium favors. It must be what have you done for me lately.
FURTHER: Professional spinning Robby can only envy; Reuters, here. There is a difference between "evidence" and "allegations" and if there is evidence, Reuters ignores presenting any. At least the headline is spin-free, while the rest is gossamer, at present. Admittedly, something substantial could be uncovered. For now, spin Robby spin. Mainstream media loves you and helps you, why being an interesting speculation. (Readers knowing of evidence of the Bear actually afoot in DNC files and records, should give links in comments to this post.)
Clinton’s campaign chief, Robby Mook, told ABC News on Sunday that “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke in to the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these Web sites. . . . It’s troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.”
Trump campaign officials rejected the suggestion as absurd.
The most sensational revelation so far in the emails is that officials at the supposedly impartial DNC were in fact helping Clinton during the primary.
It is one of the oldest techniques of distraction rhetoric, if the facts nail your hands to the table, argue process.
Good try Robby, but "experts are telling us" could mean a separate set of "experts" might say it was the Sultan of Brunei behind the hack. After all he was big in Iran-Contra, helping the Republicans finance shenanigans, and since then has been low key, but presumably - as we can presume about Putin - ready to serve if called. So the Sultan did a Trump movement, if you find the right "experts." Or maybe it was Gulen, from the Poconos.
Inept spin, Robby; so just try facing the real facts: bias, influence peddling or the appearance of it - certainly undeniable access peddling, and money hijinks. Those are facts; not speculation about Putin.
Another fact; second sidebar item.
Half a million Russian dollars to the Clintons.
Spin that, Robby.
UPDATE: Strib's editorial board at a July 25 item end, saying the Democratic Party:
[...] would be wise to bear in mind that this story is likely to linger.
Hints of further leaks and a possible connection to Russia’s Vladimir Putin lend a troubling dimension that has already prompted the FBI to announce an investigation. That inquiry should be full and swift. If Russia has attempted to influence a U.S. presidential race — and if there is any possible connection to GOP nominee Donald Trump, who repeatedly has expressed admiration for Putin — American voters must know at the earliest possible juncture.
A speculation can grow legs by multi-mainstream repetition, but the fact of the Russian uranium dealings re Wyoming natural ore resources and the Clinton half million speech are facts, not speculation; and facts have not surprisingly drawn less mainstream attention than what for now is spinning yarns for the emperor's new clothes; but could actually end with substance.
You can take facts to the bank - indeed a half-million's worth while Russian hacking presently is a story deflection attempt - from bias, trading in access, and money raising and distribution hijinks; to possible processes, oh my, shocked, SHOCKED! Those Rooskies. On Trump's side despite uranium favors. It must be what have you done for me lately.
FURTHER: Professional spinning Robby can only envy; Reuters, here. There is a difference between "evidence" and "allegations" and if there is evidence, Reuters ignores presenting any. At least the headline is spin-free, while the rest is gossamer, at present. Admittedly, something substantial could be uncovered. For now, spin Robby spin. Mainstream media loves you and helps you, why being an interesting speculation. (Readers knowing of evidence of the Bear actually afoot in DNC files and records, should give links in comments to this post.)
Monday, July 25, 2016
It could have been a staged scene for publication and broadcasting, but the image NPR posts does not look to be playing into any Clinton co-option scenario.
Young women, a bloc that has not shown much faith or trust in the Clintons' brand: NPR here, using an AP image.
That is, in fairness, aimed at DWS and not at either of the Clintons. (the "EMAILS" sign being ambiguous)
It is fantasy, but it would be just if DWS sunk so low she'd have to rely on payday lending to get by.
Anyway, as with yesterday's fish, don't keep DWS around too long in the heat.
________________UPDATE______________
Lets talk about something actual and real to mend fences. That entire pack at DNC was biased. It was not a single person doing rogue emailing. It was concerted leadership up and down the ladder, and staff either happy to follow, or following nonetheless.
Get rid of them all, install Tulsi Gebbard as Chair, and then put in new faces around her, leadership and staff.
It is noteworthy that in Minnesota the DFL is careful to adhere to its gender balance rule in almost all party leadership positioning. Nationally, gender balance would at this point be advisable in cleaning house and rebuilding trust as much as may be feasible. But treating progressives as dogs has not been pretty, nor effective, and should immediately cease and be fixed. Progressives can take a hike, especially if there's nothing to stay for. If it means Trump getting the spoils as Obama and his appointees have enjoyed eight years; then so be it and hope a lesson is learned. If it takes that, then it has been handed to progressives that way, like it or love it, YOU DON'T COUNT. ONLY YOUR VOTE DOES.
That's raw, actually.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Actually Tulsi Gabbard would make a better VP choice than Tim Kaine. Put a veteran on the ticket instead of Kaine, and who is better on the issues than Kaine. The Republicans do not have a veteran on either spot on their ticket. Indeed, they've one whose Rush Limbaugh style of passion was aimed to keep those of Gabbard's gender out of equal opportunity duty. From the outside looking in at the military, he did not believe women were up to the task.
Gabbard would be one who would be more presidential than Kaine. More presidential than Clinton too? In my view, yes, not one to behave as if entitled somehow to office, one who would instead show less hubris and better ethics. Who would not give offense. Opinions can vary.
Dump Kaine? Subsitute Gabbard? It will not be, but it's one intriguing hypothetical. Age balance the ticket. Do better than treating the will of people Sanders' effort mobilized as if a peasant rebellion.
_________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Gabbard, two videos, you judge. Here and here.
Three videos, compare and contrast with Gabbard (shorter direct videos); here, here, and here.
All but one of the video segments have been linked to in the past, but putting them in one place, juxtaposed, adds something. It may have been Mark Twain, or Truman, possibly Will Rogers, who first said, "If all you do is tell the truth you do not need to remember what you said." Gabbard, hence, has time for other things than having to remember.
She would make an excellent Secretary of Defense too.
Last, that second Gabbard video makes me think of Mike Pence.
__________FINAL UPDATE___________
What seems to be coming through, and interpreting a mood is admittedly a subjective thing, but the entrenched inner party mood seems to be we got more votes, so we dictate, with the minority inner entrenched bloc then bargaining over a share of the spoils if successful in a "unified" front going into the general election.
These new people many young and more first-timers are not attuned to that. To them, unity has to be earned.
Not by a share of potential spoils being allocated in a closed-door deal, but by real movement toward what people want. Treating that as a peasant rebellion earns scorn, not unity, and the entrenched view cannot understand or even comprehend non-traditional revulsion toward traditional insider spoils-trading as a "unity" motivation. Bernie packed halls repeatedly wherever he went, and that momentum among very decent people decently motivated, is being pissed away by intransigent decision making of the traditional kind - how to move to capture disgruntled Republican/independent fringe folks in the middle; in November; vs how not to lose angered progressives.
The same old, same old will fail. Hillary Clinton is not a charismatic persona, she cannot inspire, she comes across as untrustworthy in poll after poll, and she sees herself differently, apparently, and can lose, even with Trump the opposition. The insiders are pissing away an opportunity and do not seem to care. Okay, DWS goes is a fine step, but only a first and small one. The DWS/Clinton-DNC remainder is not changed one iota, and the Kaine selection is the old way, not anything beyond putting down and then ignoring the peasantry. This time the tealeaves suggest it will fail big time, and the disaffection should focus upon Jill Stein, Green Party, to be effectively counted after November's election. Down ticket Dems are in general the better choice over down ticket Republicans and will remain so with progressives who this time bother to vote, and down ticket losses will not happen beyond the normal gerrymandered districting results.
A massive Green Party - Jill Stein turnout, if happening, will be a message. But one that may anyway go unheeded. The angering message deafness shown so far by the ruling DNC/Clintons/inner party Gestalt, unfortunately, may become more spitefully set instead of less entrenched by a Clinton loss to Trump. The other side, a Clinton win with a high Green Party vote nonetheless, would mean "We were right all along, those vulgar newbies are unnecessary." Either way, the old way, DWS under the bus or not, is what's being fabricated, that is clear. The convention remainder is window dressing to that reality, and we wait and see how November shakes out. And then what happens from there.
Tim Canova trouncing DWS is a necessary but not sufficient outcome needed to perhaps get a message heard, up and down ticket. It may require a seat by seat guerilla takeover of the gerrymandered Dem districts, more Tulsi Gabbards and Tim Canovas, much as the Tea Party is doing in Republican spheres; with the entrenched slow-changing Dems needing an Eric Cantor moment or two to wake up and smell the future. The Dixiecrats were cast off, it happened, but that was a much easier change than a plutocrat cast off, a problem Bill Clinton's presidency cemented via his pivot to the plutocrats.
That is, in fairness, aimed at DWS and not at either of the Clintons. (the "EMAILS" sign being ambiguous)
It is fantasy, but it would be just if DWS sunk so low she'd have to rely on payday lending to get by.
Anyway, as with yesterday's fish, don't keep DWS around too long in the heat.
________________UPDATE______________
Lets talk about something actual and real to mend fences. That entire pack at DNC was biased. It was not a single person doing rogue emailing. It was concerted leadership up and down the ladder, and staff either happy to follow, or following nonetheless.
Get rid of them all, install Tulsi Gebbard as Chair, and then put in new faces around her, leadership and staff.
It is noteworthy that in Minnesota the DFL is careful to adhere to its gender balance rule in almost all party leadership positioning. Nationally, gender balance would at this point be advisable in cleaning house and rebuilding trust as much as may be feasible. But treating progressives as dogs has not been pretty, nor effective, and should immediately cease and be fixed. Progressives can take a hike, especially if there's nothing to stay for. If it means Trump getting the spoils as Obama and his appointees have enjoyed eight years; then so be it and hope a lesson is learned. If it takes that, then it has been handed to progressives that way, like it or love it, YOU DON'T COUNT. ONLY YOUR VOTE DOES.
That's raw, actually.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Actually Tulsi Gabbard would make a better VP choice than Tim Kaine. Put a veteran on the ticket instead of Kaine, and who is better on the issues than Kaine. The Republicans do not have a veteran on either spot on their ticket. Indeed, they've one whose Rush Limbaugh style of passion was aimed to keep those of Gabbard's gender out of equal opportunity duty. From the outside looking in at the military, he did not believe women were up to the task.
Gabbard would be one who would be more presidential than Kaine. More presidential than Clinton too? In my view, yes, not one to behave as if entitled somehow to office, one who would instead show less hubris and better ethics. Who would not give offense. Opinions can vary.
Dump Kaine? Subsitute Gabbard? It will not be, but it's one intriguing hypothetical. Age balance the ticket. Do better than treating the will of people Sanders' effort mobilized as if a peasant rebellion.
_________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Gabbard, two videos, you judge. Here and here.
Three videos, compare and contrast with Gabbard (shorter direct videos); here, here, and here.
All but one of the video segments have been linked to in the past, but putting them in one place, juxtaposed, adds something. It may have been Mark Twain, or Truman, possibly Will Rogers, who first said, "If all you do is tell the truth you do not need to remember what you said." Gabbard, hence, has time for other things than having to remember.
She would make an excellent Secretary of Defense too.
Last, that second Gabbard video makes me think of Mike Pence.
__________FINAL UPDATE___________
What seems to be coming through, and interpreting a mood is admittedly a subjective thing, but the entrenched inner party mood seems to be we got more votes, so we dictate, with the minority inner entrenched bloc then bargaining over a share of the spoils if successful in a "unified" front going into the general election.
These new people many young and more first-timers are not attuned to that. To them, unity has to be earned.
Not by a share of potential spoils being allocated in a closed-door deal, but by real movement toward what people want. Treating that as a peasant rebellion earns scorn, not unity, and the entrenched view cannot understand or even comprehend non-traditional revulsion toward traditional insider spoils-trading as a "unity" motivation. Bernie packed halls repeatedly wherever he went, and that momentum among very decent people decently motivated, is being pissed away by intransigent decision making of the traditional kind - how to move to capture disgruntled Republican/independent fringe folks in the middle; in November; vs how not to lose angered progressives.
The same old, same old will fail. Hillary Clinton is not a charismatic persona, she cannot inspire, she comes across as untrustworthy in poll after poll, and she sees herself differently, apparently, and can lose, even with Trump the opposition. The insiders are pissing away an opportunity and do not seem to care. Okay, DWS goes is a fine step, but only a first and small one. The DWS/Clinton-DNC remainder is not changed one iota, and the Kaine selection is the old way, not anything beyond putting down and then ignoring the peasantry. This time the tealeaves suggest it will fail big time, and the disaffection should focus upon Jill Stein, Green Party, to be effectively counted after November's election. Down ticket Dems are in general the better choice over down ticket Republicans and will remain so with progressives who this time bother to vote, and down ticket losses will not happen beyond the normal gerrymandered districting results.
A massive Green Party - Jill Stein turnout, if happening, will be a message. But one that may anyway go unheeded. The angering message deafness shown so far by the ruling DNC/Clintons/inner party Gestalt, unfortunately, may become more spitefully set instead of less entrenched by a Clinton loss to Trump. The other side, a Clinton win with a high Green Party vote nonetheless, would mean "We were right all along, those vulgar newbies are unnecessary." Either way, the old way, DWS under the bus or not, is what's being fabricated, that is clear. The convention remainder is window dressing to that reality, and we wait and see how November shakes out. And then what happens from there.
Tim Canova trouncing DWS is a necessary but not sufficient outcome needed to perhaps get a message heard, up and down ticket. It may require a seat by seat guerilla takeover of the gerrymandered Dem districts, more Tulsi Gabbards and Tim Canovas, much as the Tea Party is doing in Republican spheres; with the entrenched slow-changing Dems needing an Eric Cantor moment or two to wake up and smell the future. The Dixiecrats were cast off, it happened, but that was a much easier change than a plutocrat cast off, a problem Bill Clinton's presidency cemented via his pivot to the plutocrats.
So TPM discloses; shocking news; Trump took Russian oligarch investment money and may be indebted. Shocking as well, Zero Hedge reminded us that Bill Clinton took a half million dollar speaking fee, from Russian oligarch interests on the Wyoming Uranium deal. Enough to move a sidebar item to second spot.
For the TPM item link, and the Zero Hedge link, see posts below.
The Russians know how to hedge their bets it appears.
Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, has not taken a single penny from Russians. Likely she'd never been offered one. Same seems so for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
Not worth buying, or not for sale, either way squeaky clean with the Rooskies.
_____________UPDATE_______________
While advancing one sidebar item substantially upward, STRONGER TOGETHER keeps top billing (with the two candidacy site online addresses - Stein's and Johnson's there for the linking).
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
The Clintons are atop the oligarch count. They got Wall Street oligarch money along with Russian oligarch money.
As a bet, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, put together, got about as much Wall Street oligarch money as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie put together. Or less. Nowhere near whiner Ted Cruz. Somewhere I saw Cory Booker was to speak at the Clinton convention. Check out his fiscal hauling history. Equal in kind if not amount to Clinton/Cruz patterns. And, what he says.
He was said to be on the VP short list. Also, this link.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Reader help requested on this one: When that Russian Uranium deal was going down, has there been any SEC scrutiny of the son-in-law's hedge fund's trading in that time frame, before/after, foreign part of the portfolio, equities or better yet, futures?
The timeframe is a bit murky, what went down in Bush years, what in Obama's; i.e., whose SEC would have been jurisdictionally responsible to sniff out and quell insider trading. The New York Times report is dated April, 2015, which is middle of the Obama second term, and reporting in the item reaches back to Bush years:
One would of course need a timeline on the Chelsea marriage and hedge fund initiation in parallel to the fiscal positional changes among the Canadian and Russian and Kazakh firms noted by NYT as players in the deal/speaking fee. Fodder for somebody's opposition researcher mavens; with it doubtful much helpful detail is public and online. But when it gets to Eastern Bloc and Russian money/influence tracing, and inferences, it seems in fairness to be a sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose, situation.
Unless you turn away from two-party fare, and look to alternative party offerings.
The Russians know how to hedge their bets it appears.
Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, has not taken a single penny from Russians. Likely she'd never been offered one. Same seems so for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
Not worth buying, or not for sale, either way squeaky clean with the Rooskies.
_____________UPDATE_______________
While advancing one sidebar item substantially upward, STRONGER TOGETHER keeps top billing (with the two candidacy site online addresses - Stein's and Johnson's there for the linking).
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
The Clintons are atop the oligarch count. They got Wall Street oligarch money along with Russian oligarch money.
As a bet, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, put together, got about as much Wall Street oligarch money as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie put together. Or less. Nowhere near whiner Ted Cruz. Somewhere I saw Cory Booker was to speak at the Clinton convention. Check out his fiscal hauling history. Equal in kind if not amount to Clinton/Cruz patterns. And, what he says.
He was said to be on the VP short list. Also, this link.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Reader help requested on this one: When that Russian Uranium deal was going down, has there been any SEC scrutiny of the son-in-law's hedge fund's trading in that time frame, before/after, foreign part of the portfolio, equities or better yet, futures?
The timeframe is a bit murky, what went down in Bush years, what in Obama's; i.e., whose SEC would have been jurisdictionally responsible to sniff out and quell insider trading. The New York Times report is dated April, 2015, which is middle of the Obama second term, and reporting in the item reaches back to Bush years:
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.
One would of course need a timeline on the Chelsea marriage and hedge fund initiation in parallel to the fiscal positional changes among the Canadian and Russian and Kazakh firms noted by NYT as players in the deal/speaking fee. Fodder for somebody's opposition researcher mavens; with it doubtful much helpful detail is public and online. But when it gets to Eastern Bloc and Russian money/influence tracing, and inferences, it seems in fairness to be a sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose, situation.
Unless you turn away from two-party fare, and look to alternative party offerings.
Robby Mook can't spin; diversionary "shocked, SHOCKED! the Russians are coming" may turn on mainstream propaganda milling, but whatever happened, Robby, to "And the truth shall set you free?"
Nobody has gall enough to contend the Wikileaks release of inner-DNC email is false. It's true stuff and that has to be any sensible person's bottom line.
So, spin Robby, spin. Aw, Robby, can't you do better than that?
Zero Hedge, here. All you need to know. He sets out Robby's try at spinning away from the naked truth of what's been published and how decidedly awful the DNC's really been.
Compare, e.g., here, here and here.
Again, do read Zero Hedge to see quality spinning - truth based always being best. No excerpt. Read it.
It relates tangentially to the post below. Hand off to the Russian Bear; bad Smokey; nothing to see here in DNC content, nope look at the Bear. Putin, without the Ras...
____________UPDATE_____________
You want to argue Robby can spin as if kin to Karl Rove? Well, good luck. This link. Robby boy, the question was about Transcripts. As awkward and inept a glide-and-slide attempt as any paid consultant can do.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Perhaps Robby Mook is being tutored by Brian Fallon on how to spin, here and here, or vice versa. Or, by the candidate herself.
So, spin Robby, spin. Aw, Robby, can't you do better than that?
Zero Hedge, here. All you need to know. He sets out Robby's try at spinning away from the naked truth of what's been published and how decidedly awful the DNC's really been.
Compare, e.g., here, here and here.
Again, do read Zero Hedge to see quality spinning - truth based always being best. No excerpt. Read it.
It relates tangentially to the post below. Hand off to the Russian Bear; bad Smokey; nothing to see here in DNC content, nope look at the Bear. Putin, without the Ras...
____________UPDATE_____________
You want to argue Robby can spin as if kin to Karl Rove? Well, good luck. This link. Robby boy, the question was about Transcripts. As awkward and inept a glide-and-slide attempt as any paid consultant can do.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Perhaps Robby Mook is being tutored by Brian Fallon on how to spin, here and here, or vice versa. Or, by the candidate herself.
If there is a progressive mindset against the Dem establishment's awful conduct and awful top ticket candidate pairing, an attitude of "Screw them, I'll vote Trump," is possible, everybody being ultimately responsible for personal choice, but there is an item that could grow legs, multiple ways, that any such disgruntled progressive should consider.
A hat tip to an occasional reader who emailed me this TPM link to an item dated July 23, 2016, and titled, "Trump & Putin. Yes, It's Really a Thing."
It is a lengthy item and each Crabgrass reader, Democrat, Republican, Green, or Libertarian is urged to read it in its entirety.
That said, here is a single, and arguably unrepresentative mid-item excerpt pair, but a pair tweaking my interest most -
[links within original omitted] The part about big bank blackballing, to me it is a plus, in that if elected Trump might harbor a vengeance whereby good could come from Wall Street hubris getting a comeuppance,
Goldman Sachs folks finally perhaps being slapped upside the head. All that.
The rest suggests something beyond sensible policy thinking about Russia; the suggestion being there might be something unwholesome and in need of voter attention. The suggestion tax returns might evidence Trump money ties to Russian money puts those tax returns in the same class as the Clinton transcripts. What's being hidden and why?
Voters need reminding if troubled by the awful two-party offerings, top ticket this cycle, that there is Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, with general cred for honesty; and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, comparably credible.
- see top sidebar item, with links -
Blind allegiance to inner party offering is another voter choice, of course, lesser evil between the two being the linchpin of past awful pairings [remember G.H.W. Bush - Michael Dukakis // G.W. Bush - John Kerry, where greater and not lesser evil won].
However, the resounding possibility presented us by the truly uniquely awful pair being fobbed off on us this time is a ripe opportunity to do damage to the two-party stranglehold on the nation; to the clear benefit of the nation; and to promote and grow alternate party serious contention. That opportunity, that chance, should NOT be wasted, by either polar end of the spectrum, in lesser evil traffic to where the muddy awful centrists are posturing today: Wall Street Dems, Angry White Republicans, mediocrity raising like rancid cream-to-the-top; merit sidetracked over keeping the status quo on track because it is what the 1% want and have bought.
--------------------------
As with the Clinton family, for the Trump family, the golden adage remains golden; follow the money. In particular this family pair is fit for such scrutiny, since each has a clear history of being driven by the money.
Both Libertarian and Green candidates have not shown a comparable history demanding an easy sleazy-greed categorization. To the best of my knowledge. Admittedly, I have devoted more attention to Jill Stein than to Gary Johnson, so cogent reader commentary on Johnson, who he is, what he has achieved, is welcome.
_______________UPDATE_______________
Dan Burns at MPP, this link; linking to Kos, here.
__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Do read Dan's item, link above, he seems convinced it is not just smoke, but fire. In any event, the story is (or appears to be) growing legs; e.g., this google, and this "doth protest too much" item from RT.com
Here is where Kos savvy reader help is needed. The KOS item Burns links to has, currently as the update is written, 180 comments. Is that unusual, or par for the course. What I can note, short of wading through KOS commentary, a few minutes ago, say a quarter hour or so, it was 162 comments. While growing legs on KOS is not growing legs in a larger sense, readers are urged to see if the story gets an AP or Reuters feed, soon, or Guardian coverage. Those are my touchstones of mainstream, even more than WaPo or N.Y. Times, certainly more than HuffPo.
It is a lengthy item and each Crabgrass reader, Democrat, Republican, Green, or Libertarian is urged to read it in its entirety.
That said, here is a single, and arguably unrepresentative mid-item excerpt pair, but a pair tweaking my interest most -
After his bankruptcy and business failures roughly a decade ago Trump has had an increasingly difficult time finding sources of capital for new investments. As I noted above, Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks with the exception of Deutschebank, which is of course a foreign bank with a major US presence. He has steadied and rebuilt his financial empire with a heavy reliance on capital from Russia. At a minimum the Trump organization is receiving lots of investment capital from people close to Vladimir Putin.
Trump's tax returns would likely clarify the depth of his connections to and dependence on Russian capital aligned with Putin. And in case you're keeping score at home: no, that's not reassuring.:
[...] As TPM's Tierney Sneed explained in this article, one of the most enduring dynamics of GOP conventions (there's a comparable dynamic on the Dem side) is more mainstream nominees battling conservative activists over the party platform, with activists trying to check all the hardline ideological boxes and the nominees trying to soften most or all of those edges. This is one thing that made the Trump convention very different. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the platform. So party activists were able to write one of the most conservative platforms in history. Not with Trump's backing but because he simply didn't care. With one big exception: Trump's team mobilized the nominee's traditional mix of cajoling and strong-arming on one point: changing the party platform on assistance to Ukraine against Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine. For what it's worth (and it's not worth much) I am quite skeptical of most Republicans call for aggressively arming Ukraine to resist Russian aggression. But the single-mindedness of this focus on this one issue - in the context of total indifference to everything else in the platform - speaks volumes.
This does not mean Trump is controlled by or in the pay of Russia or Putin. It can just as easily be explained by having many of his top advisors having spent years working in Putin's orbit and being aligned with his thinking and agenda. But it is certainly no coincidence. Again, in the context of near total indifference to the platform and willingness to let party activists write it in any way they want, his team zeroed in on one fairly obscure plank to exert maximum force and it just happens to be the one most important to Putin in terms of US policy.
[links within original omitted] The part about big bank blackballing, to me it is a plus, in that if elected Trump might harbor a vengeance whereby good could come from Wall Street hubris getting a comeuppance,
Goldman Sachs folks finally perhaps being slapped upside the head. All that.
The rest suggests something beyond sensible policy thinking about Russia; the suggestion being there might be something unwholesome and in need of voter attention. The suggestion tax returns might evidence Trump money ties to Russian money puts those tax returns in the same class as the Clinton transcripts. What's being hidden and why?
Voters need reminding if troubled by the awful two-party offerings, top ticket this cycle, that there is Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, with general cred for honesty; and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, comparably credible.
- see top sidebar item, with links -
Blind allegiance to inner party offering is another voter choice, of course, lesser evil between the two being the linchpin of past awful pairings [remember G.H.W. Bush - Michael Dukakis // G.W. Bush - John Kerry, where greater and not lesser evil won].
However, the resounding possibility presented us by the truly uniquely awful pair being fobbed off on us this time is a ripe opportunity to do damage to the two-party stranglehold on the nation; to the clear benefit of the nation; and to promote and grow alternate party serious contention. That opportunity, that chance, should NOT be wasted, by either polar end of the spectrum, in lesser evil traffic to where the muddy awful centrists are posturing today: Wall Street Dems, Angry White Republicans, mediocrity raising like rancid cream-to-the-top; merit sidetracked over keeping the status quo on track because it is what the 1% want and have bought.
--------------------------
As with the Clinton family, for the Trump family, the golden adage remains golden; follow the money. In particular this family pair is fit for such scrutiny, since each has a clear history of being driven by the money.
Both Libertarian and Green candidates have not shown a comparable history demanding an easy sleazy-greed categorization. To the best of my knowledge. Admittedly, I have devoted more attention to Jill Stein than to Gary Johnson, so cogent reader commentary on Johnson, who he is, what he has achieved, is welcome.
_______________UPDATE_______________
Dan Burns at MPP, this link; linking to Kos, here.
__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Do read Dan's item, link above, he seems convinced it is not just smoke, but fire. In any event, the story is (or appears to be) growing legs; e.g., this google, and this "doth protest too much" item from RT.com
Here is where Kos savvy reader help is needed. The KOS item Burns links to has, currently as the update is written, 180 comments. Is that unusual, or par for the course. What I can note, short of wading through KOS commentary, a few minutes ago, say a quarter hour or so, it was 162 comments. While growing legs on KOS is not growing legs in a larger sense, readers are urged to see if the story gets an AP or Reuters feed, soon, or Guardian coverage. Those are my touchstones of mainstream, even more than WaPo or N.Y. Times, certainly more than HuffPo.
Marching is fine. But after the giant middle finger salute progressive agenda advocates got from the Clinton family, it is not about Bernie it is about the bigger picture. March out of the convention hall. Certainly a first ever female president is an awsome thought. March where you can find Jill Stein. Learn her agenda, notice something about it.
Paraphrasing Nixon,
"Jill is not a crook."
NY Times, opening paragraphs:
PHILADELPHIA — A large, impassioned crowd of Bernie Sanders supporters — chanting “Hell, no, D.N.C., we won’t vote for Hillary” — marched on Sunday afternoon to the site of the Democratic National Convention, promising a week in which the party’s divisions will be on vivid display in the streets.
More than 1,000 people from as far as Seattle and Florida participated in the first of what are expected to be many Sanders rallies during the convention, which formally begins Monday. The march, led by a banner proclaiming “Help End Establishment Politics, Vote No on Hillary,” was far larger than any of the protest marches last week in Cleveland at the Republican National Convention.
- and more -
“It’s not just young people who are furious. There are people who have been Democrats for decades and are completely angry,” said Kimberly Cooper, 59, of Florida. “Now with the WikiLeaks thing, I am finished supporting her.”
Brandon Gorcheff, of Youngstown, Ohio, who held a handmade sign reading “Move Left” that spoofed the Clinton campaign’s arrow logo, said nothing could get him to support Mrs. Clinton.
[...] Numerous marchers said they would support Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. They rejected the argument that not voting for Mrs. Clinton would help Mr. Trump.
Pasu Tivorat, of Sacramento, who wore a Guy Fawkes mask, an anarchist’s symbol, said Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton were equally bad choices. “If we nominate Hillary, then she can continue to abuse her base,” he said. “Every progressive idea we come up with they throw under the bus.”
“I’d rather watch the D.N.C. burn,” he added.
The link, again.
It is not about Bernie. Not any more. He capitulated to the establishment. Smoothly. Easily. Speeches can be given, talk being cheap.
Jill Stein is the only progressive still standing. Don't just walk a parade. Walk out. Walk to Jill Stein, Green Party.
http://www.jill2016.com/
Read this.
 |
| http://www.jill2016.com/plan |
There remains a progressive option. Tear apart what needs tearing. Leave the Wasserman Schultz world and caviling capitulation behind. If necessary, never look back.
Remember:
"Jill is not a crook."
UPDATE: Jill Stein has an M.D. Hillary Clinton has transcripts.
A bet: If asked, Stein would show you her M.D.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Garbage.
The Hollywood set design fails to cover this will be a one week turkey farm.
Either get rid, permanently (as in forever) of the superdelegate stuff, or explain why Jill Stein is not the most wholesome and intelligent and well thinking candidate still running.
BOTTOM LINE They ain't super. They're slugs. Hacks. Party stiffs.
They have been honestly explained as the Party equivalent of: Putting Roundup on the grassroots.
It is that simple, and Bernie insiders and Clinton family insiders can shake hands all they want, but true progressives should use their feet, not their hands.
Let the Clinton family prove their mojo - winning without any unearned progressives' pliancy.
Tim Kaine and all.
_______________UPDATE______________
Forgot to mention. Trustworthy. Jill Stein is trustworthy. Having never personally met her but viewing much YouTube Jill Stein video, I cannot imagine her ever cozening up to the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She has too much integrity.
Stein: Not in it for the money. No family foundation; no Goldman Sachs. Just character and quality. And if the inner party intransigents want to make no real conciliatory appeasement to progressives, it is their choice, not mine.
All I will do is vote.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE______________
Here it is in a nutshell. If you stay home it will hurt down-ticket. If you leave the top choice blank, it will not be counted. If you vote for Jill Stein, in numbers, it will be counted and it will be noticed. Clinton-Kaine might still win and if so bless them. Trump-Pence could win, and the nation could survive four years of that. After all we survived eight Gipper years. They were evil, but they were how it was. If it would take four Trump-Pence years to wake up something resembling a conscience among the DNC and inner party, good. If that is insufficient they might be buying eight years of Trump-Pence, but we make our decisions, they make theirs. And progressives who hold their nose and do the "lesser evil two-step" yet again as if forever, they cannot be faulted for seeing things differently. It is how the process, as humanly imperfect as it is, resolves things in ways nobody but a zealot can love, but in ways we each have to tolerate.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
A parting thought is how discouraging it is to me, among the elderly, to see the young so callously abused and disregarded with the student loan thing, and the unemployment Angst their lives will entail. Both parties have abandoned them to the wolves, and they deserve better. They will inherit the earth, and the bitterness being earned in their hearts against the political and fiscal powers that be will one way or another be resolved. Those powers are reprehensible toward the young, and should stop.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
That colossal piece of work - only now and only because of Wikileaks and not with anything resembling a conscience or a sense of fair play - is stepping down, and instead of universal ringing denunciation from every corner of the earth, there is, per Kos, this:
That is an insult. It is not enough. That entire corrupt stable needs to be fully, completely mucked. To have any credibility. Any.
Then, this, hat tip to an occasional reader, the center of disservice to voters nationwide has gall to solicit again:
DWS: WHAT AN ASSHOLE!
Corruption can be so very, very tiring. Let us HOPE for CHANGE, in one tiny corner of the nation, a single Congressional District, to send the pack of assholes a resounding message. It may happen. It may not. But this:
He may not be a Wellstone. He could even be Donald Trump's or Scalia's bastard child for all it matters; he is NOT Debbie Wasserman Schultz. That is what matters. The bigger the turnout, the bigger the margin; the better. And should DWS win, per hopefully an honest vote count, than so be it. I don't live there. I can't vote there. I can hope.
Either get rid, permanently (as in forever) of the superdelegate stuff, or explain why Jill Stein is not the most wholesome and intelligent and well thinking candidate still running.
BOTTOM LINE They ain't super. They're slugs. Hacks. Party stiffs.
They have been honestly explained as the Party equivalent of: Putting Roundup on the grassroots.
It is that simple, and Bernie insiders and Clinton family insiders can shake hands all they want, but true progressives should use their feet, not their hands.
Let the Clinton family prove their mojo - winning without any unearned progressives' pliancy.
Tim Kaine and all.
_______________UPDATE______________
Forgot to mention. Trustworthy. Jill Stein is trustworthy. Having never personally met her but viewing much YouTube Jill Stein video, I cannot imagine her ever cozening up to the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She has too much integrity.
Stein: Not in it for the money. No family foundation; no Goldman Sachs. Just character and quality. And if the inner party intransigents want to make no real conciliatory appeasement to progressives, it is their choice, not mine.
All I will do is vote.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE______________
Here it is in a nutshell. If you stay home it will hurt down-ticket. If you leave the top choice blank, it will not be counted. If you vote for Jill Stein, in numbers, it will be counted and it will be noticed. Clinton-Kaine might still win and if so bless them. Trump-Pence could win, and the nation could survive four years of that. After all we survived eight Gipper years. They were evil, but they were how it was. If it would take four Trump-Pence years to wake up something resembling a conscience among the DNC and inner party, good. If that is insufficient they might be buying eight years of Trump-Pence, but we make our decisions, they make theirs. And progressives who hold their nose and do the "lesser evil two-step" yet again as if forever, they cannot be faulted for seeing things differently. It is how the process, as humanly imperfect as it is, resolves things in ways nobody but a zealot can love, but in ways we each have to tolerate.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
A parting thought is how discouraging it is to me, among the elderly, to see the young so callously abused and disregarded with the student loan thing, and the unemployment Angst their lives will entail. Both parties have abandoned them to the wolves, and they deserve better. They will inherit the earth, and the bitterness being earned in their hearts against the political and fiscal powers that be will one way or another be resolved. Those powers are reprehensible toward the young, and should stop.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
That colossal piece of work - only now and only because of Wikileaks and not with anything resembling a conscience or a sense of fair play - is stepping down, and instead of universal ringing denunciation from every corner of the earth, there is, per Kos, this:
That is an insult. It is not enough. That entire corrupt stable needs to be fully, completely mucked. To have any credibility. Any.
Then, this, hat tip to an occasional reader, the center of disservice to voters nationwide has gall to solicit again:
DWS: WHAT AN ASSHOLE!
Corruption can be so very, very tiring. Let us HOPE for CHANGE, in one tiny corner of the nation, a single Congressional District, to send the pack of assholes a resounding message. It may happen. It may not. But this:
He may not be a Wellstone. He could even be Donald Trump's or Scalia's bastard child for all it matters; he is NOT Debbie Wasserman Schultz. That is what matters. The bigger the turnout, the bigger the margin; the better. And should DWS win, per hopefully an honest vote count, than so be it. I don't live there. I can't vote there. I can hope.
In CD3, Bonoff looks to get strongly out-monied by GOP incumbent Paulsen.
Strib reporting notes:
Read Strib for war chest info beyond the quote.
Bonoff jumped into the race in the Third District, which includes the western suburbs of Minneapolis, when it became clear that Donald Trump would be the GOP standard bearer on the presidential ticket. Trump's weakness with college educated whites and women are viewed as potentially dangerous for Republicans down the ballot like Paulsen.
The Bonoff campaign raised the money from at least 1,140 individuals, or about $543 per donation, with 84 percent coming from in-state, according to a campaign news release.
Read Strib for war chest info beyond the quote.
Freedom Club backs Jason Lewis. A marriage made in Heaven wherever.
 |
| Galt is my hero. Galt is a fiction. Go figure. |
Now, amateurishness and offensiveness return. Not in North Metro this time. In the CD 2 contest for the seat the phony university advocate abandoned; leaving it without any incumbency. ("Phony" modifies "university" not "advocate." There was nothing phony to the advocacy. They contributed, the retired Col. advocated big time, but the "universities" themselves where the phony part, not the advocacy from the U.S. House, on their mischievous behalf. But I digress.)
One screenshot is worth a thousand words. (Or in terms of valuing it in Jason Lewis Galt Coins, it would be in the millions, since you put in real cash to get Galt Coins from galt.io, and then your cash is gone and you have dumb toy stuff to dither with; Jason Lewis apparently being happy with your doing the dither. But I digress).
 |
| -from the candidate's website- |
Run Angie run. Win Angie win. Freedom Club has put its ham handed thumb on the scale, the Jason Lewis side, and it cannot but work to your advantage, Angie, since everyone knows who Robert Cummins is and how he operates. His brand of "Freedom Club" koolaid being clearly of the "Don't drink, or drink at your peril" variety.
Yes, that screen capture does list a number of Republican politicos who were elected because of, or inspite of, the Freedom Club - Cummins kiss.
Is there a giant among them - that pack, or PAC? Even a fictional one, a Galt?
WWARD? What would Ayn Rand do? Would the maven of "objectivism" (and a gold standard advocate) embrace a Norm Coleman? A Col. Phony Universities? In the several thousand pages of "Atlas Shrugged" I recall her hero pack as above and against sleazy politics as usual. As I recall the tome, it included a different character Jason might well identify with, if he really is not a Galt, that being Wesley Mouch. Back to that screenshot, that list of federal elective office holders having the Cummins kiss from Freedom Club - what besides a pack of Wesleys? Or is it a PAC of Wesleys? Not sure on that. In any event, Lewis is not without a GOP mentor-in-spirit figure, a one term Wesley wonder and talk showman, Rod Grams:
Grams attempted a political comeback in the 2006 U.S. Senate campaign. He sought the GOP nomination for his former US Senate seat, facing Mark Kennedy and Gil Gutknecht. However, after a poor showing early in the endorsement process, Grams dropped his candidacy. Grams switched his political plans and ran in the 2006 U.S. House election, challenging the incumbent Jim Oberstar in Minnesota's 8th congressional district. Oberstar defeated Grams handily.
Grams remained active in politics and interested in running for public office. In 2008, Grams shared he considered challenging incumbent Norm Coleman for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination but was too busy in his private life to make a run, stating, "And my wife (Chris) would have killed me if I would have, because of some things that we're doing." However, it became unclear whether Grams would run as a Republican. In an interview, he expressed disappointment over the perceived failings of the Republican Party, going as far as to ponder whether he can call himself a Republican or vote for party candidates anymore.
Grams considered a 2010 run for Governor of Minnesota stating, "I'm so damn unhappy with the Republicans right now ... I’m so unhappy with the candidates that we have I could puke. I wanted to get out there and mix it up." However, Grams endorsed Republican Tom Emmer in the 2010 campaign for governor.
Yep. A role model for Jason Lewis. Defeated by Dayton for the Senate seat; whining afterwards about his party and his developed disaffection for it; and then urgent to beat the Emmer drum - likely out of emnity toward Dayton after being unhorsed by Dayton, in DC.
So, reader decision time: As talk show hosts and then subsequently as politicians; are Lewis and Grams in the same league, or with the bar set low does one prevail as the better of the other?
____________________________
Being fair to Grams; one House term; one Senate term; so one could say two term wonder. His winning the Senate seat makes some people wonder. I am told there was insufficient DFL cohesion that cycle, but I was residing out of state at the time so I only know hearsay.
____________________________
UPDATE: Previously closing the post with a lingering uncertainty; websearch shows Cummins was a Grams donor; at least twice; e.g., here (for Congress) and here (for Senate). One can only speculate why the screen capture's parade of names omits Rod Grams. Possibly because of how Grams got hammered by Oberstar when he carpet bagged into CD 8. That, and Grams having been a talk show host of modest talent might have had Lewis wanting to avoid a painful analogy.
But if you really want a defining Cummins moment, a divisive candidacy supported; this link. Check it before it is taken down. Like the folks at the Trump convention said; "BOO."
In anticipation of a site scrub, a screen capture for posterity - Cummins and the quality of company he keeps:
FURTHER UPDATE: If racetrack handicappers, the Freedom Club bunch might be fired. Besides Cummins/Club for Cruz as noted, how about the good folks there inviting campaign-imploder Walker to strut his stuff:
The conservative group, whose political action arm spent $1.4 million on Republicans during the 2104 election cycle, will host Walker at a private dinner event.
“It was quite an honor that he chose us,” said Alex Kharam, the Freedom Club’s executive director. “We certainly had a lot of folks that wanted him. He is probably running for president.”
[...] Commenting on whether is was difficult to get an A-lister like Walker, Kharam noted, “If you want to run for president as a Republican, certainly the Freedom Club is the place to go to in Minnesota.”
Uh-huh.
Perhaps they should had aimed at instead getting Melania Trump to attend and deliver an original speech. Given that group's self-annointed top quality presidential positioning savvy, in Minnesota.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
John Brennan in the news.
Business Insider, here and here.
The second item from days ago is a standalone.
The first item is dated July 23, 2016, but it has a map weeks old, and makes no mention of the Turkish coup attempt and possible fall-out of our nation's military using Turkish air basing after the coup's failure and the Turks wanting Gulen extradited and tried.
WSJ with interesting Brennan related headlining, but behind a paywall. Breitbart expands somewhat on the journal's teaser, but remember, as to credibility it's Brietbart.
It looks to be a simple story; Brennan in the news deflecting from answering much of value, about Turkey and CIA involvement in affairs within that nation.
No surprise there. What is he going to say, "If we'd engineered it it would have been like Mohammad Mosaddeq or Allende, smooth as a baby's butt?"
The second item from days ago is a standalone.
The first item is dated July 23, 2016, but it has a map weeks old, and makes no mention of the Turkish coup attempt and possible fall-out of our nation's military using Turkish air basing after the coup's failure and the Turks wanting Gulen extradited and tried.
WSJ with interesting Brennan related headlining, but behind a paywall. Breitbart expands somewhat on the journal's teaser, but remember, as to credibility it's Brietbart.
It looks to be a simple story; Brennan in the news deflecting from answering much of value, about Turkey and CIA involvement in affairs within that nation.
No surprise there. What is he going to say, "If we'd engineered it it would have been like Mohammad Mosaddeq or Allende, smooth as a baby's butt?"
Little known facts online allegations of the occult about which some readers may first have read of on Crabgrass.
And remember, it is all fact online allegation. All of it.
First, the hidden hand. This link. And it is not just Ted Cruz. It is Cruz in extraordinary company. Really. The camera never lies.
And it gets bigger. Hand signs apart from street gang membership, e.g., here and here. Those images are stronger, together. But what, a league of Satanists, or three point shooters: here, here, here, here, Lebron say it ain't so, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. How occult. And hockey players only hug each other when a goal is scored. Without even having a three-pointer in the game, a bunch of guys hugging. Closing out a dissertation on three, the trinity aside, there is video, here and here. And it is fair to ask, has Trump or either of the Clintons ever hit a three justifying their symbology? Back to that site on the occult, this; then on hand signaling, this. For a close-out to the post; and the really weird thing is I think this site's author is serious. And everything so likely true, because you can read it on the Internet. Uncensored. NSA allowing such content. For your edification. The edification of discerning viewers. Feel the rain.
First, the hidden hand. This link. And it is not just Ted Cruz. It is Cruz in extraordinary company. Really. The camera never lies.
And it gets bigger. Hand signs apart from street gang membership, e.g., here and here. Those images are stronger, together. But what, a league of Satanists, or three point shooters: here, here, here, here, Lebron say it ain't so, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. How occult. And hockey players only hug each other when a goal is scored. Without even having a three-pointer in the game, a bunch of guys hugging. Closing out a dissertation on three, the trinity aside, there is video, here and here. And it is fair to ask, has Trump or either of the Clintons ever hit a three justifying their symbology? Back to that site on the occult, this; then on hand signaling, this. For a close-out to the post; and the really weird thing is I think this site's author is serious. And everything so likely true, because you can read it on the Internet. Uncensored. NSA allowing such content. For your edification. The edification of discerning viewers. Feel the rain.
Couldn't they have found a bigger cross for this speaker to wear?
Don't know the speaker but have seen the name from time to time on the web. Like a lower-key Ann Coulter, less anorexic looking. But where was Coulter? Was she there? I did not watch. Boehner? McConnell? Orrin Hatch?
The current Speaker of the House, a token intro of someone else? That's it? Was there more of the second R on the Romney losing ticket? Any reader who watched that stuff, please help. Boehner, if there, likely would have booed alnog with the crowd at Ted Cruz. Regardless of anything Cruz said. Or declined to say. Boehner's jackass remark stands, Cruz being who he is. But party functionaries some there, other absentees; but the entertainer faction, big honking cross and all, there and YouTubed.
When did Rush speak? Glen Beck? Michelle? I.e., the other key Republican leaning entertainers of yesteryear.
Palin's speech? How did it go?
This Ingraham speaker, wanting America as great as it used to be, veteran laden rhetoric, it all brought to mind the Bonus Army.
Wikipedia has Bonus Army material; Republican President Hoover mentioned, McArthur and Patton playing their role.
Did you notice the new signs being handed out,
"Make America First Again?"
Talk about downsizing a goal.
The current Speaker of the House, a token intro of someone else? That's it? Was there more of the second R on the Romney losing ticket? Any reader who watched that stuff, please help. Boehner, if there, likely would have booed alnog with the crowd at Ted Cruz. Regardless of anything Cruz said. Or declined to say. Boehner's jackass remark stands, Cruz being who he is. But party functionaries some there, other absentees; but the entertainer faction, big honking cross and all, there and YouTubed.
When did Rush speak? Glen Beck? Michelle? I.e., the other key Republican leaning entertainers of yesteryear.
Palin's speech? How did it go?
This Ingraham speaker, wanting America as great as it used to be, veteran laden rhetoric, it all brought to mind the Bonus Army.
Wikipedia has Bonus Army material; Republican President Hoover mentioned, McArthur and Patton playing their role.
Did you notice the new signs being handed out,
"Make America First Again?"
Talk about downsizing a goal.
Gary Gross, from his Republican perspective, looks at DWS at the DNC.
DWS has been a Crabgrass subject, as regular readers may recall. Gary's post, here.
Gary is generally correct in the deck having been stacked; the sorrow is that if there is female gender bias at play as Gary's post suggests, it could have been focused on Elizabeth Warren, instead of second level talent. There'd be far less disaffiliation had a better final choice emerged. The Clintons are baggage ridden, but influential.
The story seems influence overriding best judgment.
____________UPDATE______________
One item Gary's post links to presents a series of Wikileaks links to DNC emails evidencing DNC anti-Sanders bias. Without having studied the email trail, there being little cause to doubt, the bottom line is DWS needs to get her marching orders, with a good swift kick in theTrump. Without that stable being mucked and progressives being installed, there is little cause to play lesser evil, and Jill Stein is a very decent, indeed laudable baggage-free female candidate, Green Party.
But, bottom line again, that stable does need big time mucking, no doubt there. The item Gary linked itself links here. Withholding transcript text is offensive, and suggestive of something there to hide.
Disenchanted Republicans have the Libertarian ticket for protest voting. Their stable needs attention as well. Mike Pence, who he is and has been, all that. Ted Cruz with a better demeanor, but equally intransigent and doctrinaire.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Trump endorsed, Cruz booed, Bush family elsewhere, Roger Ailes sacked, and redefinition taking place after the primaries. Two party politics. Does anybody remember the Ron Paul Revolution? Rand was absent as any kind of reminder while Ivanka spoke for millennials (she said so, and we cannot doubt). Turkey coup, Syria, both backburnered. If there's an October surprise, knowing it now would strip all surprise. Was Mitt at that convention? McCain? Ho, hum. How about them Vikings, new statium, Teddy and Adrian, the show must go on. They should try Moritz Bohringer at safety, given his lack of much real experience, either side of the ball.
Gary is generally correct in the deck having been stacked; the sorrow is that if there is female gender bias at play as Gary's post suggests, it could have been focused on Elizabeth Warren, instead of second level talent. There'd be far less disaffiliation had a better final choice emerged. The Clintons are baggage ridden, but influential.
The story seems influence overriding best judgment.
____________UPDATE______________
One item Gary's post links to presents a series of Wikileaks links to DNC emails evidencing DNC anti-Sanders bias. Without having studied the email trail, there being little cause to doubt, the bottom line is DWS needs to get her marching orders, with a good swift kick in the
But, bottom line again, that stable does need big time mucking, no doubt there. The item Gary linked itself links here. Withholding transcript text is offensive, and suggestive of something there to hide.
Disenchanted Republicans have the Libertarian ticket for protest voting. Their stable needs attention as well. Mike Pence, who he is and has been, all that. Ted Cruz with a better demeanor, but equally intransigent and doctrinaire.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Trump endorsed, Cruz booed, Bush family elsewhere, Roger Ailes sacked, and redefinition taking place after the primaries. Two party politics. Does anybody remember the Ron Paul Revolution? Rand was absent as any kind of reminder while Ivanka spoke for millennials (she said so, and we cannot doubt). Turkey coup, Syria, both backburnered. If there's an October surprise, knowing it now would strip all surprise. Was Mitt at that convention? McCain? Ho, hum. How about them Vikings, new statium, Teddy and Adrian, the show must go on. They should try Moritz Bohringer at safety, given his lack of much real experience, either side of the ball.
Congressman Mills III? That "Congressman" label has to be somebody's idea of a bad Dan Quayle poor little rich boy joke.
First poor little rich boy; MinnPost, late August 2013, here, a 1%'er with more income annually than most in the population see in a lifetime:
[link in original, bolding added]
Okay, more annual wealth being accrued from passive capital cash flow than from any "earned" salary, however luxuriant the salary is. That's Dan Quayle criterion NO. 1, met, listed, logged.
But what about those good old Quayle Family Values? Where's Mills III on that front?
First, a conundrum:
The 2013 MinnPost item notes Mills III campaign touting:
Wow! How can you fault entrepreneurship, Donald Trump might ask. But Donald has been going to the office putting in the time; so what about Mills III? The above quote suggests a parallel, but is there really one, now if earlier?
Below is a screenshot of the relevant part of Mills III's "about" page on his campaign website:
What the redlined text says, he's quit work, and still gets the stock earnings annually anyway, living the good life.
Consistent with that suggestion of less than entrepreneurial zeal, Mills III as he's been vs who he says he is now, haircut and all, CityPages presenting among other Facebook trivia, this telling text from Mills III himself, not from any campaign flak spin:
There is that old saying about truth being stranger than fiction. It's truer too, and the truth is the man was, is, will be a dilettante, and in Congress, if ever elected, a total lightweight party-goer.
Nolan actually is a hard worker of proven effectiveness in Congress. There is a choice, cotton candy or substance.
(for those not catching the drift, the implication is Nolan = substance, etc.; and readers can suggest cogent reasons to disregard the thread of the post, in Mills III's favor - on point cogent comments always being accepted)
Last, readers can make what they would of the remainder of the CityPages linked content, as Dan Burns did, at MPP. In terms of Dan Quayle Family Values, or otherwise.
Republican 8th District congressional candidate Stewart Mills' portion of his family's Fleet Farm business is worth between $41 million and $150 million, earning between $4 million and $12 million last year, according to a personal financial disclosure form filed by Mills last week [PDF].
Stewart Mills and his siblings are the third generation of Mills to operate the Fleet Farm retail chain, which was founded by Mills’ grandfather. The Fleet Farm chain and several businesses associated with it are listed as assets on the financial disclosure form required for all congressional candidates, which Mills filed with the U.S. House Clerk on August 20."
[...] Mills himself earned just less than $570,000 in salary from Fleet Farm last year, according to the filing.
[link in original, bolding added]
Okay, more annual wealth being accrued from passive capital cash flow than from any "earned" salary, however luxuriant the salary is. That's Dan Quayle criterion NO. 1, met, listed, logged.
But what about those good old Quayle Family Values? Where's Mills III on that front?
First, a conundrum:
The 2013 MinnPost item notes Mills III campaign touting:
“Stewart is an entrepreneur helping to lead a 90 year-old business headquartered in Brainerd that has been in his family for three generations,” Mills campaign coordinator Isaac Schultz said in a statement. “His aggressive reinvestment in his family's businesses has created thousands of full and part time jobs right here in Minnesota. Stewart’s experience in the private sector is the reason he’s running for Congress.”
Wow! How can you fault entrepreneurship, Donald Trump might ask. But Donald has been going to the office putting in the time; so what about Mills III? The above quote suggests a parallel, but is there really one, now if earlier?
Below is a screenshot of the relevant part of Mills III's "about" page on his campaign website:
What the redlined text says, he's quit work, and still gets the stock earnings annually anyway, living the good life.
Consistent with that suggestion of less than entrepreneurial zeal, Mills III as he's been vs who he says he is now, haircut and all, CityPages presenting among other Facebook trivia, this telling text from Mills III himself, not from any campaign flak spin:
There is that old saying about truth being stranger than fiction. It's truer too, and the truth is the man was, is, will be a dilettante, and in Congress, if ever elected, a total lightweight party-goer.
Nolan actually is a hard worker of proven effectiveness in Congress. There is a choice, cotton candy or substance.
(for those not catching the drift, the implication is Nolan = substance, etc.; and readers can suggest cogent reasons to disregard the thread of the post, in Mills III's favor - on point cogent comments always being accepted)
Last, readers can make what they would of the remainder of the CityPages linked content, as Dan Burns did, at MPP. In terms of Dan Quayle Family Values, or otherwise.
Citizen Kaine?
Who is he?
You tell me.
Does our Citizen Kaine have a rosebud obsession, and if so, what?
TPP? What?
Is there much of anything presidential about this man few have heard much about?
He surely is quite distanced from being a progressive; as is the top ticket one from the foundation family politics and Wall Street wealth. Is Kaine a Wall Street darling? Has he been prospering by giving six-figure speeches? What tie has he to Goldman Sachs? Inquiry is appropriate.
_____________UPDATE______________
Always a good start, following the good Senator's money, OpenSecrets.org discloses:
Click the image to read, or follow the link, or this websearch. He will monger wars with the top of the ticket individual; honor the banks as at ticket top; and add in all the usual suspects in money corrupts; massive amounts corrupt massively.
Any rattling skeletons in the closet readers may know about?
Mike Pence, we know and can despise. Scary to contemplate, a heartbeat away.
This new Kaine guy; his choice is yet again proof of no real, meaningful room for progressives in the present Democratic Party, as presently ruled, by its present inner party elite, superdelegates included.
Is Citizen Kaine exactly what you'd expect from the Clintons or a smidge better? Are you as unimpressed as I am, so far, or is it just me and my nagging and naive HOPE for CHANGE? Not to say, been there, done that . . .
_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Like a hand in a glove, this Kaine fits in among blue chip DC insider-givers with a purpose; per another opensecrets.org page, this chart:
There seems little question who Kaine's constituencies would be while a heartbeat away or by some incident of succession, having the Oval Office as his. Constituents such as: Those who picked him; those who bankrolled him; the 99% possibly considered.
Not all constituents are equal; that's been a proven political fact back to the Civil War and onward from Lincoln with the industrialists and railroads, and slaves.
You tell me.
Does our Citizen Kaine have a rosebud obsession, and if so, what?
TPP? What?
Is there much of anything presidential about this man few have heard much about?
He surely is quite distanced from being a progressive; as is the top ticket one from the foundation family politics and Wall Street wealth. Is Kaine a Wall Street darling? Has he been prospering by giving six-figure speeches? What tie has he to Goldman Sachs? Inquiry is appropriate.
_____________UPDATE______________
Always a good start, following the good Senator's money, OpenSecrets.org discloses:
Click the image to read, or follow the link, or this websearch. He will monger wars with the top of the ticket individual; honor the banks as at ticket top; and add in all the usual suspects in money corrupts; massive amounts corrupt massively.
Any rattling skeletons in the closet readers may know about?
Mike Pence, we know and can despise. Scary to contemplate, a heartbeat away.
This new Kaine guy; his choice is yet again proof of no real, meaningful room for progressives in the present Democratic Party, as presently ruled, by its present inner party elite, superdelegates included.
Is Citizen Kaine exactly what you'd expect from the Clintons or a smidge better? Are you as unimpressed as I am, so far, or is it just me and my nagging and naive HOPE for CHANGE? Not to say, been there, done that . . .
_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Like a hand in a glove, this Kaine fits in among blue chip DC insider-givers with a purpose; per another opensecrets.org page, this chart:
There seems little question who Kaine's constituencies would be while a heartbeat away or by some incident of succession, having the Oval Office as his. Constituents such as: Those who picked him; those who bankrolled him; the 99% possibly considered.
Not all constituents are equal; that's been a proven political fact back to the Civil War and onward from Lincoln with the industrialists and railroads, and slaves.