Friday, July 22, 2016

Tim Kaine Calls for Deregulation for Banks -- SIGH

com/entry/tim-kaine-clinton-vp_us_578fc8e3e4b0bdddc4d2c86c?cps=gravity_2302_-1187980386118536204

Read it and weep, my progressive friends.  This poor choice for Vice President is what Hillary and her Wall Street puppeteers are telling us is "progressive."  Even the Koch brothers are voting for Clinton this time around (because they know she will do Wall Street's and their bidding) and she can't ignore that kind of money by picking Bernie or Elizabeth Warren as a running mate. 

The corporate masters and establishment must think we, the people are very dumb to just keep accepting their rulership and voting for their candidates.  Because Hillary thinks she is destined to win the White House (given that she is running against a Hitler wannabe), she has decided to dump us Sanders voters by the wayside, figuring we HAVE to vote for her, even if we don't want to.  I have a feeling, though, that not all Sanders voters are going to go for Hillary.  Some could not stand to hold their nose and cast a vote for her, especially after her pick of a conservative Wall St. type as her Veep.  They will cast their presidential votes for Jill Stein -- or even perhaps for Gary Johnson.  I think she may have made a big mistake.  We can only hope her so-called "safe" pick of Kaine doesn't put Trump in the White House. 

I am terribly disappointed that real progressives did not get in this time around, but we will still have Bernie and Elizabeth in the Senate -- and maybe, if Hillary can cast off the Wall St. chains for a minute or two, we might get a "kind-of, sort-of" progressive in her cabinet.  And surely we will get better picks for the Supreme Court than Trump would give us.  This is the best we can hope for with Hillary at the helm. But at some time in the future, our kids or grandkids will cast intelligent votes to bring in some socialistic programs for the poor and middle class (if it survives till then). 

Please get the newest Michael Moore film from Netflix to see how we could have primo education for our kids, free from nursery school through college -- with delicious nutritious food served to them every day in beautiful school cafeterias where they actually have tables and chairs for the kids--and art and music, to boot; and adult workers get 6 weeks of paid vacation per year, plus holidays and 6 months paid maternity leave, and 2 hours for lunch every work day (which actually makes for better production!) -- and on and on and on.  The film is called "Where Should We Invade Next?"  It is a real eye-opener!  But don't look for us to get anything like that from a Trump or a Clinton.  We'll have to wait for another Bernie or Elizabeth to appear on the scene in future years before we can catch up to Finland, Iceland, France, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and many other countries who already have that kind of life for their citizens.  We had a chance this year to make a start toward it with Bernie -- but blew it.

SIGH.  And that's how it is in this, the 21st century, in the United States of America, a "leader" country on a small planet called Earth in the outer regions of the Milky Way galaxy--just to put a little broader perspective on it all. (~.~)  

Share:

Republicans Have Made a World-Historical Mistake


Republicans Have Made a World-Historical Mistake

We're about to learn just how dangerous Donald Trump is.

When Donald Trump took the stage in Cleveland on Thursday night and said the words that sealed the deal—"I humbly and gratefully accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States"—I like to imagine that the Republicans in the room who endorsed him out of expedience experienced a familiar sense of dread. It's the sense of dread Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, must have felt when he realized Melania Trump's keynote address was plagiarized. Or, on a more appropriate scale, the dread must have overcome pro-war Democrats last decade, when they realized that they'd tainted themselves forever with the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.

This particular kind of dread is familiar to every elementary school child. It's defined by the realization not just that you've made a huge mistake, but that you knew you were making a mistake all along, and suppressed your courage or your conscience.

Whether that dread crept up on Republicans at that moment, or at any point during Trump's meandering, grisly, hour-long acceptance speech, it will catch up with them eventually. Whether they know it or not, this is what has happened to them.

An analogy to Iraq is useful for two reasons. The Iraq war was a terrible idea on the merits, but what made it a career-defining political blunder for its supporters is that plenty of people—members of Congress and regular voters alike—knew and said it was a bad idea, tried to stop it, and were ignored.

Perhaps there is a degree of collective absolution in universal error. If everyone makes the same mistake, they can all legitimately claim nobody was around to lead them down the righteous path. But that didn't happen during the Iraq war debate, and it didn't happen in the lead up to the Republican National Convention.

There's a whole movement called #NeverTrump; there are members of Congress who are part of that movement; just 24 hours ago, the runner up in the Republican primary stood before the delegates, and 20 million TV viewers, and told them "vote your conscience."

When Trump loses the election badly, after normalizing white ethnonationalism, leaving a destroyed Republican Party in his wake; or when he wins, and proceeds to damage the country in one of the many ways he's intimated (by abandoning allies, or defaulting on the debt, or expelling a significant percentage of the workforce), not only will repairing the damage be a long and painful process, but for his enablers there will be political hell to pay.

Nobody understands what awaits them better than the Democratic Party's nominee. But for her Iraq war vote, Hillary Clinton might well be winding down the second term of her presidency. But like many others in her party, she tarnished herself with poor judgment and cowardice, and it derailed her plans. Like #NeverTrump conservatives now, Barack Obama was there back then, to remind her and Democratic voters that not everybody had made such a grave blunder, and voters punished her for it.

If there's solace for Republicans like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio in this analogy, it's that many election cycles later, Clinton is again very well positioned to win the presidency. Perhaps they, too, will be offered redemption years down the line. But that will depend on how much damage they've just inflicted, in their moral laziness, on their party, the country, or the world. We don't know the answer to that yet. But we're about to find out.

Brian Beutler is a senior editor at The New Republic.
Share:

Washington Post obit mentioned MKULTRA

For those who still believe our government could never do anything bad or underhanded in secret (is there actually anyone left of these naive beings?) After reading about MKULTRA, anyone with curiosity might then want to google info. about chemtrails, geoengineering and HAARP.  But if you still think JFK, RFK and MLK were killed by lone gunmen, you might not be interested in reading more revealing truth about those assassinations. Googling can get you in trouble if you want to believe what you've been told by the government. Having too much interest in getting at the truth can be dangerous to one's peace of mind.  You'll find that curiosity can kill naivete, when it comes to trust in American flag/apple pie beliefs.

SEE John Vance obituary below the following info. re MKULTRA

"Heading MKULTRA was a CIA chemist named Sidney Gottlieb. In congressional testimony, Gottlieb, who died in 1999, acknowledged that the agency had administered LSD to as many as 40 unwitting subjects, including prison inmates and patrons of brothels set up and run by the agency [CIA]. At least one participant died when he jumped out of a 10th-floor window in a hotel; others claimed to have suffered serious psychological damage."
  -- Washington Post article on key figure in Project MK-ULTRA

What Is MK-ULTRA?

The CIA has been involved in developing sophisticated mind control programs since the early 1950s. Project MKULTRA (or MK-ULTRA) is the most infamous of these, yet thanks to a virtual media blackout on the subject, very few people are aware of any of these disturbing programs. In a rare article in the Washington Post (see below), a few of the many disturbing aspects of Project MKULTRA are discussed.

The article is an obituary for John K. Vance, a member of the CIA inspector general's staff in the early 1960s who discovered that the CIA was secretly conducting illegal mind control activities in Project MKULTRA.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), government documents dealing with Project MKULTRA and other secret mind control programs are now available to the public. In 1973, tipped off about forthcoming congressional investigations, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered the destruction of all MKULTRA records.

Fortunately, 20,000 pages worth of MKULTRA documents contained in the CIA's financial records were overlooked. Though only a small fraction of the original documentation, these surviving documents reveal highly disturbing operations in which unknowing citizens were subjected not only to LSD, but also to radiation, lethal biological agents, and even torture for reasons of "national security."

Before reading the Washington Post article below, here are a number of sentences from an FOIA document written by the Inspector General of the CIA about MKULTRA. You can verify this by accessing the original document online using these links.

"The concepts involved in manipulating behavior are found by many people both within and outside the Agency [CIA] to be distasteful and unethical. Nevertheless, there have been major accomplishments both in research and operational employment. Many additional avenues to the control of human behavior have been designated under the MKULTRA charter, including radiation, electro-shock, and harassment substances.

"Some activities raise questions of legality implicit in the original charter. A final phase of the testing places the rights and interests of US citizens in jeopardy. [Project MKULTRA] has pursued a philosophy of minimum documentation in keeping with the high sensitivity of the projects. Some files contained little or no data at all. There are just two individuals who have full knowledge of the MKULTRA program, and most of that knowledge is unrecorded."

Though Project MKULTRA was terminated in the late 1960s, other even more sophisticated top secret mind control programs continue to this day. For revealing, verifiable resources and information on MKULTRA and other mind control programs, see our Mind Control Information Center.

Please help play the role at which our media is sadly failing by educating your friends and colleagues on this important information. For more on what you can do, see our box below this article. Together, we can and will build a brighter future.


John K. Vance; Uncovered LSD Project at CIA

By Joe Holley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 16, 2005; Page B08

John K. Vance, 89, a member of the Central Intelligence Agency inspector general's staff in the early 1960s who discovered that the agency was running a research project that included administering LSD and other drugs to unwitting human subjects, died May 27 of respiratory arrest.

He died at the Wilson Health Care Center of Asbury Methodist Village in Gaithersburg.

Code-named MKULTRA (and pronounced m-k-ultra), the project Mr. Vance uncovered was the brainchild of CIA Director Allen Dulles, who was intrigued by reports of mind-control techniques allegedly conducted by Soviet, Chinese and North Korean agents on U.S. prisoners of war during the Korean War. The CIA wanted to use similar techniques on its own POWs and perhaps use LSD or other mind-bending substances on foreign leaders, including Cuba's Fidel Castro a few years after the project got underway in 1953.

Heading MKULTRA was a CIA chemist named Sidney Gottlieb. In congressional testimony, Gottlieb, who died in 1999, acknowledged that the agency had administered LSD to as many as 40 unwitting subjects, including prison inmates and patrons of brothels set up and run by the agency. At least one participant died when he jumped out of a 10th-floor window in a hotel; others claimed to have suffered serious psychological damage.

Mr. Vance learned about MKULTRA in the spring of 1963 during a wide-ranging inspector general survey of the agency's technical services division. The inspector general's report said: "The concepts involved in manipulating human behavior are found by many people both within and outside the agency to be distasteful and unethical."

As a result of Mr. Vance's discovery and the inspector general's report, the CIA halted the testing and began scaling back the project. It was terminated in the late 1960s.

MKULTRA came to public light in 1977 as a result of hearings conducted by a Senate committee on intelligence chaired by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho). Mr. Vance gave several long phone interviews to committee staff members but never had to testify.

Mr. Vance was born in Seward, Neb., and graduated magna cum laude from Doane College in Crete, Neb., in 1936. He received a master's degree in economics from Columbia University in 1937 and a bachelor's degree in library science from Columbia in 1939.

He began working on his doctorate at Harvard University during World War II but soon was serving in the Army. He was sent to language school to learn German and worked as a military interpreter at the postwar Nuremberg trials. In Nuremberg, he met people in the intelligence world.

His CIA career began in 1947. He was on the inspector's general's staff from 1960 to 1963, and then became the director of central reference until his retirement in 1971.

A member of the Maryland Ornithological Society and the Maryland Nature Conservancy, Mr. Vance helped in bird banding and also enjoyed gardening, biking, tennis and travel. He was a member of the Cedar Lane Unitarian Church in Bethesda.

Survivors include his wife of 64 years, Elizabeth E. Vance of Gaithersburg; three daughters, Sally Roman of Kensington, Julia Stewart of Columbus, Ohio, and Margie Kay of Timonium, Md.; eight grandchildren; and five great-grandsons.

Note: The Washington Post website carries the above MKULTA article on this webpage.


Important Note: For other highly revealing major media articles and government documents on Project MKULTRA and other secret mind control programs, click here. And for a powerfully revealing ABC documentary on Project MKULTRA, click here.


Share:

Ivanka Conjures Up a New Personality for Her Father

She gave it her best shot, trying to turn FrankenTrump into Santa Claus/Prince Charming/God.  Sorry, Ivanka, all the lipstick in the world couldn't bring beauty to this pig.
 

Ivanka the Fabulous Fabulist
By Maureen Dowd

Ivanka Trump glided onstage to the Beatles' "Here Comes the Sun."

It was apt.

She was sun-kissed, her blond hair perfectly sleek, blowing photogenically, no doubt from a fan in the podium. The fashion entrepreneur's blush-pink sheath and stilettos looked Fifth Avenue chic.

The 34-year-old ornament to the Trump brand was like a beautiful sunny morning in the midst of a dark, lashing hailstorm.

She was glossy, both in how she looked and how she spoke.

She glossed over all of her father's ugly rhetoric and incitements, his erratic behavior and lack of any policy depth or even any policy, and offered a gauzy, idealized vision of a Bobby Kennedy-style figure as her father channeled Richard Nixon in '68.

She hailed her dad as a fighter against injustice, a boss who is "colorblind and gender neutral," who hires people of all ethnicities and backgrounds.

She glossed over the entire ideology of the G.O.P. and the regressive party platform for women and presented her father as a feminist who fights for women in the Trump organization and who would fight as president for child care, "affordable and accessible for all," and for women's rights, equal pay and maternity leave.

"I will fight for this, too, right alongside him," she said, serving, once more, as the classy conjurer of the Moderate, Sane Donald in place of the Dark, Ugly Donald.

One impediment to joy, as Ivanka tried to channel Hillary: The Boston Globe's Matt Viser reported last month that men in the Trump campaign earn about 35 percent more than the women in his campaign.

Trump would never make the eat-your-peas pivot to professionalism, comity and civility, so Ivanka did it for him.

She called her father "the people's champion" and "the people's nominee," making him sound like Princess Diana, the people's princess.

She offered sweet anecdotes to personalize her father, but she was so sunny that her portrait of him was almost unrecognizable. More like a jolly Santa than a short-fingered vulgarian.

She said she remembered him, when she was a child playing with Legos in the corner of his skyscraper office, tearing stories out of the newspaper about someone facing some injustice or hardship and writing a note in his black felt-tip pen to find the person and have them brought to Trump Tower, where he could get in their corner when they were down and give them a job or a break until they could feel that life is great again.

She said her father had "empathy and generosity," and threw in "kindness and compassion" for good measure.

Hopes are often reposed in family members. Everyone hoped that Barbara Bush was secretly working to make H.W. Bush more liberal on choice issues. Everyone hoped that Laura Bush was secretly working on W. to get Donald Rumsfeld fired.

But Ivanka Trump has a stupefyingly harder task. Everyone is hoping that with her calm and gracious air, she is secretly working to turn Donald Trump into a completely different being, to make him stop acting self-destructive and crazy and nasty.

She offers herself as that bright promise. But, as much as she might try to steer her willful father, we know that it is not really possible to curb his impulsiveness and narcissism or to moderate and modernize his positions. He is too in thrall to the roar of the crowd, too old to develop impulse control.

So it just turns her into a fabulous fabulist.

She said her father advised her when she was growing up: "Ivanka, if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big." And what can be bigger thinking than making the most divisive, disliked candidate in modern history seem like noble Atticus Finch — though it would be hard to imagine Atticus saying, as Donald Trump once did of his own daughter, that he would like to date a full-grown Scout.

She said he taught his kids to have a moral compass – with a straight face.

Ivanka has, at times, played the charming sidekick to Trump in his more unsavory business dealings. In 2006, she helped sell spots in a future Baja California condo complex that bore the Trump name. While the Trump organization earned $500,000 for their branding and sales efforts, all the people convinced by her and her father's promises lost their money when the outside developer failed to build anything. She denied any fault, telling CBS News that her family had "lived up to our obligation under a license agreement."

In the absence of all the normal political allies a typical candidate has, Trump's family takes on paramount importance as character witnesses. Melania tried to be one for her husband Monday night, saying how inclusive he would be, but the attempt got bollixed up in a speech shoplifting incident.

Ivanka tried again tonight. And in return, her dad came onstage and cupped his hands around her hips and patted them.


Share:

Thursday, July 21, 2016

All about Tim Kaine, who will probably be Clinton's running mate

Hillary will have to choose a Wall Street-approved candidate, and Tim Kaine fits the bill perfectly.  We will need to know more about him, so read article below.

Could Hillary Be Any Worse? Sure, Add Tim Kaine to the Ticket
by David Swanson | July 21, 2016 - 6:50am

— from Let's Try Democracy

Tim Kaine has been consistently ranked as one of the least progressive Democrats in the U.S. Senate. Adding him to the Hillary Clinton ticket would be a kick in the face to Bernie Sanders supporters holding out hopeless hope for some sign of democracy within the Democratic Party.

Kaine was an anti-environmentalist pro-coal governor of Virginia, a supporter of the "right to work" (for less) law restricting union organizing in Virginia, and he is a supporter of corporate trade agreements including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and including fast-tracking the TPP. An extremely loyal Democrat, he nonetheless criticized Democrats in 2011 for proposing higher taxes on millionaires.

Kaine is the anti-Bernie Sanders on policy and on process. He takes his direction from those in power, not from the public. In a poll of over 250 Sanders delegates to the Democratic National Convention (by the Bernie Delegate Network), only 2.7% of them said they thought Kaine would be an acceptable vice presidential nominee.

The bulk of what the U.S. government does, financially and in terms of work hours, is wage wars and move troops and weapons around the world. That whole topic, and even the existence of 96% of humanity, is largely absent from election campaigns. Yet war may be the one spot where people hunt for something more progressive than Hillary Clinton in Kaine's record.

Kaine supported a nuclear agreement with Iran, a diplomatic breakthrough arguably made possible by the departure of supreme militarist Clinton from the State Department. But Kaine backed President Barack Obama on that, as on everything else. To imagine that Kaine has challenged presidential war powers is to misread another part of his record.

Together with Senator John McCain, Kaine introduced the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, which some falsely imagined to be a bill to strengthen Congressional war powers. It was not. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress. The War Powers Resolution requires a president who launches a war on his/her own to notify Congress within 48 hours and to end it within 60 days unless Congress authorizes it. The McCain/Kaine bill would repeal the War Powers Resolution, turn Congress into a toothless consulting firm, and arrange for a vote without consequences on "approval" of each war within 30 days of its start. Only if Congress voted down "approval" would it vote on "disapproval." And if it passed "disapproval," nothing would follow from that. This amounts to nothing less than unconstitutionally bestowing the power to make war on the president.

The idea behind this "reform" is to take a Congress fully committed to allowing and funding every war, and compel it to also formally express its approval, thus strengthening the president's position. Kaine has thus pushed for a Congressional vote, a Yes vote, on authorizing a war on ISIS. He's expressed his view that President Obama lacks authorization. But Kaine has not put a hold on funding bills, has not forced a vote under the War Powers Resolution, has not introduced legislation to deny funding, has not introduced censure or suggested impeachment. He does not object to Obama's wars, he just wants Congress to clearly and publicly back them, so that the president is not the only one sticking his neck out.

Kaine has proposed authorizing air strikes but not ground troops, or at least he did before there were so many ground troops involved. And he's expressed awareness that some measures can be counterproductive. But his top commitment, followed most consistently, has been loyalty to the Obama White House. A shift to loyal obedience to a Clinton White House would not require much of Tim Kaine. He might have a few more wars to urge Congress to support, but it seems unlikely Kaine would deem that much of an inconvenience.
Share:

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

TRUMP WANTS VICE PRESIDENT TO HANDLE ALL POLICY -- DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN

TOO LAZY OR SCARED TO SERVE. HE JUST WANTS THE TITLE:
TRUMP WANTS VICE PRESIDENT TO HANDLE ALL POLICY

During his search for a vice presidential running mate, Donald Trump was looking for someone willing to take charge of domestic and foreign policy, according to a Wednesday morning report in the New York Times.

Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., asked Ohio Gov. John Kasich if he was interested in being the vice presidential candidate, telling a Kasich adviser that the governor would become the most powerful vice president in history, according to an unnamed Kasich adviser cited by the New York Times.

The Times' Robert Draper reported:

But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich's adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father's vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

"Making America great again" was the casual reply.

Kasich was one of the Trump campaign's top picks for vice president, but the Ohio governor told Trump that they were too different to run together, according to the New York Times.

Kasich also declined to endorse Trump at the Republican convention in Cleveland.




Share:

THE IRONY OF REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN VALUES


  • WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?




Share:

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Interesting! NY Times: How Melania Trump's Speech Veered Off Course

Why we're not seeing any finger pointing in the Trump campaign. It was Melania. She really did write it herself with help from a former ballet dancer who right now is not making herself available for interviews.

HOW MELANIA TRUMP'S SPEECH VEERED OFF COURSE

CLEVELAND — It was the biggest speech of Melania Trump's life, and her husband, Donald, wanted it to be perfect.

The Trump campaign turned to two high-powered speechwriters, who had helped write signature political oratory like George W. Bush's speech to the nation on Sept. 11, 2001, to introduce Ms. Trump, a Slovenian-born former model, to the nation on the opening night of the Republican National Convention.

It did not go as planned, and it has eclipsed much of the action at the party gathering in Cleveland, where delegates on Tuesday night formally nominated Mr. Trump for president.

The speechwriters, Matthew Scully and John McConnell, sent Ms. Trump a draft last month, eager for her approval.

Weeks went by. They heard nothing.

Inside Trump Tower, it turned out, Ms. Trump had decided she was uncomfortable with the text, and began tearing it apart, leaving a small fraction of the original.

Her quiet plan to wrest the speech away and make it her own set in motion the most embarrassing moment of the convention: word-for-word repetition of phrases and borrowed themes from Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic convention eight years ago.

The ridicule from both Democrats and Republicans was instant and relentless, disrupting what was meant to be a high point of the convention

It was, by all accounts, an entirely preventable blunder, committed in front of an audience of 23 million television viewers, that exposed the weaknesses of an organization that has long spurned the safeguards of a modern presidential campaign, such as the free software that detects plagiarism.

"It just shouldn't have happened," said Matt Latimer, a White House speechwriter for President George W. Bush. "This was an easy home run speech: a successful, attractive immigrant talking about her husband."

Nobody seemed more startled than Mr. and Ms. Trump, who arrived in New York on Tuesday morning after a flight from Cleveland to find themselves at the center of a bizarre uproar over authenticity, plagiarism and a knotty question: Why did the wife of the Republican nominee borrow passages from the wife of the current Democratic president?

Ms. Trump spent most of Tuesday out of sight, while her husband vented his frustration and anger throughout the day.

This account of how a speech written by professionals was transformed into the problematic version delivered on Monday night at the Quicken Loans Arena is based on interviews with more than a dozen people involved in and close to the Trump campaign. Many of them spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose details that were supposed to remain confidential.

It reinforces dominant themes of Mr. Trump's campaign that still linger from the primary, which his team has struggled to change: a deliberately bare-bones campaign structure, a slapdash style and a reliance on the instincts of the candidate over the judgments of experienced political experts, like Mr. Scully and Mr. McConnell.

The two original speechwriters were not aware of how significantly the speech had been changed until they saw Ms. Trump deliver it on television Monday night, along with the rest of the country.

In the prime-time address, Ms. Trump unfurled a sequence of life lessons — about how "your word is your bond," about "your dreams and your willingness to work for them," and the "integrity, passion and intelligence" of her parents — in the same sequence and using much of the same language that Mrs. Obama employed in 2008.

Just like Mrs. Obama, Ms. Trump explained how she wanted to pass those lessons on to her children and the children of the world. And just like Mrs. Obama, she offered a gauzy invocation about the limitlessness of aspirations when they are matched by determination.

In a series of evolving explanations, Trump aides and allies dismissed the episode as a trivial distraction, alternating between outright denial that Ms. Trump's speech had used word-for-word phrases from Mrs. Obama and blaming the news media.

"Ninety-three percent of the speech is completely different," declared Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's campaign chairman, pegged the number of suspicious words at 50. "And that includes 'ands' and 'thes' and things like that," he said on Tuesday.

Across the country, slack-jawed Republican political operatives and speechwriters expressed expletive-laden bewilderment at the organizational breakdown allowing such an episode to occur.

"It's like some guy trying to paddle across a river in a rowboat who shoots a hole in his boat," said Stuart Stevens, who wrote speeches for Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, throughout the 2012 campaign.

In interviews, alarmed Republican speechwriters outlined the layers of formal scrutiny, apparently disregarded by the Trump campaign, traditionally applied to almost every draft of a major convention address. They described word-by-word fact-checking by a dedicated team of experts and computer software designed to catch plagiarism. Several online programs, like DupliChecker, are available at no cost.

"It's pretty standard," Mr. Stevens said of the software, which detects overlap in word choice and sentence structure. "We used it."

An urgent priority: avoiding the slightest hint of oratorical theft.

"The most cardinal rule of any speech-writing operation is that you cannot plagiarize," said Mr. Latimer, the Bush speechwriter, who is now a partner at Javelin, a communications firm. If you do, he said, "you lose your job."

That is unlikely to happen in the Trump campaign, which revolves around a freewheeling candidate with a fierce resistance to admitting error.

It was Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law and top adviser, who commissioned the speech from Mr. Scully and Mr. McConnell — and praised their draft. But Ms. Trump decided to revise it, and at one point she turned to a trusted hand: Meredith McIver, a New York City-based former ballet dancer and English major who has worked on some of Mr. Trump's books, including "Think Like a Billionaire." It was not clear how much of a hand Ms. McIver had in the final product, and she did not respond to an email on Tuesday.

Research for the speech, it seems, drew them to the previous convention speeches delivered by candidates' spouses.

The Trump campaign declined to say who or how many senior campaign officials read or reviewed the speech. But when Ms. Trump and her staff had finished revising the speech, virtually all that remained from the original was an introduction and a passage that included the phrase "a national campaign like no other."

The controversy set off by the stumble spread rapidly from the political class to average Americans: African-Americans were angry that Ms. Trump had chosen to swipe the words of the country's first African-American first lady, especially given Mr. Trump's hostility to President Obama. Scores of Twitter users, deploying the hashtag #famousMelaniaTrumpQuotes, began to re-attribute famous lines, like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream," to Ms. Trump.

But the mischievous teasing at times turned serious, as blacks invoked a painful history of prominent white figures stealing the work of black artists and presenting it as their own. "I'm not surprised Melanie plagiarized from Michelle," wrote Yasmin Yonis. "White women have spent centuries stealing black women's genius, labor, babies, bodies."

To many Republicans, the lapse seemed frustratingly inevitable from a candidate who has not just eschewed the backstops of a major political campaign — he has mocked them as a waste of money. His campaign slogans, "America First" and "Make America Great Again," echoed Pat Buchanan and Ronald Reagan. His social media graphics were crowdsourced on Twitter and Reddit by an aide who formerly managed Mr. Trump's golf club in Westchester.

The mistakes have piled up. Last summer, Mr. Trump posted on Twitter his portrait superimposed over a picture of the White House and what turned out to be a stock image of Waffen-SS troops from World War II.

But this one stung, in part because everybody was watching.

Jon Favreau, a former chief speechwriter to President Obama, was home on his couch half-following Ms. Trump's speech on TV while catching up on work Monday night. At first, he was skeptical of the criticism.

"Everyone says, 'You work hard,'" Mr. Favreau said, reciting a line from the speech. "Political speeches are filled with clichés that are impossible to avoid." But when he got to Ms. Trump saying, "Your word is your bond," Mr. Favreau recalled, he stopped short.

"I remember Michelle saying, 'Your word is your bond,' and thinking I've never heard of someone saying that in politics," Mr. Favreau said. "That was when I knew it might have been copied."

Share:

Melania Helps Donald Pen an Acceptance Speech for the Ages


I can see it all now--Donald and Melania sitting in their 22-carat gold chairs, sweat pouring off their brows as they feverishly search their twin computers, in the MOST CREATIVE ATTEMPT EVER MADE to bring up "new" ideas for the BEST, the VERY BEST, the ABSOLUTE BEST-YOU'VE-EVER-HEARD SPEECH EVER GIVEN IN THIS WORLD SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. 
Melania Helps Donald Pen an Acceptance Speech for the Ages
by Mark W. Bradley | July 19, 2016

Still basking in the glow of her meticulously-crafted and warmly-received oration on the floor of the Republican National Convention Monday night, Melania Trump is now turning her considerable wordsmithing skills to the task of helping her husband forge his own acceptance speech, which is scheduled to be delivered to the RNC this Thursday. Thanks to a source close to the Trump campaign, this reporter has obtained an advance copy of that speech, which is published here for the first time in its entirety:

"Four score and seven years ago - in the course of human events - our father, who art in heaven - hallowed be thy name - brought forth on this continent a new nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (and all for one). After all, it was the best of times; it was the worst of times, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And nothing will come of nothing. Let me speak again.

"Folks, I gotta tell ya, I have a dream today. I dreamed a dream in time gone by, when hopes were high and life worth living, that we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, held these truths to be self-evident, that we are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little lives are rounded with a sleep - safe and restful sleep, sleep, sleep.

"And speaking of people, people let me tell you 'bout my best friend, he's a warm-hearted person who'll love me till the end. And this is the end; my only friend, the end; of our elaborate plans, the end; of everything that stands, the end. In fact, it is the winter of our discontent, and all the clouds that lour'd upon our house in the deep bosom of the ocean buried. By the way, our house is a very, very, very fine house, with two cats in the yard, life used to be so hard, and it's a hard rain's gonna fall. And believe me folks, I've seen fire and I've seen rain (not to mention that raindrops keep fallin' on my head, but that doesn't mean my eyes will soon be turnin' red). So let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival of the fittest, which is, after all, the first law of business., which you'd know if you'd read my book, The Art of the Deal, which was recently re-released in paperback and is now available through Amazon Prime for $10.29 (plus shipping and handling).

"In any case, the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here. But it will remember the Maine, the Alamo, and the 5th of November; and, most importantly, it will never forget you till somebody new comes along.

"So I gotta tell ya, folks, I've been to the mountaintop (and by the way, I made it up there faster than anyone, I mean, seriously, the fastest ever, I'm talkin' in the history of mountain-climbing). And all I can say is, my beautiful wife Melania will be comin' around that mountain when she comes, and so will my gorgeous daughter Ivanka. But anyway, when I climbed that mountain and I turned around, I saw my reflection in a snow-covered hill, till the landslide brought it down, which is why I'm suing the ski resort in question for 16 million dollars. Seriously, folks, 16 million bucks, guaranteed, 100%, and I won't be settling out of court for anything less than 16 million, that I can tell you.

"And believe me, I've seen the promised land – I'm talking the best land, from California to the New York islands, from the Redwood forests to the Gulf Stream waters (did I mention I've also seen fire, and I've seen rain?). I may not get there with you, but when you do get there, it'll be one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind.

"So don't cry for me, Ike and Tina, the truth is I never met you. All through my wild days, my mad existence, I kept my promises, which is more than I can say for Crooked Hillary and that disgusting husband of hers who's always chasing around after stray "6"s and the occasional "7". Anyway, God Bless America, God bless the United States on which it stands, and God bless me, every one."

Share:

Melania Trump rejected the speechwriters' speech for her--seems to have written her own

It appears Melania might actually have written her speech herself -- and rejected the approved one the speech writers wrote for her (it was approved by Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump's husband, who seems to be running things in the campaign these days).  Or maybe Melania and Donald, spurning the first speech, wrote a new speech together, in a collaborative spirit.  If so, that doesn't seem to be working too well for them...(other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the show?)  It's beginning to look like there is no one else to blame except Melania. And/or the Donald. Oops.

HERE'S THE BACK STORY ABOUT THE SPEECH MELANIA TRUMP DIDN'T GIVE

Republican National Convention Live Stream Coverage From ABC News

Six weeks ago, two of the most respected speechwriters in Republican politics were asked to write a convention address for Melania Trump ahead of her big moment in the spotlight in Cleveland.

The speech she gave Monday night -- which included passages bearing striking resemblance to Michelle Obama's 2008 convention address and raised questions of plagiarism -- was not it.

An early version of the speech crafted by GOP speechwriters Matthew Scully and John McConnell was apparently disregarded and shelved by the Trump campaign.

Scully and McConnell have previously helped craft some of the most consequential political speeches in the modern era, including those delivered by former President George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Six weeks ago, they were approached by Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and campaign adviser, to write a convention speech for Melania Trump. The Slovenian-born former model has prominently appeared at her husband's side throughout the 2016 campaign, but has spoken infrequently on the trail.

The pair wrote a speech and submitted a draft to Trump's campaign over a month ago.

According to a knowledgeable source, Kushner indicated his approval of the speech draft shortly after it was submitted, but the speechwriters never heard from him again about it.

The speech delivered by Melania Trump last night included almost nothing of the draft written by Scully and McConnell.

In an interview with NBC News aboard Trump's plane Monday evening ahead of her speech, Melania Trump said she wrote her speech with "as little help as possible."

Share:

How many ways can the Trump campaign blame it all on someone else (preferably Hillary or Obama)?

Let's save the Republicans the time and energy to think up a proper right wing response to the debacle that is now occurring in Cleveland. Here are some excuses they can use about the plagiarism -- and that are actually BEing used by the Trump campaign right now on all networks, and certainly more to come on Fox):

It's all Hillary's fault.

It's all Obama's fault.

Nothing to see here -- move on.

We don't see any plagiarism here. Melania is a compassionate, caring woman who merely chose similar words to express her true feelings. Why, everyone uses words like this -- how can you say they were plagiarized?

How dare Michelle Obama give a speech in 2008 that she KNEW Melania Trump would want to give in 2016? Talk about plagiarism!  Michelle Obama stole that speech from Melania Trump and she should apologize immediately!!!!

It's just more Democratic tricks, engineered by them to make us look bad.  They sneaked into Melania's room and added those words into her speech without her knowledge.

Am sure many more excuses will be appearing in days to come to downplay Melania's plagiarism and all the other problems that will be occurring as the Republican Convention continues.  Stay tuned.....and pass the popcorn.
Share:

Monday, July 18, 2016

Trump's Ghostwriter: TRUMP IS A "LIVING BLACK HOLE"

'He's a living black hole': Here are 11 horrifying revelations about Trump by his former ghostwriter

By

Donald Trump announced his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination by saying the United States needed a leader who had written "The Art of the Deal" — but his ghostwriter said he's uniquely and disastrously unqualified for the job.

Tony Schwartz, who earned a joint byline and half the bestselling 1987 memoir's advance and royalties, spent 18 months with the real estate developer and future reality TV star, and he got to know Trump better than almost anyone outside his family.

He's watched in horror over the last year as Trump's improbable campaign for the GOP nomination has turned inevitable — and he denounced the candidate in the strongest possible terms in a New Yorker interview.

Here are some of the most horrifying claims made about Trump by his former ghostwriter and confidante:

"I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization."

"One of the most deep and basic needs he has is to prove that 'I'm richer than you.'"

"He's a living black hole."

Schwartz said he would rename "The Art of Deal" if he were writing it today, and would instead call it, "The Sociopath."

"Trump didn't fit any model of human being I'd ever met. He was obsessed with publicity, and he didn't care what you wrote."

Trump has the attention span of a "kindergartner."

"It's impossible to keep him focused on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes."

"If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it's impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time."

"Donald pisses ice water. He'd like people when they were helpful, and turn on them when they weren't. It wasn't personal. He's a transactional man—it was all about what you could do for him."

"The notion that he's a self-made man is a joke. But I guess they couldn't call the book 'The Art of My Father's Deals.'"

"Lying is second nature to him. More than anyone else I have ever met, Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or at least ought to be true."

Schwartz deeply regrets his role in helping Trump promote himself, and he's donating all of this year's royalties from the book to the National Immigration Law Center, Human Rights Watch, the Center for the Victims of Torture, the National Immigration Forum and the Tahirih Justice Center.

"I'll carry this until the end of my life," Schwartz said. "There's no righting it. But I like the idea that, the more copies that 'The Art of the Deal' sells, the more money I can donate to the people whose rights Trump seeks to abridge."



Share:

Sunday, July 17, 2016

In case you missed Trump and Pence on 60 Minutes tonight

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/17/trumppence-60-minutes-interview-painful-train-wreck.html

The Trump/Pence 60 Minutes Interview Was A Painful Train Wreck

Donald Trump and Mike Pence gave their first joint interview, and what went down on 60 Minutes was painful to watch. (Dear God!  You can say that again! Paul Manafort must have been pulling his hair out by the roots!  How can anyone take this candidacy and the Republican Party seriously?  It's humorous to see people like Sean Hannity trying to sell Trump to Fox viewers, as he interviewed Manafort who was sitting beside him tonight looking in shock, as though he hasn't slept in weeks.)  Even dyed-in-the-wool Republican Bill Kristol ridiculed Trump:

Bill Kristol ✔ @BillKristol

You can't make it up.
PENCE: Donald Trump, this good man...will be a great president of the United States.
TRUMP: I love what he just said.  (~.~)

It is beyond preposterous that a Trump could even be at the top of any political ticket -- and yet, there are millions in this country who will vote for this numbskull -- the same ones who voted for the previous idiot Duhmbya Bush, forcing us to endure 8 years of harebrained decisions that took us into needless war on lies. Bush demonstrated to us how moronic he still is (and always will be) by dancing/swaying/singing/laughing to the music played at the memorial service in Dallas, in what was an otherwise solemn tribute to the dead policemen. He made a spectacle of himself, as usual, with many speculating that he must have been drunk.  This is what Republicans think of as Presidential material, so it's not surprising they've come up with Trump, a worthy successor in the GOP Confederacy of Dunces. 

After the 60 Minutes interview tonight, in which poor Mike Pence tried to establish himself as a reasonable candidate but was undermined at every turn by the Giant Id sitting beside him, it is hard to believe that anyone could still vote for this ticket -- and we still have a week of the GOP Convention to go through, listening to Trump tell us how humble he is. The NY Times refers to Trump as The Id that Ate the Planet.  Definition of Id: the most basic part of the personality that wants instant gratification for our wants and needs. The id wants whatever feels good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation.  The WORST POSSIBLE CHOICE FOR A PRESIDENT OF OUR COUNTRY.

Share:

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Words about Bernie so True -- give HOPE for the future


The Long Victory of Bernie Sanders
by William Rivers Pitt | July 16, 2016

— from Truthout

"I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton," said Bernie Sanders on Tuesday, "and why she must become our next president."

With that, it was over. While Sanders has not officially suspended his campaign, the deal has gone down. The success he earned on the campaign trail gave him a seat at the table when the platform was drafted, and will almost certainly get him a top speaking slot at the convention, but he has reached the end of the line. His Secret Service protection detail has been dismissed. That is about as final as it gets.

It is, at first glance, a preposterous thing in modern American politics that Bernie Sanders did so well. Here was a 74-year-old man from a tiny state with wild white hair and a voice like a bowling ball rolling down an alley in Brooklyn matched up against a true juggernaut. The Clinton campaign had all the money, all the endorsements, all the high-profile recognition one could ever ask for. Bernie had Bernie, and a message.

The television behind me is bellowing about Donald Trump and Mike Pence and Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton. It yells even when I turn it down, and it still shouts when I turn it off entirely. This is the campaign of The Shout, a roomful of fools and frauds and farce that beggars likeness. Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. I have to keep repeating it to myself in order to make it real.

And then there was Bernie with a bird on his podium and a message redolent of Occupy. "This election," said Sanders on Tuesday, "is about the single mom I saw in Nevada who, with tears in her eyes, told me that she was scared to death about the future because she and her young daughter were not making it on the $10.45 cents an hour she was earning. This election is about that woman, and the millions of other workers in this country who are falling further and further behind as they try to survive on totally inadequate wages."

This was his message. Low pay, economic inequality, Wall Street crime, looming environmental catastrophe, free or affordable education; he gave the same speech by rote for more than a year because the message cannot be repeated often enough, and in doing so, Bernie Sanders inspired millions. He showed us what we can be instead of what we are, and it was balm for the soul. The most unexpected presidential candidacy in modern American history very nearly pulled it off.

That gives me hope. There are a lot of people today walking around with their heads down, and rightly so: This Trump v. Clinton contest is a perfect nightmare, made entirely for television and with all the honor and character of a hard fall down a long set of stairs. No matter who wins, we will all lose. People got invested in the Sanders candidacy in a way not seen for decades. His departure is like the tolling of a grim bell, solemn, distant and gone, leaving only a hum in the ears to remind you it was there at all.

But it happened. By God and sonny Jesus, it happened. For a time, Bernie Sanders showed us something other than fear or corporate hegemony or permanent war. He showed us our best selves with a bull-throated roar, and people listened. He reminded us that despite what we hear from the media, the struggle for justice and equality is far from over. His departure from the presidential race signals no end point in this fight; that it happened at all is proof positive that the ground is richly fertile for genuine change.

Hillary Clinton is a fully owned corporate entity with a faux-populist message drafted on the back of a cocktail napkin at a Goldman Sachs convention. Donald Trump is a punchline who speaks in befuddled half-sentences and who wouldn't know a policy position if it squatted on his face and farted up his nose. These are our alleged options now, a choice between Wall Street and reality TV.

But Bernie happened, is happening, is. Not since Robert Kennedy have we witnessed so transformative a presidential candidate. He raced down the long campaign highway that had been promised to Hillary Clinton and fell ten steps short. His success is ours; it is the scholarship of the possible, of what people sick of corporate politics can accomplish. He did not win, but stands victorious. Do not forget what he has done. Do not let your children forget.
_______

About author William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. His newest book, House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation, will be available this winter from PoliPointPress.
Share:

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Robert Reich: A Citizen's Guide to the Upcoming Conventions

A Citizen's Guide to the Upcoming Conventions
by Robert Reich | July 14, 2016

I'll save you the guesswork. On July 21, Donald Trump will become the Republican nominee for president of the United States. On July 28, Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic nominee.

Trump's pending coronation is unsettling many Republican leaders – prompting Republican national chairman, Reince Priebus, to warn them that "if we don't stick together as a party and stop her, then the only alternative is to get comfortable with the phrase President Hillary Clinton."

That's about as enthusiastic an endorsement Trump is likely to get from the Republican establishment.

It's also unsettling many other Americans, some of whom will be demonstrating in downtown Cleveland to protest the nomination of a man who has gone out of his way to denigrate Latinos, blacks, Muslims and immigrants.

But barring a miracle, Trump will be nominated anyway.

So will Clinton, whose nomination isn't going down easily with many of Bernie Sanders's supporters, even after his endorsement of her.

So why have the conventions at all?

First, because they're perks awarded to people who worked hard for candidates during the primaries — just as top sales reps in companies are awarded trips to national sales conventions. Delegates will have fun and spend money, which hotels and restaurants in downtown Cleveland and Philadelphia will sop up like dry sponges.

They'll enjoy circulating on the convention floors for five or six hours each night exchanging gossip and business cards, hugging old friends and meeting new ones, and taking selfies.

And they'll feel important when they hear party leaders, heads of state delegations, members of Congress and occasional celebrities tell them how critical it is to defeat the opposing party in November, how strong their nominee will be, and what makes America great.

Second, the conventions generate prime-time TV infomercials featuring celebrities, heroes and former presidents (Bush 1 and 2 say they won't appear at the Republican one) and, most importantly, the nominee on the last night.

All will speak about the same three themes, although Trump will talk mainly about himself. These segments will be produced and directed by Hollywood professionals and marketing specialists whose goal is to get the major networks (or at least CNN, Fox News and MSNBC) to project stirring images into the living rooms of swing voters.

The third reason for these conventions will be hidden far away from the delegates and the prime-time performers: It's to ingratiate the big funders — corporate executives, Wall Street investment bankers, partners in major law firms, top Washington lawyers and lobbyists, and billionaires.

The big funders are undermining our democracy but they'll have the best views in the house. They'll fill the skyboxes of the convention centers – just above where the media position their cameras and anchors and high above the din of the delegates. And they'll feast on shrimp, lobster tails, and caviar.

Each party will try to make these big funders feel like the VIPs they've paid to be,letting them shake hands with congressional leaders, Cabinet officers and the nominee's closest advisers, who will be circulating through the skyboxes like visiting dignitaries. If they're lucky, the big funders will have a chance to clench the hand of the nominee himself or herself.

The three conventions — for delegates, for prime-time audiences at home and for big funders — will occur simultaneously, but they will occupy different dimensions of reality.

Our two major political parties no longer nominate people to be president. Candidates choose themselves, they run in primaries, and the winners of the primaries become the parties' nominees.

The parties have instead become giant machines for producing infomercials, raising big money and rewarding top sales reps with big bashes every four years.

That Donald Trump, the most unqualified and divisive person ever to become a major party's nominee, and Hillary Clinton, among the most qualified yet also among the least trusted ever to become a major party's nominee, will emerge from the conventions to take each other on in the general election of 2016 is almost beside the point.

Share:

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

NY Times Friedman: I'm Hoping for Clinton to Crush Trump

Me, too. For some (but not all) of the same reasons Friedman lists. Clinton will be able to win if she has Elizabeth Warren as her Vice President. The polls are showing her collapsing to Trump in the battleground states. If she names Warren, she will get most of the Bernie supporters. Otherwise, I think a LOT of them will go to Stein and the Green Party this time around.

The (G.O.P.) Party's Over

This column has argued for a while now that there is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy. At least a one-party autocracy can order things to get done.

A one-party democracy — that is, a two-party system where only one party is interested in governing and the other is in constant blocking mode, which has characterized America in recent years — is much worse. It can't do anything big, hard or important.

We can survive a few years of such deadlock in Washington, but we sure can't take another four or eight years without real decay setting in, and that explains what I'm rooting for in this fall's elections: I hope Hillary Clinton wins all 50 states and the Democrats take the presidency, the House, the Senate and, effectively, the Supreme Court.

That is the best thing that could happen to America, at least for the next two years — that Donald Trump is not just defeated, but is crushed at the polls. That would have multiple advantages for our country.

First, if Clinton wins a sweeping victory, we will have a chance (depending on the size of a Democratic majority in the Senate) to pass common-sense gun laws. That would mean restoring the Assault Weapons Ban, which was enacted as part of the 1994 federal crime bill but expired after 10 years, and making it illegal for anyone on the terrorist watch list to buy a gun.

I don't want to touch any citizen's Second Amendment rights, but the notion that we can't restrict military weapons that are increasingly being used in mass murders defies common sense — yet it can't be fixed as long as today's G.O.P. controls any branch of government.

If Clinton wins a sweeping victory, we can borrow $100 billion at close to zero interest for a national infrastructure rebuild to deal with some of the nation's shameful deferred maintenance of roads, bridges, airports and rails and its inadequate bandwidth, and create more blue-collar jobs that would stimulate growth.

If Clinton wins a sweeping victory, we will have a chance to put in place a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would stimulate more clean energy production and allow us to reduce both corporate taxes and personal income taxes, which would also help spur growth.

If Clinton wins a sweeping victory, we can fix whatever needs fixing with Obamacare, without having to junk the whole thing. Right now we have the worst of all worlds: The G.O.P. will not participate in any improvements to Obamacare nor has it offered a credible alternative.

At the same time, if Clinton crushes Trump in November, the message will be sent by the American people that the game he played to become the Republican nominee — through mainstreaming bigotry; name-calling; insulting women, the handicapped, Latinos and Muslims; retweeting posts by hate groups; ignorance of the Constitution; and a willingness to lie and make stuff up with an ease and regularity never seen before at the presidential campaign level — should never be tried by anyone again. The voters' message, "Go away," would be deafening.

Finally, if Trump presides over a devastating Republican defeat across all branches of government, the G.O.P. will be forced to do what it has needed to do for a long time: take a time out in the corner. In that corner Republicans could pull out a blank sheet of paper and on one side define the biggest forces shaping the world today — and the challenges and opportunities they pose to America — and on the other side define conservative, market-based policies to address them.

Our country needs a healthy center-right party that can compete with a healthy center-left party. Right now, the G.O.P. is not a healthy center-right party. It is a mishmash of religious conservatives; angry white males who fear they are becoming a minority in their own country and hate trade; gun-control opponents; pro-lifers; anti-regulation and free-market small-business owners; and pro- and anti-free trade entrepreneurs.

The Republican party was once held together by the Cold War. But as that faded away it has been held together only by renting itself out to whomever could energize its base and keep it in power — Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, the National Rifle Association. But at its core there was no real common dominator, no take on the world, no real conservative framework.

The party grew into a messy, untended garden, and Donald Trump was like an invasive species that finally just took over the whole thing. (Not an invasive species--a home-grown one. Friedman doesn't want to admit that Trump was created and nurtured by the crazy Tea Party idealogues who hated Obama and were determined not to let ANYthing pass in Congress that Obama approved of--even their OWN Republican bills. Trump is the karma they sowed and deservedly are now reaping.)

Party leaders can all still call themselves Republicans. They can even hold a convention with a lot of G.O.P. elephant balloons. But the truth is, the party's over. Thoughtful Republicans have started to admit that. John Boehner gave up being speaker of the House because he knew that his caucus had become a madhouse, incapable of governing.

A Clinton sweep in November would force more Republicans to start rebuilding a center-right party ready to govern and compromise. And a Clinton sweep would also mean Hillary could govern from the place where her true political soul resides — the center-left, not the far left.

I make no predictions about who will win in November. But I sure know what I'm praying for — and why.

Share: