Mommy, he’s a bad man

If I were a Donald Trump supporter, hearing “Mommy, he’s a bad man” would be enough for me to withdraw my support immediately.

I was recently told the following story by someone close to me. The television was on in her home during the presidential primary season and Donald Trump was speaking. No one was really paying attention to it except for her 8 year old child. With no prompting from anyone, a few minutes later, the youngster turned to the woman and said, “Mommy, he’s a bad man.” The woman, who is no Trump supporter, said this was a revealing moment for her. The child did not know who the man was or his relevance to the news cycle, only that this was a person who was saying hateful and mean things in an ugly tone of voice. Upon hearing this, she engaged her child in an age-appropriate conversation about the election.

This story exemplifies why Mr. Trump is not only a terrible role model for our children but also someone from whom they should be protected. No matter how much one may despise Hillary Clinton, she refrains from spewing hateful rhetoric and using a disparaging, vitriolic tone of voice.

Some readers may come back with: What about her “basket of deplorables” remark? While admittedly that was an unfortunate comment, she didn’t say all Trump supporters were deplorable, just some and she did preface it with being “grossly generalistic.” Nor did she use a snarling tone of voice to deliver it. Furthermore, there is evidence to support her assertion.* Secretary Clinton pales in comparison to Donald’s ugliness, even having made that impolitic remark.

Below is a campaign ad put out by the Clinton campaign that addresses this very issue.

Ask yourself this: Is Donald Trump really the person you want your children listening to and seeing on television for the next four, possibly eight years?

 

* Clinton, it appears, has her own “basket of deplorables” too. It’s a good deal smaller than Mr. Trump’s, but she has one. You can read more in the Forbes article below.

Clinton’s Got Data Supporting That Basket of Deplorables

Cross-posted at Writing Life

Advertisements

Benghazi hearing more about campaigning than Clinton or the truth

Clinton's face said it all.

Clinton’s face said it all.

After eleven grueling, often mind-numbing hours of testimony by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it seemed as if the GOP member of the Benghazi committee had met their match. Clinton remained calm, cool, and collected for most of the hearing, with Democratic members throwing barbs, while Republicans found new ways to ask the same question several dozen times. As the hearings wound to an end, I had a thought: what if this has nothing to do with Benghazi or stopping Clinton’s march to the White House? It sounds ludicrous. After all, Republicans have orchestrated Benghazi hearings for years with the goal of putting an end to Clinton’s dreams of winning the presidency, but with just a year until the general election, and a clown car of a GOP primary field, Republican members of Congress may consider Clinton all-but-invetiable. So why grill Clinton for 11 hours?

Congressional Republicans have elections to win in 2016 too. Their own.

Continue reading

Can we do anything about gun violence in the U.S.?

Seems like we have to reset this one every few weeks and that's not normal or OK.

Seems like we have to reset this one every few weeks and that’s not normal or OK.

Once again, Americans are reeling at the sight of another mass shooting. In what’s become all-too-commonplace, we react with horror, sorrow, anger, and discussion, but at the end of the day, we all know this will happen again. President Obama said as much during his remarks addressing the shooting in Oregon, and regardless of your politics, every American probably agrees with Obama when he said it’s likely he’ll have to address another mass shooting before his term is over. However, in our efforts to end the horrific violence caused by guns, we address a few key issues: the ease in which potential shooters access guns, how we handle mental illness in the United States, and whether any reasonable limitations on gun ownership are appropriate if it means preventing another mass shooting like we’ve seen across the country, year after year.

The following piece attempts to address a few key issues. First, we must try to find a way to prevent mass shootings from ripping apart communities across the country and if reasonable gun legislation is off the table (despite overwhelming support in most parts of the country), we need another solution. We simply cannot accept mass shootings as normal, or something that cannot be prevented because the Second Amendment prohibits the adoption of any legislation preventing some individuals from accessing firearms. The piece takes a look at perhaps a key psychological reason why it’s so challenging to pass reasonable legislation aimed at ending the scourge of gun violence affecting Americans every single day. Additionally, we must consider our rhetoric towards guns–especially the paranoid notion that someone is coming for them–which may–or may not–be contributing to gun-related violence in the United States.

What’s laid out here isn’t a series of concrete solutions to gun violence, but perhaps it will provide us with an outlet for deeper discussion–on both sides of the aisle–on what can be done to make sure we can end the evils of gun violence and mass shootings in the United States.

Continue reading

The GOP “pledge” is a ridiculous stunt and means nothing

Do you see anything binding about this "pledge?" I sure don't... (Photo credit: The Associated Press)

Do you see anything binding about this “pledge?” I sure don’t… (Photo credit: The Associated Press)

The headline sounds like a Trump-ism and it probably resembles what Trump will say when he announces his run as an independent around July 2016. Here’s the thing, without a binding agreement, the pledge is nothing more than a great way for the GOP to earn media and for GOP chair Reince Priebus to look like he’s leading the party, but he’s missing a crucial element: Trump’s supporters aren’t necessarily ardent Republicans, they are just conservatives.

Confusing partisanship and ideology is fairly commonplace in American politics and it remains confusing for some studying political behavior at the graduate level. Yes, partisanship and ideology are closely related, with most liberals identifying as Democrats and most conservatives identifying as Republicans, but one’s ideology doesn’t mean they are “party people.” Yes, they may tell a pollster they are a “Republican,” but that may have more to do with their ideology lining up with one particular party than the strength of their partisanship. (Essentially, the Republicans better represent a conservative ideology, therefore a conservative identifies as a Republican.) Trump attract ideologues on the right. Conservatives who fully agree that we need to kick out the “illegals” and build a gigantic wall along both the Mexican AND Canadian borders don’t necessarily rock elephant lapel pins and pendants, but they do support the tea party and other movements associated with the Republican party, but more explicitly tied to the conservative ideology.

This is an important point for Priebus and other Republican bigwigs worried about the Trump-effect. Trump can sign the loyalty pledge now, in early-September 2015 when the stakes are high for both Trump and the Republican Party, but if Trump’s support among Republican party elites starts to wane, but his support among those identifying as very conservative remains high, the likelihood Trump bucks the pledge and runs as an independent strengthens.

Continue reading

Defending Hillary…Again

Bob Cesca’s post today (see the excerpt below in italics) on Salon.com about Secretary Clinton’s email server produced a moment of déjà vu. I wrote about this same issue back in April here on Everbog: the double standard applied to Clinton versus others on the right, and yes, the left too.

The Hillary Clinton double standard in a nutshell: Why aren’t we talking about Jeb’s email scandal too?

“Does it matter that Clinton used a personal email server? Of course it does, and she ought to face scrutiny for it — only insofar as every high ranking official who uses a private email account ought to be scrutinized. So far, it’s really only Clinton who’s being hectored about using her own server. The fact that she’s running for president is a fairly decent excuse for doing so, but if that’s the case, why isn’t Jeb Bush being just as heavily flogged about it?

Back in March, The Washington Post published an article detailing how Bush used his private email account and its accompanying personal email server to send and receive what seems on the surface to be sensitive messages relating to National Guard troop deployments and post-9/11 security concerns. His email was sent and received via a private “homebrew” email server based inside his Tallahassee office. Bush “took it with him when he left office in 2007.””

Read more

My April 13 post, Defending Hillary, touched on several of the same points that Cesca’s article does. Defending Hillary highlights similar actions by Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Andrew Cuomo, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Colin Powell, and members of Congress as well as reminds readers of the 5 million missing emails during the G.W. Bush administration related to the attorneys general firing investigation.

Read more

What You Need to Know About the Clinton Email Controversy does a decent job of summarizing the details surrounding this issue.

  • This is not an investigation into Clinton but rather the security of her emails.
  • It is possible emails get classified retroactively.
  • Clinton has turned over her email server now because the FBI specifically asked for it. Previous requests have come from Republican members of Congress, not a government security agency.
  • Experts agree the worst decision was using the private server in lieu of a government one in the first place.
  • Questions will continue to dog her during the 2016 presidential campaign as more emails are scrutinized and she goes before the House Benghazi Committee in October.

Read more

Clinton’s opponents will continue to milk this issue for all it’s worth. She would do the same to her opponents, to be fair. To the extent it hurts her campaign is yet to be determined, and there is a long road ahead to Election Day 2016. Admittedly, Hillary Clinton can be her own worst enemy, but I refuse to pillory her for doing what others have done too. As stated in my April post, and it is worth reiterating, policies need to be implemented requiring legislators at every level of government to adhere to transparency and accountability guidelines and that all communication of government business be conducted on a government server, period.

The Noise Machine: How Democrats can buck historical trends and win in 2016

The only adults in the room. Will that lead one of them to victory next November?

The only adults in the room. Will that lead one of them to victory next November?

Last week, the Republican circus moved from Cleveland, to Atlanta, with no signs of slowing down. Early poll numbers suggest Donald Trump wasn’t permanently damaged by his erratic–and predictable–behavior at the debate, while Jeb! Bush and Scott Walker’s poll numbers sank. Of course, all of this is subject to change, just like a weather forecast. Meanwhile, the juxtaposition of the Democrats and the Republicans grew wider. As Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders continues to draw record crowds, demonstrating the frustration among Americans on the left, Hillary Clinton unveiled plans for “debt-free college,” among other major policy changes for the millions suffering under the burden of student loans.

Whether Clinton’s plans for student loans are a silver bullet remains to be seen–not including full out debt relief may stoke the ire of many progressives–but it is refreshing to see the adults in the room actually discuss policies that matter. While Republicans debated how best to repeal the Obama years, what their faith means to them, and how best to outflank one another from the right, few provided details into the issues that are truly defining the United States today. In fact, by the time the RedState Gathering started in Atlanta, many Republicans and pundits were focused on Donald Trump’s crass comments toward FOX News host Megyn Kelly, not policy, nor what it takes to govern.

While policy and governing may come off as boring, it may be Democrats’ ticket to a third consecutive term.

Continue reading

Enjoy tonight’s debate, but beware rampant anti-intellectualism

85As the countdown for tonight’s Republican debate enters its final hours, American politics—and to a greater extent–America stand at a crossroads. After nearly seven years of Barack Obama’s stoicism and “Mr. Spock” approach to governing, a cast of characters so illogical, over-emotional, and downright anti-intellectual will grace the stage in Cleveland, Ohio. They will no doubt castigate Obama’s legacy as president, lambasting every policy, executive action, and statement ever uttered by the two-term president. For this group of candidates, they are not looking toward the future, but a way to bring the nation to a screeching halt before putting the car in reverse.

The prospect of reversing the nation is truly terrifying. The country remains at the precipice on a host of defining issues that could make or break these United States. Climate change, unabated economic, social, and racial inequality, and the prospect of continued ground wars in west Asia must be addressed by Obama’s successor and thus far, every Republican firmly stands in opposition to any progress made over the last six and one half years.

Continue reading