They're coming to get you, Barbra ~ Johnny Blair to his sister upon spotting a zombie (although he is unaware of the creature's undead state) while visiting their father's grave. Quote from the opening scene of George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead, 1962
During the 2nd 2016 potus "town hall" format debate (10/9/2016), Donald Trump, when Hillary Clinton was speaking, loomed behind her. Was he trying to intimidate her? He denies it, of course. Just as he denies the sniffing. Hillary Clinton told Ellen DeGeneres that she could sense his anger and feel him stalking her.
His anger concerned the Access Hollywood hot mic tape of Trump and Billy Bush "having a conversation about chicks 11 years ago" (as characterized by a misogynist Libertarian).
Trump, IMO, instead of being contrite and genuinely remorseful for his "locker room talk", is actually seething with anger at people having the gall to question that he, as a rich and powerful man, can't grab women by their crotches. Of course he thinks he can sexually assault women (or "chicks"), which is why he bragged about doing so.
Why in the world is Trump standing so close to Hillary? Is he thinking that he'd like to reach out and strangle her? Composer Danny Elfman said it was like watching a zombie movie, and that he could imagine that "at any moment [Trump] was going to attack her, rip off her head, and eat her brains".
Here is the clip with the music Elfman wrote (2:07).
Danny Elfman, in addition to being a well known (to those who follow film music) and in-demand composer of music for film, is a Democrat. He is also married to the (now retired) actress Bridget Fonda (with whom he has 3 children). Although that factoid has nothing to do with this post. I just threw that out there because, while you might never have heard of Danny Elfman, you've probably heard of Bridget Fonda.
As for Danny Elfman, he used to be (along with his brother Richard) a member of the rock band Oingo Boingo (1972-1995). Danny was the songwriter and lead singer of the band. During his Oingo Boingo years Elfman contributed songs to a number of films, including Weird Science. This would be the "1985 American teen comic science fiction film written and directed by John Hughes and starring Anthony Michael Hall, Ilan Mitchell-Smith, and Kelly Le Brock" (via Wikipedia).
Elfman became a film score composer when he, having been asked by Tim Burton and Paul Rubens, wrote the music for the 1985 comedy Pee-wee's Big Adventure (although he had previously written the score for the 1982 film The Forbidden Zone, which was directed by his brother). The Forbidden Zone was Elfman's first film score.
His 2nd film score gig, Pee-wee's Big Adventure, was the start of a long relationship with Tim Burton (for whom he scored many movies). In addition to writing the music for the 1989 Burton version of Batman (the one starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson), he is known for composing the theme for The Simpsons (although JUST the theme. The series itself has been scored since 1990 by Alf Clausen).
Regarding Danny Elfman being a Democrat, he wrote a piece for the Huffington Post back in 2008 supporting Barack Obama. The article, titled Battling Our Greatest Fear, concerned the fact that "Sarah Palin was my worst nightmare".
Trump, in my opinion, is an even worse nightmare, which must be why Elfman was inspired to write horror music for Trump's stalking of Hillary. Entertainment Weekly says "Elfman's creepy score gives the video a slasher movie vibe".
Image: Danny Elfman and Bridget Fonda attend the world premiere of the movie The Hulk (which Elfman wrote the music for) at Universal Studios on 6/17/2003 in Universal City CA.
See Also [1] Re A Misogynist Moron's Post On Hypothetical Hypocrisy. OST #181 10/11/2016. [2] Tweet concerning DJT humping chair at debate.
He did have to pay taxes in New Jersey. ...New Jersey, at the time... did not allow passive losses to be deducted from ordinary income ~ NYT columnist James B. Stewart in a CNBC interview (see video below).
As we all now know, or are pretty damn sure concerning, Donald Trump's tax returns would show he has not federal income taxes in many years past. This came up during the first POTUS debate, and Trump said, in response to a remark by Hillary Clinton, that he didn't pay because he's smart.
Servile Trump toady #2 Rudy Giuliani agrees, saying that Trump (because he pays no taxes) is a "business genius".
Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns [and] Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump's [leaked] 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period. (Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found by David Barstow, Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner and Megan Twoheyoct. NYT 10/1/2016).
Really? Losing $916 million due to mismanagement and bad business decisions means you're GOOD at business? Or did he only lose money on paper? By which I mean were these fake "loses" cooked up by a crooked accountant so Trump could avoid paying what he owed? Maybe technically legal, maybe not. But certainly morally dubious.
BTW, according to the NYT "the tax documents arrived in a manila envelope... at the Times with a return address of the Trump Organization". I've heard that the person responsible for leaking the documents is Marla Maples, Trump's 2nd wife (and the one who was married to him at the time).
Ha ha.
BTW, as for Trump's servile toadies (of which he has two three*) the other one would be the governor who lied and said he didn't know some lanes on the George Washington Bridge were closed as an act of political payback against "Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich (a Democrat) for failing to endorse Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election" (Wikipedia excerpt).
Lefty Talker Stephanie Miller refers to the toadies as "leather slaves", and, when servile toady #2 made the absurd comment re Trump being a "genius" for losing a boatload of money running casinos, it was after the ball gag was removed from his mouth and he was let out of the basement.
Video1: Rudy Giuliani calls Trump an "absolute genius" for losing a LOT of money and taking advantage of the tax code to not pay federal taxes, 10/2/2016 (0:04).
Video2: NYT columnist James B Stewart on CNBC says that Trump must explain his nearly billion-dollar loss and what breaks in the tax code contributed to it (4:13).
Something else that caught my eye (this was in the James B. Stewart article to which the CNBC video was attached), was the following.
"If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The tax code is tilted toward the rich in its statutory framework, its exceptions, and in how it is enforced and administered", said Steven M. Rosenthal, a real estate tax specialist and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
Yet more proof that, when the Libertarian blogger Willis Hartsaid that the "economy is rigged and that only certain people can benefit from it [is a] myth", he was wrong. Dead wrong. But that a wealth-worshipping stooge such as Hart thinks the economy ISN'T rigged is really NOT a surprise. Yet he frequently rails againstcrony capitalism (as doesLying Gary Johnson). And, yes, the Hartster thinks he can have it both ways.
* I don't know how I could have forgotten Newt Gingrich. Although he hasn't been out there a lot. And he doesn't come across (to me) quite as servile and desperate as Christie and Giuliani.
When he called Trump a charlatan and a fraud yesterday I thought that was an endorsement ~ David Feldman; Emmy award winning comedy writer and standup comedian calling in to the 3/4/2016 airing of the Stephanie Miller Show. A reference to a 3/3/2016 Mittens R-Money speech at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
Is Donald Trump just telling his supporters what they want to hear? In other words, is he lying about all the next-to-impossible promises he's making? All the other candidates on the stage at the 11th gop debate - Cruz, Rubio and Kasich - said they think he is.
In remarks made later in the debate (transcribed below), Cruz refered to a Trump "off the record" conversation that Donald had with the NYT that was apparently recorded. (The conversation with the editorial board wasn't an interview, but only to help the board decide who to endorse. Note that prior to the Cruz remarks Megyn Kelly asked Trump if he was willing to ask the NYT to release the tapes, and he said no).
Ted Cruz: Marco's dad started as a bartender. My dad started washing dishes. You know how many Americans wanted those jobs? [working in Trump's FL hotel]? Roughly 300 applied. Donald hired 17. That's why this New York Times tape is so troubling. What's been reported is that Donald told the editorial board of the New York Times, "what I'm saying on immigration, I don't believe. I'm not going to build a wall. I'm not going to deport people. This is all just rhetoric for the voters".
Now, if he didn't say that, he has an easy solution. Simply release the tape. (3/3/2016 at the Fox Theatre in downtown Detroit MI).
Gail Collins: The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn't believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when you're making a deal.
The Opinion Page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, however, says "the Times is not covering up any information related to the presidential campaign that would be crucial to the public's knowledge".
Yeah, I don't know about that. Not that I think Trump would say "yeah, I'm lying" to anyone. But I do think he's only telling the rubes (his "Trumpeteers") what they want to hear. I think that is QUITE obvious. And there is the fact that Cruz asked again (after the remarks I excerpted above), for Donald to release those tapes, and Donald (referring to Cruz as "lying Ted") again said NO.
So maybe he did tell the NYT he's a huge liar. Not in those words, of course. What he might have said was likely (if he said anything of the sort) that he would "negotiate". Although Marco Rubio, in response to Trump insisting he was "flexible", said "there is a difference between flexibility, and telling telling people whatever you think you need to say to get them to do what you want them to do", afterwhich Kasich inserted "that's right".
Which is what he did with his "Trump University" scam, as Rubio also noted (Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam). Now he's attempting to scam the American people into voting for him. An observation of Marco's that I *do* agree with. Not that I agree with him (or any of the other Republican candidates) about anything else (except for Kasich taking the Medicaid expansion).
Chris Matthews is trying to say that Bernie Sanders doesn't believe in capitalism or the market, which is a complete lie. Either Chris Matthews is profoundly ignorant - which I don't believe for a second. I think he's one of the smartest guys out there. Or this is the leading edge of the establishment/insider spear thrown against the outsider Bernie Sanders ~ Thom Hartmann (Progressive talk radio host) on his eponymous program, 8/3/2015.
It's getting ridiculous. Yes, Matthews is clearly in the bag for Hillary Clinton, but his constant distorting of Bernie's politics is really pissing me off. Right now I'm watching the "pre-debate" (ahead of the 5th Democratic debate) and this a-hole breaks out the dictionary definition of "Socialism". Of course he definition-shopped and chose the one that says government owns the means of production.
And, even though Howard Dean is a Hillary Surrogate (as well as a sell out), he still had enough integrity to correct Matthews, saying NO, Berie isn't a (Soviet-style) Socialist, but a Social Democrat like in the UK.
This is one of the reasons I've largely given up on msnbc. Up until Bernie showed that he is a viable contender (with his virtual tie in Iowa and his likely upcoming win in New Hampshire) msnbc was all Trump all the time. Now I expect more of the Bernie bashing (although I'm sure they'll continue with the Trump coverage as well unless he implodes).
The voters are so hungry for the genuine populism of Bernie Sanders that he's pushed Hillary to the Left. But I'm wondering that if Hillary is elected... how long will her populist views last? Remember in 2008 Barack Obama said he'd renegotiate NAFTA? Now he's pushing the job-killing TPP. And Hillary, before being pushed to the Left by Sanders, said the TPP was the "gold standard" (Politifact says HRC is guilty of a "full flop").
Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz (for crying out loud!) said she thought either of the two could beat the Republican. This she said in spite of an incredulous Chris Matthews' disbelief at what he was hearing. I've been hearing that the Repubs will break out the Hammer & Sickle if Bernie is the nominee, but Chris is practically doing that already. Proof the Corporate Dems are afraid of Bernie's populism, I think.
2/11/2013 Update: Thom Hartmann, in a discussion with Chris Matthews on the 2/2/2016 airing of his eponymous program said "Bernie doesn't believe that government should be involved in the means of production and supply. He isn't a Marxist"... to which Matthews replied "Uhhh, it hasn't come up yet. I don't know him that well. I just know that everytime I hear him talking it's a government solution". So Matthews apparently genuinely believes that Bernie is a Soviet-style socialist?
This despite the fact that Bernie himself has said (in a speech on democratic socialism at Georgetown University on 11/19/2015) "I don't believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production". OK, so shouldn't Matthews, as a political commentator know this? Chris either has his head in the sand re "it hasn't come up yet", or he's lying.
No sooner does man discover intelligence than he tries to involve it in his own stupidity ~Jacques Cousteau (6/11/1910 to 6/25/1997) a French naval officer, explorer, conservationist, filmmaker, innovator, scientist, photographer, author and researcher who studied the sea and all forms of life in water.
Note: This commentary concerns the 7th Republican Party presidential debate, which was held on 1/28/2016 in the Iowa Events Center in downtown Des Moines IA. This would be the debate that Donald Trump refused to attend because it was hosted by Fox Nooz and Megyn Kelly returned as one of the 3 moderators
Stupid comments during a GOP debate? Obviously there have been MANY (and there will be many more). But I'm speaking about extraordinarily stupid and not the normal stupidity intelligent people have come to expect from Republicans. Stupidity such as Cruz stating that Obama has "degraded" the military (when, according to the Mises Institute, a Libertarian source, the military has not withered away under Obama). Or even stupidity such Marco Rubio claiming that President Obama and Hillary Clinton wanting to let Syrian refugees into the US without vetting them.
But in regards to the truly stupid? People insist that Ben Carson is smart because he's a retired neurosurgeon, but I wonder if he's an idiot savant. During the 3rd GOP presidential debate, he made it clear that he did not understand what GDP means (DSB #27). And, as we all know, there have been many more stupid remarks from Carson.
Chris Wallace: Dr. Carson, I'd like to ask you about that issue (question just asked of Ted Cruz). Where are you on the mandatory ethanol standard? Should government be in the business of picking winners and losers, or should it be left to the marketplace?
Ben Carson: I'm very much against the government being involved in every aspect of our lives. ... we are blessed with tremendous energy in this nation. We need to be talking about new sources of energy. 70 percent of our population lives bicoastally. What about hydroelectric power? We can develop that...
Bicoastal means "occurring or existing on two coasts, or on both the east and west coasts of the US"... so Carson is talking about people who own more than one home and fly back and forth between them? Although it's more likely he meant to say "by the coast"... but this is also wrong. Not quite as absurd as the first interpretation, but still wrong. (the closed captioning, btw, read "bicoastally" and not "by the coast" or "by coast").
According to a 9/9/2015 Washington Post article "nearly 40 percent of Americans live near the coast". LiveScience says "half of US population lives in coastal areas". Both stats (obviously) fall far short of the 70 percent claim made by Carson. If that is what he meant. Perhaps he really does think that 70 percent of Americans own multiple homes (with at least one home located on each coast)?
I'm not the only one who heard this idiocy, btw. As I always do before authoring a commentary, I first check if anyone thought of it first. Turns out someone did. If you're saying "no, there is no way he could have said that"... check out Josh Barro on Scoopnest. WTF is Scoopnest? Damned if I know. Looks like some kind of Twitter competitor. Point is, I'm not the only one who heard this absurd claim from Carson.
Runner up for stupidest comment of the night goes to Jeb Bush for a "factoid" included in his response to a question by Bret Baier. (This comment, btw, took place earlier in the debate than the Carson one).
Bret Baier: It's hard for anyone with your pedigree to avoid being called establishment. Isn't that part of the problem in this race, that 3 others on this stage are splitting the mainstream Republican vote? And thereby possibly handing this nomination over to an anti-establishment candidate?
Jeb!: ... Look, I'm establishment because my dad, the greatest man alive, was president of the United States, and my brother, who I adore as well, is a fantastic brother, was president. Fine, I'll take it. And I guess I'm part of the establishment because Barbara Bush is my mom. I'll take that too.
Along these same lines, Randal Paul said that his dad was "the most honest man in politics that we've seen in a generation" (he said this after the claim from Jeb concerning his dad). OK, so I don't think I believe Ronald Paul is quite that honest, but (regarding to this obvious "dad off" between Jeb and Randal)... doesn't being the greatest man alive trump (no pun intended) being the most honest (even if it's "in a generation")? Although Randal only claimed that his daddy Ronald is the most honest man IN POLITICS. Some people (I think) would say that's a low bar.
I wasn't the only person who heard (and decided to comment on) Jeb's assertion that his father is "the greatest man alive". Although, this apparently is not the fist time he's made this claim. Headline Politics notes that "Jeb was speaking at the Detroit Economic Club" when he replied (in response to a question implying his last name was a negative) that "George W. Bush has been a great president and that... George H.W. Bush is the greatest man alive".
Right. I think we all would acknowledge (even many Republicans) that the last name "bush" is a negative. BTW, I'd be willing to overlook Carson's statement as him misspeaking. President Obama misspoke when he stated that he had visited 57 states on the campaign trail (Beaverton OR 5/9/2008) and Republicans have been citing his "stupidity" on that issue for his entire presidency.
Snopes: The actual intent behind Senator Obama's misstatement is easy to discern... He was trying to express the thought that in all the time he had spent on the campaign trail so far in 2007-08, he had visited all (48) of the states in the continental U.S. save for one (i.e., "one left to go", excluding Alaska and Hawaii), but in his weariness he slipped up and started off with "fifty" instead of "forty". (Note the long pause in the video clip between the words "fifty" and "seven".)
But is there a logical explanation for Carson's claim that "70 percent of our population lives bicoastally"? He probably was referring to how many people live near one of our two coasts, but, as I already pointed out, 70 percent is way off. I don't expect any clarification on this statement, however. Remember that that there hasn't been any explanation regarding his historically inaccurate (and totally absurd) claim that the biblical Joseph built the pyramids to store grain (which is, apparently, his "personal theory"). Fact is, he stands by it.
And, what about his assertion that homosexuality is a choice "because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight - and when they come out, they're gay"? Or how about the doozie about ObamaCare being worse than slavery? I mean, even if you're not a fan of the ACA, you've got to admit that it falls far short of being that bad (Source: Ben Carson is plain nuts: The 7 most stupefying statements by the GOP's favorite neurosurgeon).
I do not, of course, believe ALL Republicans are stupid. Some who vote Republican do so because they're rich and don't want to pay higher taxes. And Republican politicians, while they may not be stupid themselves, have GOT to realize that they're pandering to low-intelligence voters. This, I am convinced, is the likely explanation for Donald Trump (who, as many on the Conservative side have pointed out, has tended more toward the Democratic side in the past).
But Carson? Sure, he might be "smart" as far as neurosurgery goes. But he's very clearly not that smart in other areas. Or qualified to be president. Not that there is any chance of him ending up in the White House (given the fact that that article I referenced earlier concerning the scientific studies that link low IQ and Conservatism also link low IQ and racism).
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history ~Dwight D. Eisenhower (10/14/1890 to 3/28/1969) the 34th (Republican) President of the United States from 1953 until 1961.
Note: This commentary concerns the 3rd Republican presidential debate, which was held on 10/28/2015 in Boulder CO at the University of Colorado. Whining about "gotcha" questions posed by the CNBC moderators, RNC Chair Reince Priebus cancelled NBC's involvement in the 9th debate scheduled for 2/26/2016 in Houston.
I think the chances that the Republican electorate would vote to send Chris Christie to the White House are slim, due in part to the fact that, if he were elected preznit, he would attempt to abolish Social Security. This he made clear during the debate, during which he made the following remarks concerning the Social Security Trust Fund.
What Christie is talking about is the fact that the 2.8 trillion in the fund (as of the end of 2014) is invested in Treasury Bills. But why would he say the money has been "stolen" (a claim that echoes the sentiments of ex-preznit bush when he said "There is no trust fund — just IOUs" on 4/5/2005).
The Washington Post: Perhaps Christie was suggesting that those "IOUs", in his words, won't be paid back, but few mainstream economists believe that the federal government will be unable to pay back all its debts. That fact is reflected in the extraordinarily low interest rates that investors worldwide will accept to loan the government money. If they were concerned about the government's ability to pay its debts, they would demand higher interest rates to compensate them for the risk of default. Christie said that he and the other presidential candidates need to tell elderly Americans "the truth".
The TRUTH, IMO, is that Chris Christie, if he is elected preznit, would attempt to steal from Trust Fund receipts by slashing benefits, raising the retirement age and means testing.
Christie wants to cut benefits by tying the COLA (cost of living adjustment) to the chained CPI. The CPI (consumer price index) is a way of measuring inflation. The Chained CPI is based on the idea that "in an inflationary environment, consumers will choose less-expensive substitutes". It's a sneaky way to reduce COLAs for seniors. The trouble with it is that "retirees don't spend money the same way as young or middle-aged families; they spend disproportionately more on healthcare and housing" (The chained CPI: A zombie benefit cut still walks).
In regards to raising the retirement age, Christie proposes increasing the normal retirement age from 67 to 69, which will reduce the total amount of money paid out over a recipient's lifetime.
Lastly, Christie says we should start "phasing out retirement benefits starting for seniors earnings above $80k and zeroing them out for those earnings more than $200k annually". The trouble with this proposal is that this idea transforms Social Security from an earned benefits program into a welfare program. A reclassification that would make Social Security easier to cut in the future (SWTD #93).
Christie also claimed "they know they can't pay these benefits because Social Security is going to be insolvent in 7-8 years", which is a huge whopper. Instead of being truthful, Christie lied through his teeth.
CNN Money: Chris Christie put it this way: "Social Security is going to be insolvent in 7 or 8 years". But that's not really the case. Here's the deal: The Social Security Trustees estimate that likely starting in 2034 - 19 years from now - the program will no longer have enough revenue coming in to pay out 100% of promised benefits to retirees on Social Security.
But it will still be able to pay 79% of those promised benefits. The Congressional Budget Office is somewhat less optimistic. It expects the program will run short as soon as 2029, with a 95% chance it will do so between 2025 and 2040 - or within 10 years to 25 years - according to a fact check of Christie's assertion by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That's closer, but still not 7 or 8 years. All these estimates assume no reforms are made to the program before then (Setting the record straight on Social Security "insolvency". 10/29/2015).
So what's the point of all this dissembling by Christie? I think it's quite clear that Christie is on the side of those who wish to rob from Trust Fund beneficiaries. "When is it acceptable to break a social compact" moderator Becky Quick asked Christie, and Christie responded by claiming that the compact was broken years ago... because the SS administration invests the fund in Treasury Bills, presumably (which earn interest). Instead of setting aside cash (which would cause the fund to lose value due to inflation).
What the mendacious Christie didn't say is that Social Security reliably pays benefits. For the compact to be "broken" payments would need to cease. I mean, if the money has truly been "stolen". If it's all spent and gone, who can any mere cuts be enough? As Mike Huckabee said, we need to keep our promise to seniors (not because he's a good guy, but because he wants the votes of seniors). Chris Christie wants to break that promise (and doesn't want votes from seniors, I guess).
This is why I'm saying that Chris Christie is a greedy thief who is good at plundering. Although by "good" I mean he has the rhetoric down. As for the rhetoric being "good" at fooling the American people, I predict NO... given the fact that "the American public strongly supports Social Security, across party and demographic lines" (Public Opinions on Social Security).
Video: Chris Christie statements on Social Security during the 3rd GOP debate fact checked by Kyle Kulinski, a Progressive Talk Radio show host (7:23).
Image: A comment by a Conservative blogger in which the accusation of being "a greedy thief who is good at plundering" is made against one of the Democratic potus candidates. Although the accusation is laughable, given the fact that this candidate is one of the STRONGEST defenders of Social Security in Congress (SWTD #145). Note: The reason this is an image is because the blogger in question deleted what he wrote out of embarrassment when I linked to it in another commentary (TADM #82).
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time ~Maya Angelou (4/4/1928 to 5/28/2014) an American author, poet, dancer, actress, and singer.
Note: This commentary concerns the 1st Democratic Party presidential debate, which was held on 10/13/2015 in Las Vegas NV at the Wynn, a luxury resort and casino owned by self-described "job creator" Steve Wynn. This would be the whiner who bitched about the Obama administration painting a "bulls-eye" on his back by promoting "class warfare" (a slight increase in taxes on the wealthy by returning to the Clinton-era rates) prior to Obama's election to a 2nd term.
Hillary, when asked by Anderson Cooper if she identifies as a Progressive, said she does. This is an example of Hillary "casting herself as a liberal fighter who has been progressive for her entire life". (Something a CNN article says her campaign is doing). However (the CNN article goes on), "to many on the left, those lines never really rang true".
To which I say yes, Hillary claiming to be a Progressive does not ring true for me. First of all, as Anderson points out, Hillary just recently said "you know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center [to which] I plead guilty" (at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio on 9/10/2015). I think that statement represents the truth of where Hillary stands politically. She is not a Progressive, but claiming to be one because that is what Democratic presidents of late do... they run to the Left but move to the Center (Right) after they're elected. Bill Clinton did it and so did Barack Obama.
I'd like to believe Hillary on this, but, given the fact that she JUST identified as a Moderate, I can't. Does this fit in with the Right's "untrustworthy" narrative? No. They're referring to bogus "scandals" regarding her email (SWTD #313) and the phony-baloney never-ending House "investigation" into Benghazi. This would be the "investigation" that CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy recently admitted was a politically-motivated waste-of-taxpayer-money effort to damage her presidential campaign.
So, while I recgonize that these bogus scandals are no reason to find HRC "untrustable" (the palinism used by the former potential Boner replacement), I don't trust HRC to act as a "liberal fighter". Unless by "act" you mean to play a part. For example, she says that now she's opposed to the extremely bad trade deal being pushed by the Obama administration known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But, while serving as Obama's secretary of state, she referred to it the "gold standard" (as well as exciting, innovative, groundbreaking... and numerous other superlatives).
When AC360 brought this up Hillary's response was that she had hoped it would be the gold standard, but now she has concluded that it isn't. Not a biggie, perhaps. Even though PolitiFact concludes that Hillary revising her past statements on the TPP is "half true" because "her previous remarks actually gave the impression that she had confidence in the deal as it stood". However, as a member of the Obama administration, she couldn't very well come out against it. Surely it would be awkward if she had publicly contradicted an administration she was a part of?
The important thing is that she is against it now, right? Except... is she? Remember when Obama was running for office he said "we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced". And, according to PolitiFact, Sherrod Brown was "absolutely confident Barack Obama [would] reopen the negotiations on NAFTA" because the administration "assured [Brown that] his [Obama's] position is constant". But did Obama do squat in regards to NAFTA after getting elected?
Not only did Obama renig on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA after his election, he "warned... against a strong impulse toward protectionism" and then BSed the American people, saying he was still "serious about changing NAFTA". Now, in the final days of his administration, he pushing another negotiated-by-and-for-the-plutocrats job-destroying (bad) trade deal? He does this as he's leaving because he won't have to face the voters to answer for his trade treachery.
But, given Obama's campaign fictions regarding renegotiating NAFTA, nobody should be overly surprised he's pushing the job-killing TPP. He is, after all, a self described Blue dog Moderate Democrat. None-the-less, I must say that I am incredibly disappointed. Which isn't to say that I regret my vote, as he absolutely was a better choice than McCain or Romney.
Both of these losing potus candidates, being members of the more-plutocrat-friendly party, support exterminating American jobs via "free trade". In fact, regarding the TPP, McCain says to would be "crazy" to "squander a historic opportunity" to send American jobs to low wage countries, while Romney says expatriating US jobs so the plutocrats can become even richer is "good for America".
But polls show that, while "Americans tend to support trade, they oppose an expansion of status quo trade policies". The status quo being trade agreements (like NAFTA) that destroy American jobs. Although Americans knew NAFTA would cost American jobs back when Hillary's husband ran for president, which is why he said "American companies must act like American companies again, exporting products, not jobs" when he accepted the nomination.
Then, after his election, WJC, in a betrayal of one of his New Convenant promises, signed NAFTA (on 1/1/1994) and, as a result, American citizens heard the "giant sucking sound of American companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would work for less pay and without benefits".
This was exactly what Ross Perot warned us about. Americans knew that Perot, who ran on this SINGLE topic was right, which is why he received 18.81 percent of the popular vote, "the most won by a third-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912". (And Perot, had he had not dropped out of the race and later re-entered it, might have ended up with an even higher percentage).
"Will you say anything to get elected" the Coop asked HRC in regards to her flip-flop on the TPP (in addition to other positions she has "evolved" on... see video below). Hillary said no. But was she being completely honest or simply giving her sales pitch... one designed solely to sell her as president?
Three words help explain why Hillary Clinton now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord - after once laying the groundwork for it as secretary... Her newfound opposition... protects her left flank against Bernie Sanders' challenge; it helps her solidify her support with organized labor... It's also consistent with modern Democratic politics: In the 2008 Democratic primaries, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton railed against NAFTA and free trade accords.
But after winning the Democratic nomination, Obama warmed up to free trade... he's now made this TPP trade accord a chief goal in his final months in the White House. So it wouldn't be surprising if Clinton makes a similar move back to the middle if she wins the nomination next year. (Hillary Clinton Protects Left Flank With TPP Opposition by Mark Murray. NBC News 10/7/2015).
While I'd welcome a genuine change of position (re the TPP) and identification (Moderate to Progressive) from HRC, I frankly do not believe her reversal is genuine. It might be, and if she is the nominee I will vote for her and hope that she does not move to the center, but why take that chance when the possibility that we might get snookered again is a strong (IMO) possibility? Why not vote for the true Progressive in the Primary and make Bernie Sanders our nominee?
Bernie Sanders, the founder of the Progressive caucus, is a lifelong Progressive with a proven track record. He does not need to move to the Left for the election because he's always been to the Left. Which, IMO, is what America desperately needs... a genuine Progressive in the White House. This is what America wants, as WJC and BHO lying about their positions on free trade during their respective campaigns proves. They were saying what they needed to in order to get elected, that is. I'm not saying they did not believe what they were saying at the time.
But, that both of our previous Democratic presidents moved to the Left during their campaigns, is proof that America wants a genuine Progressive as their next president. And the ONLY genuine proven Progressive is Bernie Sanders, which is why I'm supporting him for president. At least until HRC defeats him in the primary. Which, if this happens, will mean that the American people bought her sales pitch. It will mean they listened to the naysayers who don't believe that a Democratic Socialist can win the general. But I think that he can, because he's the president America needs. And if enough Democrats realize and vote for him in the primary - he will win in the general.
BTW, in regards to Steve Wynn, US News & World Report notes that he "leans Republican but calls Democratic debate hosting a point of pride". So what's going on here? Does Wynn's pride stem from the fact that he can curry favor with both sides? Is this an indication that he'd be OK with HRC being elected the next potus? I think the answer to this question is YES, and is yet another reason why Democrats should be voting for Bernie.
Video: Hillary Clinton says she is a "progressive who likes to get things done"... but does she mean that she's a progressive (only while running for the Democratic nomination) and that what she'd like to "get done" is getting elected potus #45? (transcript).
