...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Another typical ReThugniCon hypocrite. Unless of course he meant that governmwent should not give subsidies to any company that is in competition with Koch Industries.
* Ah, another non ethical republican. More & more of you are coming out from under the rock so the rest of us can see who you are. You might want to read that novel that supposedly teaches morals. Ya know, the buybull?
* Hey, they are just being good businessmen and Republicans.
* I think you mean they are just being good crooks, thieves and republicans.
* The Koch Bros are trying to rehab their ugly image with words, hoping no one looks at their deeds.
* Republicans make certain government works for them and can't work for you.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Charles Koch Blasts Subsidies & Tax Credits, But His Firm Has Taken $195 Million Worth of Them
By David Sirota, August 2, 2015
Billionaire Charles Koch told a gathering of conservative donors Saturday that politicians must end taxpayer-funded subsidies and preferential treatment for corporations. That message, though, came from an industrialist whose company and corporate subsidiaries have raked in tens of millions of dollars worth of such largesse.
The Koch-organized conference at a luxury resort in Southern California reportedly attracted roughly 450 conservative donors who have committed to spending nearly $900 million on the 2016 presidential election. The event also is scheduled to include Republican presidential candidates such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
“Where I believe we need to start in reforming welfare is eliminating welfare for the wealthy," said Koch, who along with his brother David are among the biggest financiers of conservative political causes. "This means stopping the subsidies, mandates and preferences for business that enrich the haves at the expense of the have nots."
Yet, in the last 15 years, Koch's firm Koch Industries and its subsidiaries have secured government subsidies worth more than $166 million, according to data compiled by the watchdog group Good Jobs First. The group says since 1990, Koch-owned properties have received more 191 separate subsidies worth a total of $195 million.
Koch Industries and its subsidiaries, which are a privately held, are involved in everything from oil refining to manufacturing to high finance. In 2012, Charles Koch issued a similar jeremiad against government-sponsored subsidies for corporations. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he said, “We are on dangerous terrain when government picks winners and losers in the economy by subsidizing favored products and industries.” He specifically derided tax credits -- yet even after the op-ed, Koch-owned properties accepted more than $77 million worth of such taxpayer-funded preferences from governments, according to Good Jobs First.
Among the biggest subsidies Koch-owned properties has received is a $62 million property tax abatement from Louisiana for Georgia Pacific -- a paper and chemical conglomerate that was acquired by Koch Industries in 2005. Georgia Pacific also received a separate $11 million tax credit from Louisiana in 2014 to upgrade its facilities.
Since 2007, Good Jobs First says Koch Industries itself has received more than $20 million in subsidies through an Oklahoma program designed to incentivize investment and job creation. Oklahoma’s government website lists more than $28 million in such tax credits to the firm and its subsidiaries.
The Washington Post reports that in his speech deriding government subsidies, Koch said these prescriptions "will not be an easy pill for many business people to swallow.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, August 2, 2015
"Kansas has taken a bold new step in making their schools Even Worse…. Kansas has entered the Chase Teachers Out of The State derby ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The plan is working. Soon, no more schools just plenty of ignorance and guns. I am willing to bet the crime rate increases.
* Science is a dangerous "liberal plot" to these folks.
* Dismantle public schools where they teach (gasp!) evolution, climate science, and intellectual questioning in general. You have a win for home schooling: the legislature can now "recommend" a home-schooler's "curriculum" that addresses none of those irritating realities.
* The Republican/Koch/ALEC/Tea Party runs Kansas.
* Runs Kansas...into the ground.
* And they'd like to run the rest of the country.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why teachers can’t hotfoot it out of Kansas fast enough
By Valerie Strauss, August 2, 2015
Teachers can’t hotfoot it out of Kansas fast enough, creating a substantial shortage expected only to get much worse. Why?
Well, there’s the low pay. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average teaching salary in 2012-2013 (the latest year for which data were available, in constant 2012-2013 dollars), was $47,464, lower than the pay in all but seven states (Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and West Virginia), though not by much in most of them.
Last year, job protections were cut by state lawmakers, who have also sought to reduce collective-bargaining rights for public employees.
Then there’s the severe underfunding for public education by the administration of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, so much of a problem that some school districts closed early this past school year because they didn’t have the cash to keep operating. This story by Huffington Post, quoted Tim Hallacy, superintendent of Silver Lake Schools, as saying:
And there’s more. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, the Kansas Board of Education decided in July to allow six school systems — including two of the largest in the state — to hire unlicensed teachers to ease the shortage. (Let the irony sink in for a minute.) Specifically, the newspaper reported:
Some Kansas educators and others tried to dissuade the board from taking this action, including James Neff, a chemistry teacher from Manhattan United School District 383, which the Capital-Journal quoted as saying that there is more to teaching than just knowing subject material. He was quoted as saying, “A subject matter specialist is just a subject matter specialist, but a teacher is something different.” Apparently not in Kansas.
Peter Greene, a teacher who writes the Curmudgucation blog, described it this way:
A 2014 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in part:
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The plan is working. Soon, no more schools just plenty of ignorance and guns. I am willing to bet the crime rate increases.
* Science is a dangerous "liberal plot" to these folks.
* Dismantle public schools where they teach (gasp!) evolution, climate science, and intellectual questioning in general. You have a win for home schooling: the legislature can now "recommend" a home-schooler's "curriculum" that addresses none of those irritating realities.
* The Republican/Koch/ALEC/Tea Party runs Kansas.
* Runs Kansas...into the ground.
* And they'd like to run the rest of the country.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why teachers can’t hotfoot it out of Kansas fast enough
By Valerie Strauss, August 2, 2015
Teachers can’t hotfoot it out of Kansas fast enough, creating a substantial shortage expected only to get much worse. Why?
Well, there’s the low pay. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average teaching salary in 2012-2013 (the latest year for which data were available, in constant 2012-2013 dollars), was $47,464, lower than the pay in all but seven states (Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and West Virginia), though not by much in most of them.
Last year, job protections were cut by state lawmakers, who have also sought to reduce collective-bargaining rights for public employees.
Then there’s the severe underfunding for public education by the administration of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, so much of a problem that some school districts closed early this past school year because they didn’t have the cash to keep operating. This story by Huffington Post, quoted Tim Hallacy, superintendent of Silver Lake Schools, as saying:
“I find it increasingly difficult to convince young people that education is a profession worth considering, and I have some veterans who think about leaving. In the next three years I think we’ll have maybe the worst teacher shortage in the country — I think most of that is self-inflicted.”This June, a three-member district court panel ruled that parts of a new state school financing law violated the Kansas Constitution by allowing inequitable distribution of more than $4 billion in annual education funding. It ordered the state to give $54 million back to the public schools, though that part of the ruling was stayed indefinitely by the Kansas Supreme Court which quickly took up the issue. Now, the state’s entire funding formula for public education is up in the air.
And there’s more. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, the Kansas Board of Education decided in July to allow six school systems — including two of the largest in the state — to hire unlicensed teachers to ease the shortage. (Let the irony sink in for a minute.) Specifically, the newspaper reported:
The measure will waive the state’s licensure regulations for a group of districts called the Coalition of Innovative Districts, a program that the Legislature established in 2013 based on model legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Council.(Yes, ALEC, an organization that writes “model legislation” on a variety of topics that conservative legislators use in states to make new laws that promote privatization, strikes again. Under this legislation, districts can ignore most laws and regulations — including union contracts — that other public schools in a state must follow.)
Some Kansas educators and others tried to dissuade the board from taking this action, including James Neff, a chemistry teacher from Manhattan United School District 383, which the Capital-Journal quoted as saying that there is more to teaching than just knowing subject material. He was quoted as saying, “A subject matter specialist is just a subject matter specialist, but a teacher is something different.” Apparently not in Kansas.
Peter Greene, a teacher who writes the Curmudgucation blog, described it this way:
Kansas has taken a bold new step in making their schools Even Worse…. Kansas has entered the Chase Teachers Out of The State derby, joining states like North Carolina and Arizona in the attempt to make teaching unappealing as a career and untenable as a way for grown-ups to support a family. Kansas favors the two-pronged technique. With one prong, you strip teachers of job protections and bargaining rights, so that you can fire them at any time for any reason and pay them as little as you like. With the other prong, you strip funding from schools, so that teachers have to accomplish more and more on a budget of $1.95 (and if they can’t get it done, see prong number one). The result is predictable. Kansas is solidly settled onto the list of Places Teachers Work As Their Very Last Choice. It’s working out great for Missouri; their school districts have teacher recruitment billboards up in Kansas. But in Kansas, there’s a teacher shortage.According to new data released by the Kansas Department of Education, at least 3,720 teachers left their jobs either by going to other states to teach, retiring or leaving the profession altogether, the Associated Press reported. That, the AP said, was substantially higher than in previous years. According to KMUW, Wichita’s public radio station, Kansas is becoming such a hard place for teachers that many are crossing into Missouri to find jobs. The story says in part:
A billboard along the Kansas Turnpike eight miles east of Lawrence reads: Independence Missouri School District. Hiring teachers for 2015-2016…. In 2011, before huge tax cuts were enacted, only 85 applications for Missouri teaching licenses were filed with a Kansas address. In the next three years, as school budgets were slashed, those applications doubled. During that same period, applications for Missouri teaching licenses from Arkansas and Iowa remained steady.How did all of this happen?
A 2014 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in part:
Tax cuts enacted in Kansas in 2012 were among the largest ever enacted by any state, and have since been held up by tax-cut proponents in other states as a model worth replicating. In truth, Kansas is a cautionary tale, not a model. As other states recover from the recent recession and turn toward the future, Kansas’ huge tax cuts have left that state’s schools and other public services stuck in the recession, and declining further — a serious threat to the state’s long-term economic vitality. Meanwhile, promises of immediate economic improvement have utterly failed to materialize….And, at the moment, there seems to be nothing breaking the fall.
*The large revenue losses extended and deepened the recession’s damage to schools and other state services. Most states are restoring funding for schools after years of significant cuts, but in Kansas the cuts continue. Governor Sam Brownback recently proposed another reduction in per-pupil general school aid for next year, which would leave funding 17 percent below pre-recession levels. Funding for other services — colleges and universities, libraries, and local health departments, among others — also is way down, and declining.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Aw, c'mon, Koch brothers are interested in ending corporate cronyism?? Excuse me while I laugh and roll around on the floor!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Here's a funny:
Kochs Defend Purchase of Scott Walker
Koch Industries is defending its acquisition of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker against charges that it overpaid for the Midwestern politician. [snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* All of a sudden they're for everyone else? Trust these two guys as far as you can throw them.
* Watch what they do......not what they say. "Eliminating welfare for the wealthy" is exactly what is necessary. And that sort of thing is exactly what has made the billionaires billionaires. So watch out. Those are only words.
* i don't believe this for a second. koch industries is one of the largest recipients of corporate welfare in America. the brothers know that their puppet scott waker has been getting bad press and they hope the American voters will be naive enough to believe that they are now reformers
* I don't believe it either. However, apparently they are trying to alter their image -- seems the constant negative press is starting to bother the family.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Conservative donor Koch urges end to 'corporate cronyism'
By Julie Bykowicz, August 1, 2015
Billionaire industrialist and conservative political donor Charles Koch welcomed a group of roughly 450 like-minded fundraisers to one of his twice-annual conferences Saturday by challenging them to advocate for ending "corporate cronyism" - even if those policies help their businesses.
Koch, who along with brother David has long pressed for a federal government that collects fewer taxes and issues fewer regulation, said cutting back special treatment for business is the first step to ending a "two-tiered society" and encouraging "principled entrepreneurship"
"Where I believe we need to start in reforming welfare is eliminating welfare for the wealthy," Koch said. "This means stopping the subsidies, mandates and preferences for business that enrich the haves at the expense of the have nots."
Most recently, the Kochs have been strong advocates of the shutting down the federal Export-Import Bank, and their groups have spent money on advertisements and outreach to win senators and representatives over to their side on the issue.
The bank is a federal agency that helps U.S. companies sell products overseas by underwriting loans to foreign customers. Small-government activists have said it wastes taxpayer dollars to enrich the country's biggest companies.
The Koch brothers and their network of donors, many in attendance at the weekend event at a luxury resort south of Los Angeles, are preparing to spend $889 million to influence elections next year — much of it aimed at ushering a Republican to the White House. As such, among those in attendance were several of the GOP candidates for president, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former technology executive Carly Fiorina.
Walker compared the Koch donor conference with the tea party rallies of five years ago, saying both groups of people are motivated by the same frustration with politics and desire to see the country improved.
"I wish the whole world could see what goes on here," he told the donors, adding that he believes they're not giving to political candidates out of personal financial interests. "You're here because you love America."
Democrats would disagree, and have done so vehemently. The party has routinely portrayed the brothers — their Koch Industries is one of the largest private companies in the country — as greedy corporate tycoons whose work in politics is an end to padding their bank accounts. The brothers, who are billionaires many times over and rank among the wealthiest people in the world, dismiss the criticisms.
"We're doing all this to make more money? I mean, that is so ludicrous," Charles Koch said of his political involvement during a rare interview in April with USA Today.
Other GOP presidential candidates — Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz — were scheduled to address the group Sunday. Each is being interviewed separately by Mike Allen, a journalist at the Washington publication Politico. Other Republicans mingling with donors over cocktails on a lawn ringed with palm trees and decorative columns that overlooks the Pacific Ocean included Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey.
Asked about some of his Cabinet choices, should he be chosen as GOP nominee and elected next November, Walker named fellow hopefuls Fiorina and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, as well as former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent and former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who was also in attendance.
Leaders of two of the largest Koch-backed political entities, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners, have said they will not spend money to influence the Republican presidential primary, instead holding back their resources to spend on defeating the Democratic nominee in November 2016.
Still, many of the men and women at the donor conference, including the Kochs themselves, have the ability to spend millions of dollars backing their preferred candidate. David Koch has said several times in recent months that Walker would make a great president, while asserting that he is not planning to formally endorse anyone.
The Koch brothers have hosted such gatherings of donors and politicians for years, but always in private. For the first time, this weekend's event includes a small number of reporters who were invited to hear the 2016 candidates and attend some other forums. As a condition of attending, reporters were not permitted to identify any of the donors in attendance.
The Kochs are protective of their fellow donors in other ways. Most of their contributions remain out of public view, as all but a few entities in the Koch network aren't legally required to name their contributors — even though they can spend money to influence politics, such as through issues advocacy ads. The groups may even promote specific candidates in limited ways.
Fundraising reports filed Friday with federal regulators show how important deep-pocketed donors have become.
About 60 donations of $1 million or more accounted for about one-third of the more than $380 million brought in so far for the 2016 presidential election, an Associated Press analysis found. The review included contributions to the official campaigns and the far larger gifts to outside groups called super PACs.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Here's a funny:
Kochs Defend Purchase of Scott Walker
Koch Industries is defending its acquisition of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker against charges that it overpaid for the Midwestern politician. [snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* All of a sudden they're for everyone else? Trust these two guys as far as you can throw them.
* Watch what they do......not what they say. "Eliminating welfare for the wealthy" is exactly what is necessary. And that sort of thing is exactly what has made the billionaires billionaires. So watch out. Those are only words.
* i don't believe this for a second. koch industries is one of the largest recipients of corporate welfare in America. the brothers know that their puppet scott waker has been getting bad press and they hope the American voters will be naive enough to believe that they are now reformers
* I don't believe it either. However, apparently they are trying to alter their image -- seems the constant negative press is starting to bother the family.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Conservative donor Koch urges end to 'corporate cronyism'
By Julie Bykowicz, August 1, 2015
Billionaire industrialist and conservative political donor Charles Koch welcomed a group of roughly 450 like-minded fundraisers to one of his twice-annual conferences Saturday by challenging them to advocate for ending "corporate cronyism" - even if those policies help their businesses.
Koch, who along with brother David has long pressed for a federal government that collects fewer taxes and issues fewer regulation, said cutting back special treatment for business is the first step to ending a "two-tiered society" and encouraging "principled entrepreneurship"
"Where I believe we need to start in reforming welfare is eliminating welfare for the wealthy," Koch said. "This means stopping the subsidies, mandates and preferences for business that enrich the haves at the expense of the have nots."
Most recently, the Kochs have been strong advocates of the shutting down the federal Export-Import Bank, and their groups have spent money on advertisements and outreach to win senators and representatives over to their side on the issue.
The bank is a federal agency that helps U.S. companies sell products overseas by underwriting loans to foreign customers. Small-government activists have said it wastes taxpayer dollars to enrich the country's biggest companies.
The Koch brothers and their network of donors, many in attendance at the weekend event at a luxury resort south of Los Angeles, are preparing to spend $889 million to influence elections next year — much of it aimed at ushering a Republican to the White House. As such, among those in attendance were several of the GOP candidates for president, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former technology executive Carly Fiorina.
Walker compared the Koch donor conference with the tea party rallies of five years ago, saying both groups of people are motivated by the same frustration with politics and desire to see the country improved.
"I wish the whole world could see what goes on here," he told the donors, adding that he believes they're not giving to political candidates out of personal financial interests. "You're here because you love America."
Democrats would disagree, and have done so vehemently. The party has routinely portrayed the brothers — their Koch Industries is one of the largest private companies in the country — as greedy corporate tycoons whose work in politics is an end to padding their bank accounts. The brothers, who are billionaires many times over and rank among the wealthiest people in the world, dismiss the criticisms.
"We're doing all this to make more money? I mean, that is so ludicrous," Charles Koch said of his political involvement during a rare interview in April with USA Today.
Other GOP presidential candidates — Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz — were scheduled to address the group Sunday. Each is being interviewed separately by Mike Allen, a journalist at the Washington publication Politico. Other Republicans mingling with donors over cocktails on a lawn ringed with palm trees and decorative columns that overlooks the Pacific Ocean included Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey.
Asked about some of his Cabinet choices, should he be chosen as GOP nominee and elected next November, Walker named fellow hopefuls Fiorina and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, as well as former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent and former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who was also in attendance.
Leaders of two of the largest Koch-backed political entities, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners, have said they will not spend money to influence the Republican presidential primary, instead holding back their resources to spend on defeating the Democratic nominee in November 2016.
Still, many of the men and women at the donor conference, including the Kochs themselves, have the ability to spend millions of dollars backing their preferred candidate. David Koch has said several times in recent months that Walker would make a great president, while asserting that he is not planning to formally endorse anyone.
The Koch brothers have hosted such gatherings of donors and politicians for years, but always in private. For the first time, this weekend's event includes a small number of reporters who were invited to hear the 2016 candidates and attend some other forums. As a condition of attending, reporters were not permitted to identify any of the donors in attendance.
The Kochs are protective of their fellow donors in other ways. Most of their contributions remain out of public view, as all but a few entities in the Koch network aren't legally required to name their contributors — even though they can spend money to influence politics, such as through issues advocacy ads. The groups may even promote specific candidates in limited ways.
Fundraising reports filed Friday with federal regulators show how important deep-pocketed donors have become.
About 60 donations of $1 million or more accounted for about one-third of the more than $380 million brought in so far for the 2016 presidential election, an Associated Press analysis found. The review included contributions to the official campaigns and the far larger gifts to outside groups called super PACs.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the Republican presidential candidate reiterated the controversial position of uncertainty that he staked out in February." "Controversial"? In whose eyes? Who cares?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* How can anyone be sure Gov. Walker hasn't had a lobotomy without meeting him?
* Does Scott Walker have a brain? I don't know but I presume he has one. I've never talked to him.
* I don't care what Scott Walker believes. I don't care that he professes he is a Christian. He doesn't show his Christian belief by example. He is all for Scott and cares little for other people. That doesn't seem to be Christian. President Obama lives his Christian faith. Just look at what he has tried to do for all Americans. He is closer to Jesus than Scott for sure.
* Walker is untrustworthy. He is a pathological liar who will say one thing before the election and do the complete opposite immediately after the election.
* What Scott Walker believes or doesn't believe is important? Not on my planet.
* Do I really care what Scott Walker thinks about anything ? Not at all. His actions speak for themselves. His constant unchristian acts, policies, lies, and behavior tell me everything I need to know about him. He professes Christianity. His behavior and policies make me question his words. He should be the last one questioning anyone's Christianity, much less Obama's. He is pandering to the base. What else?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Scott Walker is still unsure whether Obama is Christian
By James Hohmann, August 1, 2015
Scott Walker still does not know whether President Obama is a Christian.
Fielding questions at the Koch network’s donor summit here Saturday night, the Republican presidential candidate reiterated the controversial position of uncertainty that he staked out in February.
“You’re not going to get a different answer than I said before,” the Wisconsin governor said. “I don’t know. I presume he is. … But I’ve never asked him about that. As someone who is a believer myself, I don’t presume to know someone’s beliefs about whether they follow Christ or not unless I’ve actually talked with them.”
The comment came at the end of a half-hour question-and-answer session before about 400 of the biggest donors in GOP politics.
Walker wrapped up his answer by saying, “He’s said he is, and I take him at his word.”
Obama has repeatedly professed his Christian faith and attended Christian church services.
Back in February, The Washington Post asked Walker whether Obama is a Christian during the National Governors Association meeting.
“I don’t know,” he said then. “I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that … I’ve never asked him that. … You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that.”
Democrats quickly seized on the comment, including former senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer and top Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias.
COMMENTS:
* How can anyone be sure Gov. Walker hasn't had a lobotomy without meeting him?
* Does Scott Walker have a brain? I don't know but I presume he has one. I've never talked to him.
* I don't care what Scott Walker believes. I don't care that he professes he is a Christian. He doesn't show his Christian belief by example. He is all for Scott and cares little for other people. That doesn't seem to be Christian. President Obama lives his Christian faith. Just look at what he has tried to do for all Americans. He is closer to Jesus than Scott for sure.
* Walker is untrustworthy. He is a pathological liar who will say one thing before the election and do the complete opposite immediately after the election.
* What Scott Walker believes or doesn't believe is important? Not on my planet.
* Do I really care what Scott Walker thinks about anything ? Not at all. His actions speak for themselves. His constant unchristian acts, policies, lies, and behavior tell me everything I need to know about him. He professes Christianity. His behavior and policies make me question his words. He should be the last one questioning anyone's Christianity, much less Obama's. He is pandering to the base. What else?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Scott Walker is still unsure whether Obama is Christian
By James Hohmann, August 1, 2015
Scott Walker still does not know whether President Obama is a Christian.
Fielding questions at the Koch network’s donor summit here Saturday night, the Republican presidential candidate reiterated the controversial position of uncertainty that he staked out in February.
“You’re not going to get a different answer than I said before,” the Wisconsin governor said. “I don’t know. I presume he is. … But I’ve never asked him about that. As someone who is a believer myself, I don’t presume to know someone’s beliefs about whether they follow Christ or not unless I’ve actually talked with them.”
The comment came at the end of a half-hour question-and-answer session before about 400 of the biggest donors in GOP politics.
Walker wrapped up his answer by saying, “He’s said he is, and I take him at his word.”
Obama has repeatedly professed his Christian faith and attended Christian church services.
Back in February, The Washington Post asked Walker whether Obama is a Christian during the National Governors Association meeting.
“I don’t know,” he said then. “I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that … I’ve never asked him that. … You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that.”
Democrats quickly seized on the comment, including former senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer and top Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias.
Dan Pfeiffer ✔@danpfeiffer
Why are so few Republicans unable or unwilling to answer this question https://twitter.com/mateagold/status/627630428363448320 …
5:03 PM - 1 Aug 2015
Marc Erik Elias @marceelias...................................................................................................................................................................
Absolutely shameful. I did not (& do not) support McCain, but what has the GOP become? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRq6Y4NmB6U … https://twitter.com/mateagold/status/627630428363448320 …
5:18 PM - 1 Aug 2015
Remember the 2012 Republicans and *that* outcome? It's going to be worse during the current "tragicomedy"!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Such truth. Does the Republican Party even notice or care how many people are turning away from GOP permanently because these antics? I have never seen such a self-destructive group of people in all my life!
* America, the Republicans have made it no secret that they are legislating to protect the wealth and profits of the rich! What their supporters need to ask themselves, when was the last time that the Republicans made the same attempt to minimize the tax rates of the Middle Class! Because to date the republicans have failed to address any of the problems that our nation and public are facing!
* I remember when the GOP, whether I agreed with their policies or not, was a collectively sane party. However, that was long before Fox News, talk rado and right-wing websites came along and turned the party of Lincoln, TR and Ike into a collection of Know-Nothings, ex-Dixiecrats and Birchers filled with ridiculous conspiracy theories.
* The fragmented GOP as it is today deserves to self-implode and I refuse to feel any regret or sorrow for them. Their greed driver sense of entitlement and their arrogant dismissal of women's and "just regular folk's" specifically beneficial priorities has damaged too many lives and so earned my contempt and my indifference to their multiple confusions. Soonest gone, soonest best.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP: Reaping What It Sowed
By James Zogby, August 1, 2015
The 2016 Republican presidential contest has barely begun and it has already grown alternately tiresome and old or just downright scary. As a Democrat, I might be pleased, but as an American, I am deeply troubled. I just want it to end.
A part of the GOP problem is the plague of too many candidates, 17 at last count, with many of them competing for headlines by making outrageous statements targeting Hispanics, Muslims, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, or each other. They apparently feel the need to do so not only because Donald Trump -- being the master of outrage -- continues to draw the most media attention, but because, as Trump's poll numbers demonstrate, a significant body of Republican voters feed off of the anger and insult that is being dished out.
Instead of a serious policy debate, we are forced to endure a campaign based on xenophobia, personality attacks, and crude taunts.
In the past week, alone: Trump continued his rant against "illegals"; Ted Cruz called his party's legislative leader "a liar" on the floor of the Senate; Scott Walker was slightly more refined accusing his party's leaders of making "false promises"; Mike Huckabee charged that with the Iran deal, Obama was marching Israelis into the ovens; and Marco Rubio criticized Trump saying that America didn't need another president with "no class", because we already have a president with "no class".
Now there are, to be sure, thoughtful candidates on the Republican side who have ideas worth examining. But the policies they are proposing have been drowned out by the excessive news coverage given to the demeaning verbal antics of their erstwhile challengers.
We've not yet had the first GOP candidate debate and the race up to that event has itself fed the problem of rhetorical excess. Since there are so many Republican contestants, Fox News, host of the first debate, has arbitrarily decided that they will only invite the candidates who rank in the top 10 in average poll ratings. This has left those with lower poll numbers to feel that they needed to use insults or outrageous stunts to draw the press attention they will need to lift them into the top 10.
While the media can be blamed for covering the candidates' bad behavior and Fox can be faulted for creating this "reality show-like" competition for "who can say the nastiest things," the core problem lies with the base of what has become today's Republican Party.
This isn't a new development since we've seen it play out in the past few election cycles. It began in 2008 when the combination of the reverberating shock of the economic downturn, the dawning realization that America had lost lives, treasure and prestige in two failed wars, and the prospect (followed by the reality) of the election of a black president, caused a substantial number of middle class, middle aged whites to become unmoored. In their bewilderment, they fell prey to the demagoguery of the likes of Sarah Palin, and later of Michele Bachmann, a rejuvenated Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain. All of these factors and personalities gave rise to the Tea Party and its companion "Birther Movement."
Back then responsible Republicans warned that a monster was being created that would first attack the president and Democrats but would ultimately turn on the GOP and devour it, as well. The party paid no heed to these warnings and, believing that they could ride this insurgency to victory, they fed the beast of anger and frustration. The warnings proved true. In statewide elections moderate Republicans (remember them?) were defeated by the "Tea Party" and the establishment of the GOP found itself losing control of its base.
This drama played out on stage during the many debates that shaped the 2012 Republican primary contest. Smart and thoughtful candidates like Jon Huntsman were drowned out by the circus-like antics of those who played to the base instincts of the majority. While Mitt Romney ultimately won the right to represent his party -- his money and the support of the establishment proved too much for the insurgents -- what happened to Romney along the way proved fatal to his chances of winning the White House.
It has been argued that if Mitt Romney had run in 2012 as the moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts he might have won the presidency. The problem, however, was that a moderate, never could have won the Republican primary. In the end, the Romney who emerged from the primaries had been so battered and bruised and his party's brand had been so tarnished that he could not win the general election.
All signs point to the fact that the same tragicomedy will be playing out this year. In all likelihood, the results will be the much the same. As my brother John Zogby is fond of saying, America needs a third party -- the Republican Party of old -- party in which George H.W. Bush and James Baker could be at home. But, alas, in the era of Donald Trump, the Tea Party, the evangelical right, and the ideological billionaires who are all too eager to fund their antics, we will not see sanity on the right side of the aisle this year or the foreseeable future.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Such truth. Does the Republican Party even notice or care how many people are turning away from GOP permanently because these antics? I have never seen such a self-destructive group of people in all my life!
* America, the Republicans have made it no secret that they are legislating to protect the wealth and profits of the rich! What their supporters need to ask themselves, when was the last time that the Republicans made the same attempt to minimize the tax rates of the Middle Class! Because to date the republicans have failed to address any of the problems that our nation and public are facing!
* I remember when the GOP, whether I agreed with their policies or not, was a collectively sane party. However, that was long before Fox News, talk rado and right-wing websites came along and turned the party of Lincoln, TR and Ike into a collection of Know-Nothings, ex-Dixiecrats and Birchers filled with ridiculous conspiracy theories.
* The fragmented GOP as it is today deserves to self-implode and I refuse to feel any regret or sorrow for them. Their greed driver sense of entitlement and their arrogant dismissal of women's and "just regular folk's" specifically beneficial priorities has damaged too many lives and so earned my contempt and my indifference to their multiple confusions. Soonest gone, soonest best.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP: Reaping What It Sowed
By James Zogby, August 1, 2015
The 2016 Republican presidential contest has barely begun and it has already grown alternately tiresome and old or just downright scary. As a Democrat, I might be pleased, but as an American, I am deeply troubled. I just want it to end.
A part of the GOP problem is the plague of too many candidates, 17 at last count, with many of them competing for headlines by making outrageous statements targeting Hispanics, Muslims, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, or each other. They apparently feel the need to do so not only because Donald Trump -- being the master of outrage -- continues to draw the most media attention, but because, as Trump's poll numbers demonstrate, a significant body of Republican voters feed off of the anger and insult that is being dished out.
Instead of a serious policy debate, we are forced to endure a campaign based on xenophobia, personality attacks, and crude taunts.
In the past week, alone: Trump continued his rant against "illegals"; Ted Cruz called his party's legislative leader "a liar" on the floor of the Senate; Scott Walker was slightly more refined accusing his party's leaders of making "false promises"; Mike Huckabee charged that with the Iran deal, Obama was marching Israelis into the ovens; and Marco Rubio criticized Trump saying that America didn't need another president with "no class", because we already have a president with "no class".
Now there are, to be sure, thoughtful candidates on the Republican side who have ideas worth examining. But the policies they are proposing have been drowned out by the excessive news coverage given to the demeaning verbal antics of their erstwhile challengers.
We've not yet had the first GOP candidate debate and the race up to that event has itself fed the problem of rhetorical excess. Since there are so many Republican contestants, Fox News, host of the first debate, has arbitrarily decided that they will only invite the candidates who rank in the top 10 in average poll ratings. This has left those with lower poll numbers to feel that they needed to use insults or outrageous stunts to draw the press attention they will need to lift them into the top 10.
While the media can be blamed for covering the candidates' bad behavior and Fox can be faulted for creating this "reality show-like" competition for "who can say the nastiest things," the core problem lies with the base of what has become today's Republican Party.
This isn't a new development since we've seen it play out in the past few election cycles. It began in 2008 when the combination of the reverberating shock of the economic downturn, the dawning realization that America had lost lives, treasure and prestige in two failed wars, and the prospect (followed by the reality) of the election of a black president, caused a substantial number of middle class, middle aged whites to become unmoored. In their bewilderment, they fell prey to the demagoguery of the likes of Sarah Palin, and later of Michele Bachmann, a rejuvenated Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain. All of these factors and personalities gave rise to the Tea Party and its companion "Birther Movement."
Back then responsible Republicans warned that a monster was being created that would first attack the president and Democrats but would ultimately turn on the GOP and devour it, as well. The party paid no heed to these warnings and, believing that they could ride this insurgency to victory, they fed the beast of anger and frustration. The warnings proved true. In statewide elections moderate Republicans (remember them?) were defeated by the "Tea Party" and the establishment of the GOP found itself losing control of its base.
This drama played out on stage during the many debates that shaped the 2012 Republican primary contest. Smart and thoughtful candidates like Jon Huntsman were drowned out by the circus-like antics of those who played to the base instincts of the majority. While Mitt Romney ultimately won the right to represent his party -- his money and the support of the establishment proved too much for the insurgents -- what happened to Romney along the way proved fatal to his chances of winning the White House.
It has been argued that if Mitt Romney had run in 2012 as the moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts he might have won the presidency. The problem, however, was that a moderate, never could have won the Republican primary. In the end, the Romney who emerged from the primaries had been so battered and bruised and his party's brand had been so tarnished that he could not win the general election.
All signs point to the fact that the same tragicomedy will be playing out this year. In all likelihood, the results will be the much the same. As my brother John Zogby is fond of saying, America needs a third party -- the Republican Party of old -- party in which George H.W. Bush and James Baker could be at home. But, alas, in the era of Donald Trump, the Tea Party, the evangelical right, and the ideological billionaires who are all too eager to fund their antics, we will not see sanity on the right side of the aisle this year or the foreseeable future.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Doesn't have to leave office?! Gee, it didn't work that way here in Washington for our Auditor!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The party of personal responsibility and family values fails again. When will the voters get a clue?
* In Paxton's defense, he was busy saving Texas from the Jade Helm 15 Obama takeover. s/
* He doesn't have to leave office while facing trial, but anyone with even a shred of honor or respect for the law would resign immediately. How is anyone going to take the legal system seriously if the Attorney General is facing 1st degree felony charges?
* But, but, he's a family values Republican!!!!
* what a great deal these politician/lawyers get !!! doesnt even have to leave office and still gets a paycheck. Where can i sign up for that program?
* Perry is under indictment. The present governor is chasing Jade Helm 15 and now the Attorney General under indictment. Texas is a mess.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Indicted
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has been indicted by a grand jury, multiple outlets reported on Saturday.
The indictments were handed down on Tuesday and will be unsealed Monday. Paxton faces three felony charges: two counts of first-degree securities fraud and a third-degree charge of failing to register with the state securities board, The New York Times reported.
Paxton's office did not immediately return a request for comment.
Paxton is accused of misleading and encouraging investors to put over $600,000 in a technology company without disclosing that he received a fee on their investment and while serving in the Texas House of Representatives, The New York Times reported.
Paxton also had a similar arrangement with a financial management firm that was accused of “unethical and fraudulent conduct,” The Dallas Morning News reported in May. Last year, Paxton admitted to the Texas State Securities Board that he improperly did not register as an investment adviser when referring clients, and paid a $1,000 fine.
But failing to register with the board can also be prosecuted as a criminal charge. After Paxton paid the fine, a watchdog group then filed a complaint asking that Paxton face criminal charges, which eventually led to an investigation by the Texas Rangers. A special prosecutor appointed in the case told WFAA in May that the investigation had led to new evidence.
Paxton has sued the Obama administration multiple times on issues such as immigration, the environment and benefits for same-sex couples.
Paxton can surrender and get booked at any of the state's county jails, according to WFAA. He does not have to leave office while facing trial.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The party of personal responsibility and family values fails again. When will the voters get a clue?
* In Paxton's defense, he was busy saving Texas from the Jade Helm 15 Obama takeover. s/
* He doesn't have to leave office while facing trial, but anyone with even a shred of honor or respect for the law would resign immediately. How is anyone going to take the legal system seriously if the Attorney General is facing 1st degree felony charges?
* But, but, he's a family values Republican!!!!
* what a great deal these politician/lawyers get !!! doesnt even have to leave office and still gets a paycheck. Where can i sign up for that program?
* Perry is under indictment. The present governor is chasing Jade Helm 15 and now the Attorney General under indictment. Texas is a mess.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Indicted
He does not have to leave office while facing trial.
By Sam Levine, August 1, 2015Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has been indicted by a grand jury, multiple outlets reported on Saturday.
The indictments were handed down on Tuesday and will be unsealed Monday. Paxton faces three felony charges: two counts of first-degree securities fraud and a third-degree charge of failing to register with the state securities board, The New York Times reported.
Paxton's office did not immediately return a request for comment.
Paxton is accused of misleading and encouraging investors to put over $600,000 in a technology company without disclosing that he received a fee on their investment and while serving in the Texas House of Representatives, The New York Times reported.
Paxton also had a similar arrangement with a financial management firm that was accused of “unethical and fraudulent conduct,” The Dallas Morning News reported in May. Last year, Paxton admitted to the Texas State Securities Board that he improperly did not register as an investment adviser when referring clients, and paid a $1,000 fine.
But failing to register with the board can also be prosecuted as a criminal charge. After Paxton paid the fine, a watchdog group then filed a complaint asking that Paxton face criminal charges, which eventually led to an investigation by the Texas Rangers. A special prosecutor appointed in the case told WFAA in May that the investigation had led to new evidence.
Paxton has sued the Obama administration multiple times on issues such as immigration, the environment and benefits for same-sex couples.
Paxton can surrender and get booked at any of the state's county jails, according to WFAA. He does not have to leave office while facing trial.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wow, this is so close to the real thing! LOL
.....................................................................................................................................
Friday, July 31, 2015
Cruz "isn't fit to be President because his behavior over the past several weeks has been anything but presidential ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* ha..ha.. only the most uninformed are impressed with Cruz. frankly, after his much ballyhooed resume'... I was looking forward to see whatkind of orator & debater he would be.. sorry to say.. he left me underwhelmed.. that thin voice with no range is grating to the ear.. he sure talks a lot but listen carefully it carries no substance.. he speaks in a manner of the televangelist.. he is a bore. even that melodrama he concocted chastising Mc. one could see he really tried to make an impression. it's all conduct unbecoming on Senate floor.. sorry. he doesn't make the cut.
* Terd Cruz shouldn't even be a Senator.
* have you see his base? it says a lot about him.. he demands total subservience. when he really has nothing to say.. like you said.. misquotes his opponents to illicit an effect.. he is soul-less.. & thinks he's the smartest man in the room.. he isn't.. he's nothing but a junior first term senator.. desperately lusting to become President, most of all.. he doesn't have a clue how the game is played nor know the rules.. Just bec O managed it.. doesn't mean it will happen it again.. Obama was the exception to the rule.. not the norm.. one can even go as far as to say. destiny touched his shoulder. who would ever think for a second.. in our lifetime.. we'll have a black President.?!
* Cruz has nothing to offer. He has nothing to give but being an obstrucionist. He never comes up with anything but is constantly tearing down whatever others do come up with whether it's Democrats or members of his on party. He would not even be a senator in any othr state wxcept Texas. They seem to like bullies who have nothing to offer but the ability to rip into others ideas.
* Cruz has nothing but screws loose. If he were a car he'd be recalled. I think Texan's like to elect the truth twisters, to any office. You sure don't need an xray to see through him.
* Ted Cruz may have cross the line but what about your friend, Donald Trump. No one would have survive the indignities, the lack of respect and demeaning nature of Trump for peers. Why is it that no one wants to hold Trump accountable for his actions, why does he get a free pass. It was the same way with Obama, the public some how someway creates a wall around these candidates that the media and the journalists dare not enter. Lets face it, the media is scare to death of criticizing, attacking or questioning political figures that the public has place on a pedestal. That is what is hurting this country.
COMMENTS:
* ha..ha.. only the most uninformed are impressed with Cruz. frankly, after his much ballyhooed resume'... I was looking forward to see whatkind of orator & debater he would be.. sorry to say.. he left me underwhelmed.. that thin voice with no range is grating to the ear.. he sure talks a lot but listen carefully it carries no substance.. he speaks in a manner of the televangelist.. he is a bore. even that melodrama he concocted chastising Mc. one could see he really tried to make an impression. it's all conduct unbecoming on Senate floor.. sorry. he doesn't make the cut.
* Terd Cruz shouldn't even be a Senator.
* have you see his base? it says a lot about him.. he demands total subservience. when he really has nothing to say.. like you said.. misquotes his opponents to illicit an effect.. he is soul-less.. & thinks he's the smartest man in the room.. he isn't.. he's nothing but a junior first term senator.. desperately lusting to become President, most of all.. he doesn't have a clue how the game is played nor know the rules.. Just bec O managed it.. doesn't mean it will happen it again.. Obama was the exception to the rule.. not the norm.. one can even go as far as to say. destiny touched his shoulder. who would ever think for a second.. in our lifetime.. we'll have a black President.?!
* Cruz has nothing to offer. He has nothing to give but being an obstrucionist. He never comes up with anything but is constantly tearing down whatever others do come up with whether it's Democrats or members of his on party. He would not even be a senator in any othr state wxcept Texas. They seem to like bullies who have nothing to offer but the ability to rip into others ideas.
* Cruz has nothing but screws loose. If he were a car he'd be recalled. I think Texan's like to elect the truth twisters, to any office. You sure don't need an xray to see through him.
* Ted Cruz may have cross the line but what about your friend, Donald Trump. No one would have survive the indignities, the lack of respect and demeaning nature of Trump for peers. Why is it that no one wants to hold Trump accountable for his actions, why does he get a free pass. It was the same way with Obama, the public some how someway creates a wall around these candidates that the media and the journalists dare not enter. Lets face it, the media is scare to death of criticizing, attacking or questioning political figures that the public has place on a pedestal. That is what is hurting this country.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz Just Disqualified Himself for President, Part II
By Daniel R. DePetris, July 31, 2015
For a person who wants to be President of the United States, Sen. Ted Cruz is sure not acting presidential.
When he was Majority Leader, Harry Reid called Ted Cruz a "schoolyard bully" on the Senate floor. I won't go that far, because I don't know the man personally; I've never spoken to him, and it would be unfair for me to characterize someone in such a personal fashion without doing so. But I will reiterate something that I wrote last March: Sen. Cruz is not qualified to be President of the United States. It's not because he's a bully or a relatively inexperienced senator compared to colleagues that have been legislating for the past several decades (President Obama, after all, was only in the U.S. Senate for less than four years). He isn't fit to be President because his behavior over the past several weeks has been anything but presidential: calling his party leader a "lair" during a floor speech (something that he had to walk back as he was criticized by senior GOP senators for his conduct), misquoting witnesses during Senate hearings, and refusing to acknowledge that there are some things in this world (like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) that require level-headed, cool and calculated analysis.
A big part of being a Commander-in-Chief is to demonstrate the fortitude to treat your political opponents with respect, refraining from attacks directed at an individual just because your opponent happens to express a different position on a policy, and engaging in a pragmatism that enables the country to move forward. One can argue whether President George W. Bush and President Barak Obama's policies are wrong or foolish, but you can't argue the fact that both men acted like a President -- that is, exhibited the characteristics of patience during times of crisis or confrontation. Can we say the same thing about Ted Cruz, a senator that has based his entire political career on confrontation?
Confrontation, of course, is not necessarily a bad thing on is own. Sometimes, you need to stand up to your bosses (in Cruz's case, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) when you think they are straying on the wrong path or giving up their principles for the sake of political expediency. But other times, confrontation is downright disrespectful and doesn't do him any favors.
Take the Iran nuclear agreement. Congressional Republicans as well as some Democrats are absolutely convinced that the JCPOA negotiated by the Obama administration and six other countries is a terrible mistake. Whether it concerns the 24-day waiting period to gain access to undeclared sites, the $50-60 billion that Tehran will receive in sanctions relief, or the 15-year limitation on Iran's uranium stockpile (Iran will be free to enrich as much as it wants, for as long as it wants), plenty of lawmakers are concerned about what the White House agreed to. This is fair game. What isn't appropriate is when a member of Congress -- any member of Congress -- turns that legitimate opposition into an exhibition that has no basis in reality.
Sen. Cruz's questioning of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on July 29 is a perfect illustration. Cruz could have done what many of his Republican colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did: give a lengthy speech about why the Iran deal is a bad one and why U.S. negotiators needed to hold out for something better. Instead, Cruz (and Sen. Lindsey Graham, I might add) used his several minutes of questioning time (starts at 2:41:33) to misquote Secretary Kerry, attempt to trap him into apologizing to the families of U.S. service members who were killed in Iraq by Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, and misquoted Secretary Moniz's position on EMP's. How that helped the American people better understand a long and complicated 159-page diplomatic agreement is beyond me.
This useless encounter was after Cruz called "the Obama administration the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism" thanks to the billions of dollars in sanctions relief that Tehran would receive if they complied by the JCPOA. That remark was so ridiculous that 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney called it "way over the line" in a tweet.
Is this the type of rhetoric that we want a future President of the United States to use? Ted Cruz can blast the Iran agreement all he wants, but making up things as he goes along ain't working for him.
...................................................................................................................................................................
By Daniel R. DePetris, July 31, 2015
For a person who wants to be President of the United States, Sen. Ted Cruz is sure not acting presidential.
When he was Majority Leader, Harry Reid called Ted Cruz a "schoolyard bully" on the Senate floor. I won't go that far, because I don't know the man personally; I've never spoken to him, and it would be unfair for me to characterize someone in such a personal fashion without doing so. But I will reiterate something that I wrote last March: Sen. Cruz is not qualified to be President of the United States. It's not because he's a bully or a relatively inexperienced senator compared to colleagues that have been legislating for the past several decades (President Obama, after all, was only in the U.S. Senate for less than four years). He isn't fit to be President because his behavior over the past several weeks has been anything but presidential: calling his party leader a "lair" during a floor speech (something that he had to walk back as he was criticized by senior GOP senators for his conduct), misquoting witnesses during Senate hearings, and refusing to acknowledge that there are some things in this world (like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) that require level-headed, cool and calculated analysis.
A big part of being a Commander-in-Chief is to demonstrate the fortitude to treat your political opponents with respect, refraining from attacks directed at an individual just because your opponent happens to express a different position on a policy, and engaging in a pragmatism that enables the country to move forward. One can argue whether President George W. Bush and President Barak Obama's policies are wrong or foolish, but you can't argue the fact that both men acted like a President -- that is, exhibited the characteristics of patience during times of crisis or confrontation. Can we say the same thing about Ted Cruz, a senator that has based his entire political career on confrontation?
Confrontation, of course, is not necessarily a bad thing on is own. Sometimes, you need to stand up to your bosses (in Cruz's case, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) when you think they are straying on the wrong path or giving up their principles for the sake of political expediency. But other times, confrontation is downright disrespectful and doesn't do him any favors.
Take the Iran nuclear agreement. Congressional Republicans as well as some Democrats are absolutely convinced that the JCPOA negotiated by the Obama administration and six other countries is a terrible mistake. Whether it concerns the 24-day waiting period to gain access to undeclared sites, the $50-60 billion that Tehran will receive in sanctions relief, or the 15-year limitation on Iran's uranium stockpile (Iran will be free to enrich as much as it wants, for as long as it wants), plenty of lawmakers are concerned about what the White House agreed to. This is fair game. What isn't appropriate is when a member of Congress -- any member of Congress -- turns that legitimate opposition into an exhibition that has no basis in reality.
Sen. Cruz's questioning of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on July 29 is a perfect illustration. Cruz could have done what many of his Republican colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did: give a lengthy speech about why the Iran deal is a bad one and why U.S. negotiators needed to hold out for something better. Instead, Cruz (and Sen. Lindsey Graham, I might add) used his several minutes of questioning time (starts at 2:41:33) to misquote Secretary Kerry, attempt to trap him into apologizing to the families of U.S. service members who were killed in Iraq by Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, and misquoted Secretary Moniz's position on EMP's. How that helped the American people better understand a long and complicated 159-page diplomatic agreement is beyond me.
This useless encounter was after Cruz called "the Obama administration the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism" thanks to the billions of dollars in sanctions relief that Tehran would receive if they complied by the JCPOA. That remark was so ridiculous that 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney called it "way over the line" in a tweet.
Is this the type of rhetoric that we want a future President of the United States to use? Ted Cruz can blast the Iran agreement all he wants, but making up things as he goes along ain't working for him.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the danger in the room wasn’t coming from the deal or its administration proponents. It was coming from the interrogators." Of course, that's because they're Republicans!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* So, my conservative friends? You want war? Deal, on two conditions: 1: Immediate tax increases to pay all future costs of the war AND retroactively pay for all costs of the failed Bush wars. Patriots do not put wars on credit cards 2: A reinstatement of the draft. It's gonna be YOUR kids that might get sent to the front lines and get their legs or brains blown up. You up for it, or do you have a major money-mouth disconnect?
* Gotta love Lindsey Graham. Who wins in a war with Iran?? We win! (Just like Iraq!?) The sad part is, there are plenty of dumb Americans who will fall for the patriotic BS.
* The next question after that is who wins the peace? That's the one thing the GOP never did answer for Iraq.
* And Lindsey et al. are more than willing to make the same mistake. 'Merican exceptionalism in action.
* The question I would have posed in reply: "And who exactly, Sen. Graham, wins a nuclear war?"
* And people wonder why I will not even consider voting for Republicans any more. This article goes a good way towards explaining why.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Not Fit to Lead
The Iran hearings have shown how the Republican Party can no longer be trusted with the presidency.
By William Saletan, July 31, 2015
If Republicans win the White House next year, they’ll almost certainly control the entire federal government. Many of them, running for president or aspiring to leadership roles in Congress, are trying to block the nuclear deal with Iran. This would be a good time for these leaders to show that they’re ready for the responsibilities of national security and foreign policy. Instead, they’re showing the opposite. Over the past several days, congressional hearings on the deal have become a spectacle of dishonesty, incomprehension, and inability to cope with the challenges of a multilateral world.
When the hearings began more than a week ago, I was planning to write about the testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. But the more I watched, the more I saw that the danger in the room wasn’t coming from the deal or its administration proponents. It was coming from the interrogators. In challenging Kerry and Moniz, Republican senators and representatives offered no serious alternative. They misrepresented testimony, dismissed contrary evidence, and substituted vitriol for analysis. They seemed baffled by the idea of having to work and negotiate with other countries. I came away from the hearings dismayed by what the GOP has become in the Obama era. It seems utterly unprepared to govern.
If you didn’t have time to watch the 11 hours of hearings conducted on July 23, July 28, and July 29, consider yourself lucky. Here are the lowlights of what you missed.
1. North Korea. [major snippage]
2. Israel. [major snippage]
3. The IAEA’s “secret deal.” [major snippage]
4. EMPs. [major snippage]
5. Sanctions. [major snippage]
6. Pariahs. [major snippage]
7. Bad guys. [major snippage]
8. Indifference. [major snippage]
9. Winning. [major snippage]
10. Patriotism. [major snippage]
There’s plenty more I could quote to you. But out of mercy, and in deference to the many dead and retired Republicans who took foreign policy seriously, I’ll stop. This used to be a party that saw America’s leadership of the free world as its highest responsibility. What happened? And why should any of us entrust it with the presidency again?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* So, my conservative friends? You want war? Deal, on two conditions: 1: Immediate tax increases to pay all future costs of the war AND retroactively pay for all costs of the failed Bush wars. Patriots do not put wars on credit cards 2: A reinstatement of the draft. It's gonna be YOUR kids that might get sent to the front lines and get their legs or brains blown up. You up for it, or do you have a major money-mouth disconnect?
* Gotta love Lindsey Graham. Who wins in a war with Iran?? We win! (Just like Iraq!?) The sad part is, there are plenty of dumb Americans who will fall for the patriotic BS.
* The next question after that is who wins the peace? That's the one thing the GOP never did answer for Iraq.
* And Lindsey et al. are more than willing to make the same mistake. 'Merican exceptionalism in action.
* The question I would have posed in reply: "And who exactly, Sen. Graham, wins a nuclear war?"
* And people wonder why I will not even consider voting for Republicans any more. This article goes a good way towards explaining why.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Not Fit to Lead
The Iran hearings have shown how the Republican Party can no longer be trusted with the presidency.
By William Saletan, July 31, 2015
If Republicans win the White House next year, they’ll almost certainly control the entire federal government. Many of them, running for president or aspiring to leadership roles in Congress, are trying to block the nuclear deal with Iran. This would be a good time for these leaders to show that they’re ready for the responsibilities of national security and foreign policy. Instead, they’re showing the opposite. Over the past several days, congressional hearings on the deal have become a spectacle of dishonesty, incomprehension, and inability to cope with the challenges of a multilateral world.
When the hearings began more than a week ago, I was planning to write about the testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. But the more I watched, the more I saw that the danger in the room wasn’t coming from the deal or its administration proponents. It was coming from the interrogators. In challenging Kerry and Moniz, Republican senators and representatives offered no serious alternative. They misrepresented testimony, dismissed contrary evidence, and substituted vitriol for analysis. They seemed baffled by the idea of having to work and negotiate with other countries. I came away from the hearings dismayed by what the GOP has become in the Obama era. It seems utterly unprepared to govern.
If you didn’t have time to watch the 11 hours of hearings conducted on July 23, July 28, and July 29, consider yourself lucky. Here are the lowlights of what you missed.
1. North Korea. [major snippage]
2. Israel. [major snippage]
3. The IAEA’s “secret deal.” [major snippage]
4. EMPs. [major snippage]
5. Sanctions. [major snippage]
6. Pariahs. [major snippage]
7. Bad guys. [major snippage]
8. Indifference. [major snippage]
9. Winning. [major snippage]
10. Patriotism. [major snippage]
There’s plenty more I could quote to you. But out of mercy, and in deference to the many dead and retired Republicans who took foreign policy seriously, I’ll stop. This used to be a party that saw America’s leadership of the free world as its highest responsibility. What happened? And why should any of us entrust it with the presidency again?
...................................................................................................................................................................
"If Senate Republicans want to end the use of fetal tissue in scientific research, they ought to say so ... rather than seek to cut off women’s access to birth control." But that's not their aim-- they want to stop women from having sex!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The anti choicers never did have facts on their side, so they had to make them up. "Gotcha" videos are not facts. Unintended pregnancies are. And none of the Christ eaters ever want to help pay for any of the children they force women to have. They're like absent fathers who are there at first, then leave. But then, anti choicers are only interested in the "child" from conception until birth. Then it could starve to death for all they care.
* So ol' Boner is now going to wait for facts. Quaint.
* Hahaha. When these congress nitwits refund [sic] Planned Parenthood they will have absolutely no influence and PP can go in its most profitable direction.
* Republican policies on reproduction have *never* been about reducing abortions. They have always been about making sure that women face steep consequences for having sex without explicitly intending to get pregnant. You can't say you're against abortion, then do everything in your power to make sure women don't have access to accurate health information, and affordable, effective contraception. PP has been essential for getting women access to that contraception, thereby reducing the need for abortion. Call a spade a spade. They don't want fewer abortions- they want women to have less sex.
* ... YES. This describes the bulk of the anti-choice crowd in general.
* Yep, they continue to pander to the evangelicals.
* It's the weird Calvinist streak in the American identity... it's been here since the Mayflower and it has been trouble for nearly 400 years. It is just a small step from The Scarlet Letter and the stocks to Ernst and her squealing pigs. It is a terrible thing to see that destructive force rise again.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Senate Republicans accidentally promote abortion
By Dana Milbank, July 31, 2015
Senate Republicans this week, teeming with righteous indignation, introduced S. 1881, “a bill to prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”
Here’s a better name for it: the Abortion Promotion Act of 2015.
No doubt the authors of the legislation think that anything that hurts Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of abortions, would further the pro-life cause. But their proposal — defunding all Planned Parenthood operations in retribution for secret videos showing the group’s officials discussing the sale of fetal organs — would do far greater harm to fetuses than anything discussed in the videos.
There already is a ban on federal funding of abortion, with rare exceptions, at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else. The federal funds Senate Republicans propose taking away from Planned Parenthood are used largely to provide women with birth control. And because there simply isn’t a network of health-care providers capable of taking over this job if Planned Parenthood were denied funding, this means hundreds of thousands of women, if not millions, would over time lose access to birth control.
Take away women’s contraceptives, and a greater number of unintended pregnancies — and abortions — would inevitably result.
Consider: Of the 4.6 million people who receive care annually under Title X, the federal family-planning grant program, 1.7 million of them go to Planned Parenthood — and two-thirds of women leave with some form of contraception. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and other sponsors of the Senate legislation claim that other providers in the family-planning network will pick up the slack. But Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, says that’s nonsense.
“It shows an astonishing lack of understanding about how these networks are put together,” said Coleman, whose membership includes not just Planned Parenthood but also hospitals, state governments, local health departments and others — most of which don’t provide abortions. “This is not a network that’s ready to roll,” she said. Even with Planned Parenthood still in the equation, “they are worried about their capacity to do what they’re doing.”
Coleman’s forecast if the Senate bill were to become law: “We would see rates for unintended pregnancies and the need for abortions to rise. There are very real implications to the public health.”
Planned Parenthood has itself to blame for the current crisis: Even if fetal organ sales are legal and rare, and even if the videos were highly edited by ideological foes trying to entrap Planned Parenthood by using phony identities, officials at the organization should have known they were a fat target for such things. There’s no excuse for callous talk about how the group is “very good” at performing abortions so that fetal hearts, lungs and livers can be kept intact and sold. (Planned Parenthood didn’t respond to a request for information I made this .)
But antiabortion forces, in their zeal to slay their bĂŞte noire, are actually attempting something sure to increase the number of abortions: Denying women access to birth control. In June, I wrote about the paradox of antiabortion organizations’ antipathy toward expanding the availability of long-acting birth control — a policy that would do more than anything else (including severe abortion restrictions) to reduce abortion. The same perverse logic is in play here.
The Ernst legislation says that “all funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities.” But because Title X money is given as grants, this would be impossible to transfer to other providers in the short term, even if they were able to take on the load. And congressional Republicans’ assurances are suspect, Coleman notes, because they’ve already cut Title X funds by 13 percent, or $40 million, since 2010 — resulting in a loss of 667,000 family-planning patients annually. House Republicans this spring proposed eliminating funding entirely for the Nixon-era Title X program.
If Republicans are genuinely outraged about the Planned Parenthood videos, perhaps they should revisit the federal law that makes legal such harvesting of fetal tissue for research. Those standards were enacted in 1993, with the support of, among others, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), now the majority leader and a co-sponsor of Ernst’s bill. If Senate Republicans want to end the use of fetal tissue in scientific research, they ought to say so — and endure an outcry from the medical community — rather than seek to cut off women’s access to birth control.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a sensible alternative to the Senate Republicans’ approach. “There’s an investigation underway and I expect that there will be hearings,” he said. “And as that process develops, we’ll make decisions based on the facts. But let’s get the facts first.”
Facts first: What a novel — and refreshing — notion.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The anti choicers never did have facts on their side, so they had to make them up. "Gotcha" videos are not facts. Unintended pregnancies are. And none of the Christ eaters ever want to help pay for any of the children they force women to have. They're like absent fathers who are there at first, then leave. But then, anti choicers are only interested in the "child" from conception until birth. Then it could starve to death for all they care.
* So ol' Boner is now going to wait for facts. Quaint.
* Hahaha. When these congress nitwits refund [sic] Planned Parenthood they will have absolutely no influence and PP can go in its most profitable direction.
* Republican policies on reproduction have *never* been about reducing abortions. They have always been about making sure that women face steep consequences for having sex without explicitly intending to get pregnant. You can't say you're against abortion, then do everything in your power to make sure women don't have access to accurate health information, and affordable, effective contraception. PP has been essential for getting women access to that contraception, thereby reducing the need for abortion. Call a spade a spade. They don't want fewer abortions- they want women to have less sex.
* ... YES. This describes the bulk of the anti-choice crowd in general.
* Yep, they continue to pander to the evangelicals.
* It's the weird Calvinist streak in the American identity... it's been here since the Mayflower and it has been trouble for nearly 400 years. It is just a small step from The Scarlet Letter and the stocks to Ernst and her squealing pigs. It is a terrible thing to see that destructive force rise again.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Senate Republicans accidentally promote abortion
By Dana Milbank, July 31, 2015
Senate Republicans this week, teeming with righteous indignation, introduced S. 1881, “a bill to prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”
Here’s a better name for it: the Abortion Promotion Act of 2015.
No doubt the authors of the legislation think that anything that hurts Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of abortions, would further the pro-life cause. But their proposal — defunding all Planned Parenthood operations in retribution for secret videos showing the group’s officials discussing the sale of fetal organs — would do far greater harm to fetuses than anything discussed in the videos.
There already is a ban on federal funding of abortion, with rare exceptions, at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else. The federal funds Senate Republicans propose taking away from Planned Parenthood are used largely to provide women with birth control. And because there simply isn’t a network of health-care providers capable of taking over this job if Planned Parenthood were denied funding, this means hundreds of thousands of women, if not millions, would over time lose access to birth control.
Take away women’s contraceptives, and a greater number of unintended pregnancies — and abortions — would inevitably result.
Consider: Of the 4.6 million people who receive care annually under Title X, the federal family-planning grant program, 1.7 million of them go to Planned Parenthood — and two-thirds of women leave with some form of contraception. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and other sponsors of the Senate legislation claim that other providers in the family-planning network will pick up the slack. But Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, says that’s nonsense.
“It shows an astonishing lack of understanding about how these networks are put together,” said Coleman, whose membership includes not just Planned Parenthood but also hospitals, state governments, local health departments and others — most of which don’t provide abortions. “This is not a network that’s ready to roll,” she said. Even with Planned Parenthood still in the equation, “they are worried about their capacity to do what they’re doing.”
Coleman’s forecast if the Senate bill were to become law: “We would see rates for unintended pregnancies and the need for abortions to rise. There are very real implications to the public health.”
Planned Parenthood has itself to blame for the current crisis: Even if fetal organ sales are legal and rare, and even if the videos were highly edited by ideological foes trying to entrap Planned Parenthood by using phony identities, officials at the organization should have known they were a fat target for such things. There’s no excuse for callous talk about how the group is “very good” at performing abortions so that fetal hearts, lungs and livers can be kept intact and sold. (Planned Parenthood didn’t respond to a request for information I made this .)
But antiabortion forces, in their zeal to slay their bĂŞte noire, are actually attempting something sure to increase the number of abortions: Denying women access to birth control. In June, I wrote about the paradox of antiabortion organizations’ antipathy toward expanding the availability of long-acting birth control — a policy that would do more than anything else (including severe abortion restrictions) to reduce abortion. The same perverse logic is in play here.
The Ernst legislation says that “all funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities.” But because Title X money is given as grants, this would be impossible to transfer to other providers in the short term, even if they were able to take on the load. And congressional Republicans’ assurances are suspect, Coleman notes, because they’ve already cut Title X funds by 13 percent, or $40 million, since 2010 — resulting in a loss of 667,000 family-planning patients annually. House Republicans this spring proposed eliminating funding entirely for the Nixon-era Title X program.
If Republicans are genuinely outraged about the Planned Parenthood videos, perhaps they should revisit the federal law that makes legal such harvesting of fetal tissue for research. Those standards were enacted in 1993, with the support of, among others, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), now the majority leader and a co-sponsor of Ernst’s bill. If Senate Republicans want to end the use of fetal tissue in scientific research, they ought to say so — and endure an outcry from the medical community — rather than seek to cut off women’s access to birth control.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a sensible alternative to the Senate Republicans’ approach. “There’s an investigation underway and I expect that there will be hearings,” he said. “And as that process develops, we’ll make decisions based on the facts. But let’s get the facts first.”
Facts first: What a novel — and refreshing — notion.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, July 30, 2015
"... the Kochs are seeking to remake public perceptions of their family, their business and their politics, unsettling a corporate culture deeply allergic to the spotlight." It isn't going to work on me!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers Brave Spotlight to Try to Alter Their Image
By Nicholas Confessore, July 30, 2015
Once known for grim letters to fellow wealthy Americans warning of socialist apocalypse, Charles G. Koch now promotes research on the link between freedom and everyday happiness. Turn on “The Big Bang Theory” or “Morning Joe,” and you are likely to see soft-focus television spots introducing some of the many employees of Koch Industries.
Instead of trading insults with Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader, Mr. Koch and his brother, David H. Koch, are trading compliments with President Obama, who this month praised the Kochs’ support for criminal justice reform at a meeting of the N.A.A.C.P.
After two elections in which Democrats and liberals sought to cast them as the secretive, benighted face of the Republican Party, the Kochs are seeking to remake public perceptions of their family, their business and their politics, unsettling a corporate culture deeply allergic to the spotlight. Even as their donor network prepares to spend extravagantly to defeat Democrats during the 2016 campaign, the Kochs have made cause with prominent liberals to change federal sentencing rules, which disproportionately affect African-Americans, while a Koch-backed nonprofit, the Libre Initiative, offers driving lessons and tax preparation services to Latinos.
This fall, Charles Koch will publish “Good Profit,” a new book about his management philosophy and worldview that seems intended to introduce the Kansas-born Mr. Koch as a kind of libertarian sage of Wichita. The makeover attempt has even included the Kochs’ twice-yearly “seminars” for donors to their political operation, events previously shrouded in such secrecy that Koch aides once erected large fans around an outdoor pavilion to foil long-distance recording devices. At this year’s summer seminar, which begins Saturday in Dana Point, Calif., invited reporters will be allowed to attend some sessions, including those featuring many of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates.
“In light of the barrage of political attacks and distortions of our record, beliefs, and vision, we are taking the steps necessary to get our story out to the public,” said James Davis, a spokesman for Freedom Partners, a nonprofit group that oversees the Kochs’ donor network.
Critics see an effort to soften the image of a political and philanthropic empire that has budgeted $889 million for the 2016 election cycle, including tens of millions to build a grass-roots activist network, and of a family business that is a major lobbying force in Washington and has faced numerous threats of a consumer boycott.
Democrats, in the meantime, are preparing to spend millions of their own to paint the Kochs’ political efforts as cynical and self-interested. (“The Koch Conspiracy to Cut Off Millions of Americans’ Access to Healthcare,” read the subject line on a report released Thursday by American Bridge, a liberal research group.) And three books are in the works about the Kochs, some likely to be critical.
“These outreach efforts disguise the men behind the curtain and their true Tea Party agenda, which hurts Latino families,” said Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, who heads the House Democrats’ campaign arm.
The brothers are sensitive to criticism that they are recent converts to issues like criminal justice. Mark Holden, the general counsel of Koch Industries, said the company had become active in defendants’ rights back in the 1990s, after four employees at a Texas refinery were snared in what the company viewed as an overzealous prosecution of federal clean air and hazardous waste laws. The company and family have long donated to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Mr. Holden said, as well as to the United Negro College Fund and other charities.
“Charles obviously is a classical liberal, who believes in the Bill of Rights, and limited but necessary government,” Mr. Holden said. “If those are your guideposts, criminal justice reform is where you need to be.”
But the two brothers, who have a combined fortune of about $100 billion, have also increased their giving in some areas. Last year, Koch Industries announced a $25 million gift to the college fund, much of it for a new Koch Scholars program in which the company will help shape the curriculum. The announcement prompted the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, another donor, to sever its relationship with the fund — a publicity coup, some argued, for the Kochs.
Michael L. Lomax, the president of the United Negro College Fund, said in an interview that any political dimension to the giving was not his concern.
“My focus is very narrow: Is this program working for our students?” said Dr. Lomax, adding, “I don’t really get very involved in the critics.”
Allies of the Kochs acknowledged that their approach has been shaped partly by the bruising experience of the 2012 and 2014 election cycles, when Democrats like Mr. Reid sought to make the Koch name a dirty word among voters.
Over the 2014 election cycle alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, Democrats and liberal groups aired more than 53,000 attack advertisements mentioning the Kochs. For all of the power of their political organization, the Kochs were ill equipped to respond to attacks on their name. A culture of discretion runs deep at Koch Industries, which does not have shareholders to respond to and which is eager to camouflage its business strategies from competitors. Relations with the news media could be fractious: If Koch Industries did not like an article, its public-relations team was in the habit of posting email exchanges it had with the reporter.
Last year, the Kochs and their aides saw an opportunity. Polls showed that most Americans had formed no opinion about the brothers, a vacuum begging to be filled. The company has since expanded its public-relations team, bringing in executives with experience defending politically beleaguered industries — one formerly worked for the private equity industry trade association — and an in-house pollster.
Last summer, Koch Industries started what has become a more than $20 million corporate branding campaign, “We Are Koch,” featuring not the two brothers but some of their 60,000 American employees. The ads, which the company has said were intended to aid in recruitment of new employees, were aimed in part at hostile territory: Some ran on episodes of “The Daily Show,” whose host, Jon Stewart, occasionally mocked the Kochs.
The public-relations push extends to the very private brothers themselves. In December, David Koch, who lives in New York, sat for an interview with Barbara Walters of ABC and described his liberal beliefs on gay rights and social issues. In April, Charles Koch, who for many years granted only the occasional interview to his hometown newspaper, The Wichita Eagle, answered questions from USA Today.
In recent months, Freedom Partners, the nonprofit that oversees the Kochs’ political donor network, has also persuaded some of its donors to put their names to op-ed articles in national and local newspapers, helping shift attention away from the two brothers. Because nonprofits do not disclose their donors, it is impossible to know how much of the Koch network’s spending is underwitten by the Kochs themselves. But several hundred like-minded donors are members of Freedom Partners and more than two dozen donors have signed the op-ed articles, which take up familiar Koch causes like abolishing the Export-Import Bank or cutting the size of the federal government.
“Charles Koch’s amazing. He gets death threats all the time, and there’s a lot of misinformation out there,” said Chris Rufer, a self-described libertarian and the founder of Morning Star, the world’s largest tomato processor. “They called and said, ‘Would you sign on to this?’ ”
Civil libertarians have also sought the company out as a partner. Mr. Holden has made several trips to the White House, striking up a partnership with Valerie Jarrett, one of Mr. Obama’s top advisers. “People are pulling us in because we can be helpful,” Mr. Holden said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers Brave Spotlight to Try to Alter Their Image
By Nicholas Confessore, July 30, 2015
Once known for grim letters to fellow wealthy Americans warning of socialist apocalypse, Charles G. Koch now promotes research on the link between freedom and everyday happiness. Turn on “The Big Bang Theory” or “Morning Joe,” and you are likely to see soft-focus television spots introducing some of the many employees of Koch Industries.
Instead of trading insults with Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader, Mr. Koch and his brother, David H. Koch, are trading compliments with President Obama, who this month praised the Kochs’ support for criminal justice reform at a meeting of the N.A.A.C.P.
After two elections in which Democrats and liberals sought to cast them as the secretive, benighted face of the Republican Party, the Kochs are seeking to remake public perceptions of their family, their business and their politics, unsettling a corporate culture deeply allergic to the spotlight. Even as their donor network prepares to spend extravagantly to defeat Democrats during the 2016 campaign, the Kochs have made cause with prominent liberals to change federal sentencing rules, which disproportionately affect African-Americans, while a Koch-backed nonprofit, the Libre Initiative, offers driving lessons and tax preparation services to Latinos.
This fall, Charles Koch will publish “Good Profit,” a new book about his management philosophy and worldview that seems intended to introduce the Kansas-born Mr. Koch as a kind of libertarian sage of Wichita. The makeover attempt has even included the Kochs’ twice-yearly “seminars” for donors to their political operation, events previously shrouded in such secrecy that Koch aides once erected large fans around an outdoor pavilion to foil long-distance recording devices. At this year’s summer seminar, which begins Saturday in Dana Point, Calif., invited reporters will be allowed to attend some sessions, including those featuring many of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates.
“In light of the barrage of political attacks and distortions of our record, beliefs, and vision, we are taking the steps necessary to get our story out to the public,” said James Davis, a spokesman for Freedom Partners, a nonprofit group that oversees the Kochs’ donor network.
Critics see an effort to soften the image of a political and philanthropic empire that has budgeted $889 million for the 2016 election cycle, including tens of millions to build a grass-roots activist network, and of a family business that is a major lobbying force in Washington and has faced numerous threats of a consumer boycott.
Democrats, in the meantime, are preparing to spend millions of their own to paint the Kochs’ political efforts as cynical and self-interested. (“The Koch Conspiracy to Cut Off Millions of Americans’ Access to Healthcare,” read the subject line on a report released Thursday by American Bridge, a liberal research group.) And three books are in the works about the Kochs, some likely to be critical.
“These outreach efforts disguise the men behind the curtain and their true Tea Party agenda, which hurts Latino families,” said Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, who heads the House Democrats’ campaign arm.
The brothers are sensitive to criticism that they are recent converts to issues like criminal justice. Mark Holden, the general counsel of Koch Industries, said the company had become active in defendants’ rights back in the 1990s, after four employees at a Texas refinery were snared in what the company viewed as an overzealous prosecution of federal clean air and hazardous waste laws. The company and family have long donated to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Mr. Holden said, as well as to the United Negro College Fund and other charities.
“Charles obviously is a classical liberal, who believes in the Bill of Rights, and limited but necessary government,” Mr. Holden said. “If those are your guideposts, criminal justice reform is where you need to be.”
But the two brothers, who have a combined fortune of about $100 billion, have also increased their giving in some areas. Last year, Koch Industries announced a $25 million gift to the college fund, much of it for a new Koch Scholars program in which the company will help shape the curriculum. The announcement prompted the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, another donor, to sever its relationship with the fund — a publicity coup, some argued, for the Kochs.
Michael L. Lomax, the president of the United Negro College Fund, said in an interview that any political dimension to the giving was not his concern.
“My focus is very narrow: Is this program working for our students?” said Dr. Lomax, adding, “I don’t really get very involved in the critics.”
Allies of the Kochs acknowledged that their approach has been shaped partly by the bruising experience of the 2012 and 2014 election cycles, when Democrats like Mr. Reid sought to make the Koch name a dirty word among voters.
Over the 2014 election cycle alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, Democrats and liberal groups aired more than 53,000 attack advertisements mentioning the Kochs. For all of the power of their political organization, the Kochs were ill equipped to respond to attacks on their name. A culture of discretion runs deep at Koch Industries, which does not have shareholders to respond to and which is eager to camouflage its business strategies from competitors. Relations with the news media could be fractious: If Koch Industries did not like an article, its public-relations team was in the habit of posting email exchanges it had with the reporter.
Last year, the Kochs and their aides saw an opportunity. Polls showed that most Americans had formed no opinion about the brothers, a vacuum begging to be filled. The company has since expanded its public-relations team, bringing in executives with experience defending politically beleaguered industries — one formerly worked for the private equity industry trade association — and an in-house pollster.
Last summer, Koch Industries started what has become a more than $20 million corporate branding campaign, “We Are Koch,” featuring not the two brothers but some of their 60,000 American employees. The ads, which the company has said were intended to aid in recruitment of new employees, were aimed in part at hostile territory: Some ran on episodes of “The Daily Show,” whose host, Jon Stewart, occasionally mocked the Kochs.
The public-relations push extends to the very private brothers themselves. In December, David Koch, who lives in New York, sat for an interview with Barbara Walters of ABC and described his liberal beliefs on gay rights and social issues. In April, Charles Koch, who for many years granted only the occasional interview to his hometown newspaper, The Wichita Eagle, answered questions from USA Today.
In recent months, Freedom Partners, the nonprofit that oversees the Kochs’ political donor network, has also persuaded some of its donors to put their names to op-ed articles in national and local newspapers, helping shift attention away from the two brothers. Because nonprofits do not disclose their donors, it is impossible to know how much of the Koch network’s spending is underwitten by the Kochs themselves. But several hundred like-minded donors are members of Freedom Partners and more than two dozen donors have signed the op-ed articles, which take up familiar Koch causes like abolishing the Export-Import Bank or cutting the size of the federal government.
“Charles Koch’s amazing. He gets death threats all the time, and there’s a lot of misinformation out there,” said Chris Rufer, a self-described libertarian and the founder of Morning Star, the world’s largest tomato processor. “They called and said, ‘Would you sign on to this?’ ”
Civil libertarians have also sought the company out as a partner. Mr. Holden has made several trips to the White House, striking up a partnership with Valerie Jarrett, one of Mr. Obama’s top advisers. “People are pulling us in because we can be helpful,” Mr. Holden said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... couth ... is not in evidence on the campaign trail this year. ... Let us demand that the candidates respect each other and, in consequence, the rest of us."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* It all boils down to one thing. 16 candidates and not one good idea between them. Bluster, name calling, rhetoric, all just to hide the fact that they have no clue what to do. Ask Cruz how to fix immigration. The first word out of his mouth will be "Obama". Ask Trump how to improve health care. Same answer. "Obama". They better come up with something pretty quick because I can bet you that Clinton has some pretty well laid out plans.Itut plans.
* Huckabee does not "speak in Christ", & is a "mere peddler of God's word". As such, he is once again, on the wrong side of history, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/why-the-naysayers-are-wrong-about-the-iran-deal.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-re Huckabee lacks the wisdom to be President.
* The people who are reliable GOP primary voters are motivated mainly by fear and hatred. Anyone wanting to win a majority will be making a sales pitch to customers motivated by fear and hatred, and there are at least 16 bozos trying to win a majority. The math is pretty simple.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Lack of civility takes its toll on America
By Ann McFeatters, July 30, 2015
This is an appeal, plaintive and heartfelt, for couth behavior.
That does not sounds like much of a big deal, but, apparently, if you decide to run for president it is not uncommon to discard couth behavior as quickly as a sticky popsicle wrapper.
Being couth is described as having well mannered, cultured, refined behavior. It should have been learned in kindergarten. It is not in evidence on the campaign trail this year.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee likened the pending Iran anti-nuclear arms deal to the Holocaust, suggesting that it would send Israel to the doors of the ovens. This is uncouth. It is not even hyperbole. It is incendiary hooliganism. It is a strong indication that Huckabee is so desperate for media attention that anything goes. Even many Israelis were horrified at Huckabee’s rhetoric.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie likes to berate his constituents unmercifully in public forums, including schoolteachers. His aides used to follow him around to record on video his rantings or his “moments” to post on You Tube. This is supposed to be “telling it like it is.” This is being a bully.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has taken to calling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a liar. He thinks this makes his seem “anti-Washington.” It reveals him to be uncouth. Not surprisingly, he is one of the most unpopular members of the Senate.
Donald Trump does not hesitate to call people “stupid.” He relishes demeaning other people and other nations. That’s what he does. And, speaking of kindergarten, where bad behavior can spread like lice, the other candidates in the race seem to be doing their best to compete with Trump at his level.
People, what is wrong with civility? Why are we encouraging this bad behavior? Why have a majority of the candidates decided that we like this name-calling and constant repudiation of thoughtful, reasoned, intelligent debate? Is it any wonder that Americans are seriously worried about the future of this nation?
The amazing thing is that any decent people are willing to run, risking humiliation and their souls for public office.
It used to be called the politics of personal destruction. It has escalated far beyond that so that it is destroying who we are. In this month of county fairs and family reunions, we shudder to think of how many encounters will turn ugly because that is the only kind of behavior we see from most of our political leaders.
How about this for a change? You listen to me. I listen to you. We agree that we disagree. We see if we can find room for compromise. We say we respect each other’s right to his/her own opinion. We smile. We shake hands. We remain friendly.
If the political debates turn ugly, if civility is trashed, let’s resolve not to stand for it. Let us demand that the candidates respect each other and, in consequence, the rest of us.
And now, let’s get to those reunions.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* It all boils down to one thing. 16 candidates and not one good idea between them. Bluster, name calling, rhetoric, all just to hide the fact that they have no clue what to do. Ask Cruz how to fix immigration. The first word out of his mouth will be "Obama". Ask Trump how to improve health care. Same answer. "Obama". They better come up with something pretty quick because I can bet you that Clinton has some pretty well laid out plans.Itut plans.
* Huckabee does not "speak in Christ", & is a "mere peddler of God's word". As such, he is once again, on the wrong side of history, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/why-the-naysayers-are-wrong-about-the-iran-deal.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-re Huckabee lacks the wisdom to be President.
* The people who are reliable GOP primary voters are motivated mainly by fear and hatred. Anyone wanting to win a majority will be making a sales pitch to customers motivated by fear and hatred, and there are at least 16 bozos trying to win a majority. The math is pretty simple.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Lack of civility takes its toll on America
By Ann McFeatters, July 30, 2015
This is an appeal, plaintive and heartfelt, for couth behavior.
That does not sounds like much of a big deal, but, apparently, if you decide to run for president it is not uncommon to discard couth behavior as quickly as a sticky popsicle wrapper.
Being couth is described as having well mannered, cultured, refined behavior. It should have been learned in kindergarten. It is not in evidence on the campaign trail this year.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee likened the pending Iran anti-nuclear arms deal to the Holocaust, suggesting that it would send Israel to the doors of the ovens. This is uncouth. It is not even hyperbole. It is incendiary hooliganism. It is a strong indication that Huckabee is so desperate for media attention that anything goes. Even many Israelis were horrified at Huckabee’s rhetoric.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie likes to berate his constituents unmercifully in public forums, including schoolteachers. His aides used to follow him around to record on video his rantings or his “moments” to post on You Tube. This is supposed to be “telling it like it is.” This is being a bully.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has taken to calling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a liar. He thinks this makes his seem “anti-Washington.” It reveals him to be uncouth. Not surprisingly, he is one of the most unpopular members of the Senate.
Donald Trump does not hesitate to call people “stupid.” He relishes demeaning other people and other nations. That’s what he does. And, speaking of kindergarten, where bad behavior can spread like lice, the other candidates in the race seem to be doing their best to compete with Trump at his level.
People, what is wrong with civility? Why are we encouraging this bad behavior? Why have a majority of the candidates decided that we like this name-calling and constant repudiation of thoughtful, reasoned, intelligent debate? Is it any wonder that Americans are seriously worried about the future of this nation?
The amazing thing is that any decent people are willing to run, risking humiliation and their souls for public office.
It used to be called the politics of personal destruction. It has escalated far beyond that so that it is destroying who we are. In this month of county fairs and family reunions, we shudder to think of how many encounters will turn ugly because that is the only kind of behavior we see from most of our political leaders.
How about this for a change? You listen to me. I listen to you. We agree that we disagree. We see if we can find room for compromise. We say we respect each other’s right to his/her own opinion. We smile. We shake hands. We remain friendly.
If the political debates turn ugly, if civility is trashed, let’s resolve not to stand for it. Let us demand that the candidates respect each other and, in consequence, the rest of us.
And now, let’s get to those reunions.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)