This shocking story appeared this morning. It was written by Wayne Barrett, who is known to New Yorkers as a tenacious investigative reporter with a long memory.
To understand the Comey memo, Barrett dug back into Giuliani’s close ties to the FBI over the years. He hinted that he knew what Comey was about to do last week, when he came out with his announcement that he was re-opening the review of Clinton’s emails, even though he did not know what was on Anthony Weiner’s computer and did not have a warrant yet to search it. This was an explosive development that probably suppressed Hillary Clinton’s vote, as Trump strategists have said is their goal.
Barrett writes:
Two days before FBI director James Comey rocked the world last week, Rudy Giuliani was on Fox, where he volunteered, un-prodded by any question: “I think he’s [Donald Trump] got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days. I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”
Pressed for specifics, he said: “We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.”
The man who now leads “lock-her-up” chants at Trump rallies spent decades of his life as a federal prosecutor and then mayor working closely with the FBI, and especially its New York office. One of Giuliani’s security firms employed a former head of the New York FBI office, and other alumni of it. It was agents of that office, probing Anthony Weiner’s alleged sexting of a minor, who pressed Comey to authorize the review of possible Hillary Clinton-related emails on a Weiner device that led to the explosive letter the director wrote Congress.
Hours after Comey’s letter about the renewed probe was leaked on Friday, Giuliani went on a radio show and attributed the director’s surprise action to “the pressure of a group of FBI agents who don’t look at it politically.”
“The other rumor that I get is that there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion [not to charge Clinton] being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity,” said Giuliani. “I know that from former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.”
Along with Giuliani’s other connections to New York FBI agents, his former law firm, then called Bracewell Giuliani, has long been general counsel to the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), which represents 13,000 former and current agents. The group, born in the New York office in the early ’80s, was headed until Monday by Rey Tariche, an agent still working in that office. Tariche’s resignation letter from the bureau mentioned the Clinton probe, noting that “we find our work—our integrity questioned” because of it, adding “we will not be used for political gains.”
When the FBIAA threw its first G-Man Honors Gala in 2014 in Washington, Giuliani was the keynote speaker and was given a distinguished service award named after him. Giuliani left Bracewell this January and joined Greenberg Traurig, the only other law firm listed as a sponsor of the FBIAA gala. He spoke again at the 2015 gala. The Bracewell firm also acts as the association’s Washington lobbyist and the FBIAA endorsed Republican Congressman Mike Rodgers, rather than Comey, for the FBI post in 2013. Giuliani did not return a Daily Beast message left with his assistant.
Back in August, during a contentious CNN interview about Comey’s July announcement clearing Hillary Clinton of criminal charges, Giuliani advertised his illicit FBI sources, who circumvented bureau guidelines to discuss a case with a public partisan. “The decision perplexes me. It perplexes Jim Kallstrom, who worked for him. It perplexes numerous FBI agents who talk to me all the time. And it embarrasses some FBI agents.”
Kallstrom is the former head of the New York FBI office, installed in that post in the ’90s by then-FBI director Louis Freeh, one of Giuliani’s longtime friends. Kallstrom has, like Giuliani, been on an anti-Comey romp for months, most often on Fox, where he’s called the Clintons a “crime family.” He has been invoking unnamed FBI agents who contact him to complain about Comey’s exoneration of Clinton in one interview after another, positioning himself as an apolitical champion of FBI values.
Last October, after President Obama told 60 Minutes that the Clinton emails weren’t a national security issue, Megyn Kelly interviewed Kallstrom on Fox. “You know a lot of the agents involved in this investigation,” she said. “How angry must they be tonight?”
“I know some of the agents,” said Kallstrom. “I know some of the supervisors and I know the senior staff. And they’re P.O.’d, I mean no question. This is like someone driving another nail in the coffin of the criminal justice system.”
Kallstrom declared that “if it’s pushed under the rug,” the agents “won’t take that sitting down.” Kelly confirmed: “That’s going to get leaked.”
When Comey cleared Clinton this July, Kallstrom was on Fox again, declaring: “I’ve talked to about 15 different agents today—both on the job and off the job—who are basically worried about the reputation of the agency they love.” The number grew dramatically by Labor Day weekend when Comey released Clinton’s FBI interview and other documents, and Kallstrom told Kelly he was talking to “50 different people in and out of the agency, retired agents,” all of whom he said were “basically disgusted” by Comey’s latest release.
By Sept. 28, Kallstrom said he’d been contacted by hundreds of people, including “a lot of retired agents and a few on the job,” declaring the agents “involved in this thing feel like they’ve been stabbed in the back.” So, he said, “I think we’re going to see a lot more of the facts come out in the course of the next few months. That’s my prediction.”
Kallstrom, whose exchanges with active agents about particular cases are as contrary to FBI policy as Giuliani’s, formally and passionately endorsed Trump this week on Stuart Varney’s Fox Business show, adding that Clinton is a “pathological liar.”
Do read it all. The fix was in. Rudy Giuliani knew about it before Comey spoke. That violates FBI rules. Who will investigate the leaks? The FBI?
If it were theoretically possible for a human being to be more reprehensible than Donald Trump, Rudy is the guy.
Rudy who became a hero not by leading the rescue effort but by walking up Broadway away from the fallen towers .
I think Rudy knows about Putin connection and the Wikileaks timing, the book on the Clinton Foundation was in the pipe line, Kallstrom was in there, trumps political adviser is under investigation over his Russian connections, I think they may have planned this out years ago. NYC Russians have had dealings with Trump going back years,
Al Franken is promising to go after information around the FBI email release.
I wouldn’t be shocked to discover that Donald Trump has business connections where he sees a chance to make $$. But in case you missed it, the Berlin Wall HAS been torn down, and Russia isn’t our biggest enemy: we are, or that is, our oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, and the useful idiots who rationalize and justify all of it, the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” who vote against their own economic and political interests because one party or the other blows the right dog whistle.
In an era when DEMOCRATS are doing the anti-Russian baiting, and a GOP businessman is accused of being a Russian tool, there’s simply no way to focus on the real problems. After today, all the true believers in Hillary Clinton will think they’ve won something. If they’re well-connected, financially sound, etc., perhaps they will have. If they’re not, then on my view they better start waking up. Neoliberalism has not yet begun to fight.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education and commented:
The fox guarding the hen house as an invited guest….I’m so sick of politics and politicians. They all need to be run out of town.
This is so VERY similar to what has happened so many times before. The dirty tricks is now a part of running for political office. Whatever y ou can do to win. Statesmanship is pretty much delivered to the garbage dump supplanted by political intrigue.
some of us keep saying it but if ONLY Bernie had been the nominee. One honest politician who really has been fighting for us for decades.
We can only hope Hillary wins and really hope that in addition the Senate is taken back by Democrats then Bernie will have a powerful say in focusing attention on the what the Dhemocratic platform says it stands for PLUS the Bernie agenda.
Get out and vote. As has been said so very many times. The election will set the agenda for us for decades to come.
Gordon…for too many years we have lived under the illusion that we live in a democratic republic and that We the People hold the power to elect legislators who will represent us, any and all of us, Dems and/or Repubs.
We now see that the hubris of the real ruling class, such as those who can buy even the FBI, is defeating us.
Our hue and cry is worthless to the tone deaf media, the tone deaf officials of government agencies who consider us merely to be “noise” and unworthy of their respect and honest protection.
I cannot fathom how this march to dictatorship will end for us. I will still vote for HIllary despite her many flaws, but feel hopeless for my grandchildren. The Ship of State in America has hit the iceberg.
Today it is in the news that Paul Ryan is about to resign the day after the election. And that Repubs will win (because their inner circle haters of Trump will, in the end, vote for him) and “come back to the Repub Party”.
Gun sales are at an all time high.
Again I say that the inmates have taken over the asylum. I am certain that, as in the McCarthy/HUAC era, many of us who have been activists for Bernie and/or Hillary, are now on the enemy’s list.
MPG,
This is by far the most ridiculous presidential campaign in my memory. I am enjoying all the frivolity. The cast of characters is reminiscent of the Wizard of Oz. When can we go back to Kansas Dorothy?
Abigail, Do you have the red shoes or do I? Someone needs to find them. And speaking of Kansas, Bob & Libby Dole seem like pretty reasonable people about now. Dwight David Eisenhower as well, though he was from Texas of all places.
Yet I can’t see time mellowing my view of Nixon, Reagan, or GWB. I hope I’ll come to feel less angry towards Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, but it will take a while, and at 66, hard to say that I have enough clock-ticks left for that. Of course, Trump or Hillary might help improve my view of those fellas, but I doubt it. This has been one of the saddest moments in US history: a real chance for profound positive change and instead some of the most despicable mud-slinging at the presidential level I’ve seen (though it pays to remember that our presidential campaigns have a long, ugly, sordid history going back to John Adams).
Abigail Shure
To much at stake to enjoy it personally and for the Nation. But the cast of characters is out of a Chuckie movie.
Ellen, I see things the same way. Trump is not just another tricky Republican, and this FBI-instigated coup will be far worse than the Supreme Court coup that brought W to power. Because Trump will make W look like a saint. Trump is a different ball of wax. He is a type. A Roy Cohn/Joe McCarthy/Idi Amin and, yes, Hitler type. Watch the levers of the most powerful government in the world slip into the hands of a creature that is pure ego –not one shred of ethical fiber. This is going to be at least four years of Category 5 hurricane.
“a Hitler type.”
Seriously? I must have read very different history books. I doubt Hitler would have been a regular guest on the Howard Stern Show, been as funny as he is on there, and tolerated the less-than-flattering routines they’ve aired with someone imitating him.
But regardless, I find the “Trump-as-Hitler” meme both ludicrous and a disgrace to the memory of the millions who died at Hitler’s behest. There are good reasons that many people believe that one loses an argument by introducing Hitler and the Nazis first. We’ve had more than one recent POTUS who has been guilty of many deaths and who may well deserve to be tried for war crimes. And that would include a number of Secretaries of Defense (or War, as it was once more honestly called), and of State. One of the latter is seeking full power to make war. And while she hasn’t gloated over a handicapped reporter, she did gloat rather disgustingly over the death of the legitimate leader of a foreign government.
I get that people need to have one of them be a monster and the other a savior, but I don’t. I think they’re both vile and I honestly won’t be happier if one wins than the other.
MPG: Did you read this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html?_r=0
That sounds like Donald Trump to you? And this country in 2016 sounds like Germany in the post WW I years? History never repeats itself with quite that sort of precision anyway, but more to the point, I thought it was we socialists that were going to shove everyone we don’t like into camps, after taking away their guns, of course.
I don’t buy Donald Trump as Hitler. Not even close.
But let me add that if Trump really were a Hitler type, I’d sooner fight that kind of tyranny that what we’ve had under our neoliberal and neoconservative presidents, the sort that gets away with murder because it is able to convince its base that it’s saving them from the other guys. I think Hillary Clinton will be very destructive to this country and the world, and like her husband, she’ll have snowed the majority Democratic Party base that she’s keeping them safe from the GOP. Trump will play his own games if he wins, but I can’t imagine him being worse for the nation or the world than George W. Bush/Cheney or Ronald Reagan. Sorry.
This is from Ponderosa’s link to the NY Times Book Review….certainly sounds like exactly Trump to me,,,”egomaniac, bottomless mendacity, feeds off his audiences, theatrical rallies, adapts speech to lower class audiences, puts down hecklers”…Trump is a replica of Hitler (forget Godwin’s law)…..
Quotes from the book…see for yourself…..
” Hitler was often described as an egomaniac who “only loved himself” — a narcissist with a taste for self-dramatization and what Mr. Ullrich calls a “characteristic fondness for superlatives.” His manic speeches and penchant for taking all-or-nothing risks raised questions about his capacity for self-control, even his sanity. But Mr. Ullrich underscores Hitler’s shrewdness as a politician — with a “keen eye for the strengths and weaknesses of other people” and an ability to “instantaneously analyze and exploit situations.”
• Hitler was known, among colleagues, for a “bottomless mendacity” that would later be magnified by a slick propaganda machine that used the latest technology (radio, gramophone records, film) to spread his message. A former finance minister wrote that Hitler “was so thoroughly untruthful that he could no longer recognize the difference between lies and truth” and editors of one edition of “Mein Kampf” described it as a “swamp of lies, distortions, innuendoes, half-truths and real facts.”
• Hitler was an effective orator and actor, Mr. Ullrich reminds readers, adept at assuming various masks and feeding off the energy of his audiences. Although he concealed his anti-Semitism beneath a “mask of moderation” when trying to win the support of the socially liberal middle classes, he specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the circus. Here, “Hitler adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle-class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist and anti-Semitic listeners,” Mr. Ullrich writes. He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. Even as he fomented chaos by playing to crowds’ fears and resentments, he offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order.”
Well, Ellen, I don’t want you to go home empty-handed: you’ve convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump. Of course, there has never been a millisecond during which I considered doing so. Not that big of a win.
Do you seriously believe that repeated claims that Trump = America’s Hitler will win you a single vote for Hillary or stop someone who is inclined to do otherwise not to cast one for Donald Trump? What is the point of repeatedly going into the toilet and sloshing around the effluvia?
To not give pause and consider the effect of using the lowest tactics to win a “great victory” over alleged evil, particularly when the opponent can reasonably be suspected of egotism, ruthlessness, willingness to say anything to win, refusal to come clean about her highly-compensated speeches to Wall Street (and evidence that what she said was precisely what progressives suspected), who is absolutely no better than Donald Trump when it comes to her views of Muslims, except that she only wants to kill them far away from us instead of keeping them out (not that I support either of their viewpoints on Israel, Palestine, the “war on terror,” etc.) or rounding them up is to swallow one’s own fairy tales and monster stories.
Well, I guess you won’t have a night’s peace if Trump does win. Will you leave the country, as some high-profile celebrities have threatened to do? I’ll be here regardless of who wins, doing what I can to make things better for underserved students in poverty as they grapple with mathematics and social justice issues. Trump? Clinton? The world won’t be different the next day or in January for those kids. Any more than it really was for their predecessors when Obama won in 2008. You can fool me that badly once. But only once.
I repeat.
MPG,You did not answer my questions about the differences between Clinton and Trump. Are you ok with a Trump Supreme Court that prohibits abortion and gay marriage and gets rid of environmental regulations and gun control? Those are clear differences between them. Are they unimportant to you?Maybe. You will never need an abortion.You are probably not gay. But you do want to protect the environment, don’t you? Do you care about gun control? Do you think everyone should be armed? Yes? No?
I believe MPG stated above that he would rather have a tyrannical “Hitler-type” win this election than a neoliberal.
FLERP!, did I really say that? Could you point me to where? I write a lot and I’m aging. I can’t remember all the things I say that I don’t believe or believe that I haven’t yet figured out how to say. I don’t have a preference between Trump and Clinton. There is so much to fear, mistrust, and dislike from both. If I lived in a third-world country, however, I suspect I’d actually be pulling for Trump, but can readily see how many people would believe just the opposite. All depends on one’s perspective and tools for political analysis. If I just finished reading THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, for example, I’d be more inclined to fear Clinton than if I just finished reading THE ART OF THE DEAL, which would undoubtedly make me loathe Mr. Trump.
Looking back, I see that I did overlook part of what you wrote. You wrote that if Trump really were a Hitler type, you would prefer to fight that kind of tyranny than the kind of tyranny that we’ve had under neoliberal and neoconservative presidents. I made the inference that your preference to fight the former tyranny rather than the latter means that you would prefer to have the former tyranny than the latter, so as to offer you the better opportunity to fight the tyranny you’d prefer to fight.
It’s a preference for a fight that will likely have more allies and is easier to recognize as worth fighting. Getting Trump supporters to fight a POTUS Clinton will be easy – as long as one is willing to fight all the fantasies they have about who and what she is. That she isn’t, in fact, a progressive makes it rather unlikely that I would ever WANT to ally with them against her. And it would be well nigh impossible to get them to actually fight the neoliberal things she’ll do – just like it was impossible to get them to fight Obama’s neoliberalism and imperialism/exceptionalism even as they denied that it existed. All I had to do to start liking the Common Core was read comments about it online from Teabillies and racist Obama haters.
Getting Clinton supporters who really are center-left (both of those folks ;^) and people who actually oppose the sorts of things about Trump that I do and would go to battle over them – that feels like a win. I can join arms with people who actually have a progressive bone or two in their bodies. Not so with the sorts of people who really do hate Hillary Clinton because they think she’s a communist lesbian who hates the troops, hates Israel, and secretly wants Isis to take over America.
To Paul Goldenberg, who says: “The world won’t be different the next day or in January for those kids. Any more than it really was for their predecessors when Obama won in 2008. You can fool me that badly once. But only once.”
What you don’t understand would fill a universe.
To Branch Kinge,
Your statement is true of every human being who has ever lived or ever will. If that’s the most you have to offer, I already knew. I wonder if you do. But I do hope you realize that I know I butchered your name. That’s just my early morning quota of turnabout being fair play. If you can’t bother to manage to get my name right, just use the initials.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> Catherine Blanche King commented: “To Paul Goldenberg, who says: “The > world won’t be different the next day or in January for those kids. Any > more than it really was for their predecessors when Obama won in 2008. You > can fool me that badly once. But only once.” What you don’t understan” >
Hello Michael Paul Goldenberg: My comment about what you don’t understand was specific to your quote; but you responded with a completely generalized statement.
Let me clarify for you: My comment was about your “the world won’t be different . . . ” So I’ll clarify for you: What you don’t understand about what the world will be like if Trump wins would fill the universe. <–and that’s a metaphor–a bit of hyperbole, for this: Your statement reveals that you don’t understand very much about the extraordinary implications of Trump and his followers, not only about issues that Diane and others have discussed, like science and global warming, but on the institutions of democracy that, though battered, are still with us. The contributor who talks about Hitler is understanding much more than you on this issue.
I think your mind is closed on this–though I hope I am wrong on this (and about what will happen if Trump wins). But it’s not that all bad things will necessarily occur. It’s just that it’s shaping up that way in the things Trump has said and done; and in the inability of those who vote for him to understand those implications. It makes the oligarchic tendencies of a Romney look angelic.
I’ve said this before here, but what needed to occur for enough people to understand the dangers of a Trump presidency here in the US had to occur a long time ago, and won’t occur overnight or on a blog site where references to Hitler are seen as hyperbole–when, in fact, they are not. And you say you have a larger view–I think not.
Well, CBK, we’ll find out next week which monster we have been given and in January we’ll see if Monster Team D or Monster Team R is really everything the other team claims and worse.
My claim is that for the kids I work with, they’ll be dealing with the same horrors on November 9th and January 20th, 2017 as they were the rest of their lives, when Obama and perhaps GWB were saving/ruining America and the world. Like at midnight on January 1, 2000, when I looked out over Harlem from my friend’s 110th St & CPW apartment and noted, “Looks like everyone out there is still poor.”
If I were as blind, ignorant, and close-minded as people here are dedicated to portraying me as being, I wonder what I’d get out of it. I’m not even solvent, let alone affluent. And can’t become gay, female, or non-white by acts of will. I’d really love for Hillary Clinton to be what she sells herself to some progressives as being or as Barack Obama let us convince ourselves he was, but she isn’t and won’t be. And Trump isn’t Hitler. It does absolutely no one any good to promulgate that idea and harms the understanding of children who need to understand what Hitler and the Nazis were. There are little bits of fascism in many POTUS and would-be POTUS. Including Hillary. But she’s not Hitler either. That doesn’t make her a safe choice for the poor, the disenfranchised, the powerless. Not by a damn sight.
Hello Michael Paul Goldenberg: About “after-Trump” speculation: I think too many of us were born into the actual freedoms that living in a democracy affords, but now think that baseline is a given; and of course, it’s not.
Certainly <–yes, certainly . . . things will be different, for instance, for women’s health, for the recently insured, for the hope we might otherwise have for the survival of the planet; for our allies; and bullying will become better accepted as a kind of social expression, where in Trump himself, the bully-way is raised to the fascist-way by virtue of the incremental power afforded to him–basically, the bully principle is merely the smaller version (writ-small) of fascism (writ-large).
But the attack on the institutions that make a democracy–what we still take for granted–is what is more profoundly different, and set to let the vicious dogs loose.
Obama said yesterday that democracy is on the ballot. He was right. Things will not be the same for your students either in this regard–the peaceful transfer of power, the regard for the rule of law, the separation of powers, habeas corpus, our basic freedoms, and so much more. Education and our teachers do our students no favors by fostering the idea that, regardless of who wins in this case, all will remain the same for them.
But if many in both camps used hyperbole in elections before when it WAS hyperbole, and though there WERE hints, it wasn’t because we thought that a situation would occur that actually called for the same language and accusations that were NOT hyperbole but true. Regardless of the very human fault of overlooking nuance and going to the extreme, I do hope the polity–and I expect that teachers with critical minds, will be able to see the difference, instead of becoming accidental nihilists. Political naivete, relativism, and nihilism don’t belong in a classroom.
I’ll assume your comments about what teachers and nihilists (accidental or otherwise) do or don’t in their classrooms is meaningful for those who directly address things like who the good and bad guys are, with an aim to influence their students. I don’t and never will do that. Nor would it matter, since the voting age is 18, and very few of my students who are 18 would tolerate my hectoring them about whom they “should” vote for.
If you read what a wrote about my son, you might have some idea why I don’t choose to argue politics that way in my work. I’ll happily dispute it with another adult if I think it serves some useful purpose, but it’s like religion and dating: the three things that don’t form any part of my relationship with students regardless of their ages or circumstances. I had a world-class teacher for US History and Comparative Government when I was a senior. He was a conservative in the mostly liberal government elective and a radical in the mostly conservative history class. He refused to reveal his actual views until we were ready to go to graduation. As one of only two students who had him for both classes, I was amazed to be told that he viewed himself as a moderate Republican (1967-68 was a VERY different GOP). As a “liberal,” I thought he absolutely HAD to be a liberal Democrat.
I do not proselytize in my classrooms. Never have, never will. There are plenty of venues where I can argue politics and just about anything else. I’m not a nihilist, not even an accidental one. I am a liberal ironist (see Richard Rorty’s work) and an ethical humanist. I don’t need to convert my students through my position of power. Nor do I respect anyone who does. I will push people to explain and defend their ideas and to construct arguments with age-appropriate levels of rigor: in mathematics. I’m not naive, and I’ll take my brand of political analysis (also influenced greatly by the late Sheldon Wolin) over propagandizing and bullying the less powerful into pretending to agree with me to salve my ego.
Any other oblique insults you care to offer me will be taken under advisement. But I think you might want to consider what exactly comprises bullying, both in and out of the classroom.
MPG,
Reading your comments makes me ill. My mother barely escaped Nazi Europe as a child in 1938, and her beloved grandparents’ were trapped there. Their letters stopped coming in the early 40s.
My mother was a teacher and knew that Trump was dangerous. She didn’t live long enough to vote for Hillary. She knew the good and bad of the teachers’ union. I read your smug comments and I can imagine you as one of those Germans telling the Jews that they were worrying for nothing. How bad can Hitler be? His opponent is no better.
I used to think that my friends who were so angry at Ralph Nader voters were just over reacting. So what if Bush won.
Now I understand and the choice isn’t someone who falsely holds himself out as a “compassionate conservative”. It’s a man who has scapegoated whatever powerless group is convenient and who surrounds himself with strongmen bullies who believe in subverting the law to “get” their opponents. His son says people who disagree or embarrass him should be shot on sight.
This is like being trapped in a nightmare and sure, it’s possible that Trump won’t be as bad as I think. But you being willing to take a chance because you believe there is NO DIFFERENCE between the candidates?
I don’t have a problem with your criticizing Hillary heavily and if she wins I would be right there fighting for some of the same things that you believe in. But when I read your posts here, I truly understand the hatred of unions. It’s shocking that a teacher could say and BELIEVE “there is no difference”. You might as well be a Trump voter because statements like that come from the same ignorance and inability to analyze facts that you demonstrate. At 66, I hope you are nowhere near a classroom ever again. Your smugness sickens me, but no doubt you have lots of friends who are just as smug and delighted to see Trump win. Do you have children or grandchildren?
Dear NYC psp: Why do you post comments under an alias? I use my real name. I am easily located online. I don’t hide behind screen names. When someone starts getting as personal with me as you are now doing, I expect that person to have the courage of his/her words. You don’t. Hence, I owe you no explanation, justification, or even correcting every ridiculous and inaccurate statement you made about me, including who I have stated I’m voting for. Your mother was a teacher: I imagine she expected you to be a better reader than you either are or choose to be in reacting so vehemently and wrong-headedly about who I am, what I think, and most importantly, what I’ve actually said here. As MY nearly 90 y.o. mom would say, “You have chutzpah, with a capital Chutz.”
Does your near 90-year old mom read the things you write about Hillary Clinton being (barely) indistinguishable from Trump and agree?
Does she say “I’m glad you fighting the good fight to tell people how evil and dangerous Hillary Clinton is, just in case they might be inclined to vote for her because they fear Trump”?
You aren’t offering the reasoned criticism of Clinton’s policies that Bernie Sanders did during his campaign. You turned her into exactly the vile caricature of a money-hungry, treasonous, Muslim-murdering crook that the Republicans wanted.
You can’t describe a woman that crooked and make excuses for Bernie campaigning for such an evil-doer. You believe he’s telling lies to the American people about Hillary – woman just as dangerous to the world as Trump. No doubt because he’s just as much of a liar and sell-out to you as Hillary. I can’t imagine you’d be such a hypocrite as to forgive Bernie for supporting an evil monstrous killer of Muslims that you keep telling us she is.
You keep mischaracterizing ever one of our views. NO ONE here has ever said Hillary Clinton was perfect. We just question your insistence that she is no different than Trump. Your answer is to keep repeating that people say she is perfect or Trump isn’t Hitler and how dare you compare him to that and call me an SS guard. I guess that’s easier than to answer any of the many questions Diane and others have asked you:
What about the Supreme Court? No answer. What about gun control and gay rights? No answer. Just more of your “Hillary kills Syrians for no reason at all.” As if she intentionally looked for a foreign policy solution the would lead to killing as many civilian Muslims as she could possibly kill. As if there is some peaceful solution that’s just out there that she keeps trying to hide so she can kill more Muslims.
If Mitt Romney were running, you’d have a valid point about there being no difference between the candidates. If Jeb Bush was running, you’d have a valid point.
For some reason, you can only see what is most evil about Hillary and not one ounce of good. Would you have voted for Trump over Obama if he was the candidate in 2012? You think the country would be on the same path if Trump had won 4 years ago?
Or is your special disgust reserved for the woman who – if anything – is more liberal than Obama?
^^Correction: I KNOW you don’t plan to vote for Trump, so my comment “would you have voted for Trump over Obama? was ridiculous as I know you would not vote for Trump.
Would you have SAID: both candidates are equally corrupt and it doesn’t really matter who wins.
Do you feel confident that you are correct in your belief that America would be in the same place now – or in a place equally good (or bad) – if Trump had led us for the last 4 years?
I fail to register this as “shocking” as Hillary’s camp fail to register as shocking the various dirty tricks Team Clinton has been indulging in, in spades, since before the first primary ballot was cast. The so-called liberal media (NY TIMES, WaPo, Newsweek (which owns the Daily Beast), CNN, MSNBC, etc.) have been lined up behind Hillary Clinton for well over two years (probably in some cases since she lost the nomination to Obama in 2008). They haven’t exactly been Trump-friendly, nor were they at all Sanders-friendly. They’ve carried loads of cheap stories about the Donald, many of which boil down to “Will there be unspeakable horrors about Donald Trump revealed should blah, blah, blah take place?” which is the Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch trademark method for planting b.s. and filth into the mind and eye of the public without getting sued for libel and without having to have an ounce of truth to the speculation. Why is that okay when it might hurt Trump (or Sanders) but absolutely shocking, filthy, dirty pool when used against Hillary Clinton? I honestly would like to understand, but with less than a week before the election, I see this as simply University of Michigan vs. Michigan State or Ohio State: their dirty, unsportsmanlike playing is our “smart, tough, strategic, tactical football.” And vice versa.
So you see no difference between the corporate media and the FBI . Got it
Joel, why don’t you ask questions rather than put words in my mouth and then offer snark replies to your own conclusions?
Of course, there are many differences in play. But I suspect that what you really want to know is if I see the differences you want me to see and no others, to which I will save you the trouble: I can see what you’d like me to see, but I also see much more of significance that I gather you’d prefer I not mention. Join the long line of my fans in both the Clinton and Trump camps. I enjoy my ability to irritate both, when not annoying the occasional Green.
I have no more patience with your light weight views, MPG. You prefer to play the blame game than to learn how to influence and use public policy effectively to deter fascism.
I cannot fathom how your mind works and that you do not look to history to see how it is being repeated in America. It is a waste of time and energy to read anything you have to say, so I will now just overlook you.
@Ellen Lubic: so by light weight you suggest my diet of eschewing bull regardless of which camp it comes from has had its desired effect? Thank you for the compliment! I didn’t realize the new, slimmer me was so noticeable.
What history do you think is being repeated in America that only involves the GOP and/or Donald Trump? When Hillary kills off some more Syrians, Libyans, or other brown people who don’t matter (to her, to US corporate and military-industrial interests, to the interests of millions of Americans who can swallow the anti-Russian, anti-Isis (not that I like them, but I fully understand how WE created them) and other self-serving exceptionalist American jingoism because it keeps gas prices low and allows them to continue to take dumps on the environment and not put themselves in harms way in SD, etc.) is that history? Or only the right-wing rhetoric Trump has exploited?
I learned c. 1969 that the ends never justify the means. The means define the ends and reshape those employing them into simple reflections of the very evil they claim to oppose. Bernie Sanders learned that. Hillary and Trump and the rest of these low-lives never did. They are all, on my view, shameless, self-aggrandizing pigs of the worst sort. If you believe that DT’s flavor of evil is clearly worse than that of HRC, then you will vote for her or have already done so. If you’re like the loons I encounter elsewhere, you feel exactly the opposite, or rather the same but with the names and uniforms and labels swapped. And I will simply repeat here what I say there: you’re utterly blinded by your own biases and fears, and you don’t deserve to win. No one will hold HRC’s feet to the progressive fire when she’s inaugurated other than her major donors and masters in the oligarchy.
But I am perfectly content to have you call me names, degrade me, and ‘threaten’ not to read what I write. I don’t recall committing my time to convincing you of anything. I just feel like calling “hypocrisy” to both camps is an honorable activity.
MPG,
With great respect, I disagree with you. There is an enormous difference between them. Just to mention a few: A Trump Supreme Court will find reasons to overturn Roe v. Wade, gay rights, environmental regulations, any protection for organized labor. Of course, you will never be pregnant, so you don’t care if Roe v. Wade disappears; you are not gay, so you don’t care about gay marriage. But you breathe the same air as the rest of us. Surely you care about fracking and drilling and fouling our waters. Or do you?
Diane,
As I’m reading through this thread, I see that MPG’s answer really is:
Nope, I don’t care about those things.
I don’t understand why you have great respect for him. It is possible that there is some rational reason to vote third party, but he did not offer it. And his constantly saying “there is no difference” is really him saying: Whatever differences there are don’t affect me at all and if they affect other people, that’s tough luck.
MPG’s isn’t really a Bernie supporter — Bernie would tell him he was full of s**t. No doubt MPG is now certain that Bernie is just as corrupt as Hillary now and could spend hours discussing Bernie’s failings and how he needs to be voted out of office so a more radical person can win. Just like Hillary Clinton — the party must be PURGED of the politicians who aren’t true believers because the rest are no different than David Duke.
Only Jill Stein meets his criteria, until he hears something bad about her and can find another reason to rationalize his nihilism. It’s always someone else’s fault. MPG is so much closer to a Trump voter than he realizes.
Real people will suffer if Trump wins. He isn’t in politics to try to make life better for anyone but himself. Hillary is. Anyone who says there is no difference is lying, either to himself or to us.
It’s one thing to imagine I’ve said I was voting for a third party candidate when in fact I’ve stated that I’m not. It’s something else to state that I have said or hinted at the notion that I don’t care about anything that doesn’t affect me when I’ve stated repeatedly in the last 24 hours that that is precisely NOT how I make political or ethical choices. If you can’t be bothered to note that, you’re not worth taking seriously.
Further, you keep inaccurately claiming that I have said that there is no difference between Clinton and Trump. I haven’t said that. I’m saying something else. You don’t bother to attend to that, either, so instead you misrepresent my actual statements, then work yourself into a frenzy as you “smash” your straw opponent. Mazel tov! If every argument I engaged in was with someone whose words I got to edit to my liking, I’d be undefeated.
So, you’ve pulled the “my mom escaped from Nazi Germany so anyone who doesn’t recognize that Donald Trump is the second coming of Hitler was probably a German telling Jews not to worry about der Fuhrer” card. Who writes your material? Why not suggest that my ancestors were among Hitler’s concentration camp commandants? Don’t pull your punches next time. That my maternal grandmother and parents were all born in Brooklyn (like that Sanders fellow you so remarkably claim I don’t “really” support, something that shocks the non-brain dead readers of this blog), as were I and my brothers, that we’re Jewish, that we lost family in Romania, France, and Hungary to the Nazis and their lackeys probably doesn’t matter. Because I won’t commit publicly to voting for Hillary (nor will I do so in reality). Ever heard of the term “shibboleth”? Funny, but you sound as much like an intolerant, rigid, and, yes, ignorant totalitarian as that Trump guy you’re so sure is the American Great Dictator.
Of course real people will be hurt if he wins. What you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge is that real people will be hurt if SHE wins. And she’s already got blood on her hands in Libya and Syria, for starters. But don’t those people count because they’re not Americans, not “good guys,” not Jews, or not YOUR kind of Jews?
I fully understand now why you use a screen name. I wouldn’t want my friends and family to know I’d written the sort of thing you’re offering up here. Like many people who like to fight dirty, you hide behind the Internet’s anonymity by design. What sort of brave fighting against dictators will you be doing in your fantasy life when you can’t put your own name down to back your distortions, inaccuracies, and playground insults?
MPG,
You have a lot of chutzpah denying that you said there’s no difference between the candidates.
Some of your quotes today:
“I think they’re both vile and I honestly won’t be happier if one wins than the other.”
“who is absolutely no better than Donald Trump when it comes to her views of Muslims, except that she only wants to kill them far away from us instead of keeping them out…”
“I don’t have a preference between Trump and Clinton. There is so much to fear, mistrust, and dislike from both.”
I guess what you meant to say is that while you don’t really say it here, you see a tiny little bitty difference like the difference between Hitler and Stalin and it’s a toss-up because “”I think they’re both vile and I honestly won’t be happier if one wins than the other.”
I know you honestly won’t care. But I can imagine some of the Muslim students who you teach — the very ones whose lives you insist will still be crummy no matter who wins — feel very differently. But no doubt when you explain to them that Hillary was personally responsible for killing so many Muslims abroad and so they shouldn’t worry about Trump’s vile remarks directed at their families, they will really thank you for explaining to them they have nothing to worry about.
Smug. Bernie Sanders is going around the country campaigning for Hillary but you know better than him that those Muslim children you teach have not a thing to worry about if Trump wins. And if they do feel that hatred turned on them, you can explain that their “mild” suffering from Trump’s scapegoating them is nothing compared to all the oversea Muslim lives that you are certain were saved because the woman who planned to kill so many just to satisfy her bloodthirsty donors (or some other “vile” reason) didn’t win.
NYC psp: Out of respect for Diane’s space, I will henceforth ignore your insults and personal attacks on me posted here. You want a piece of me, just write: mikegold@umich.edu and I’ll give you all you want.
Ugh. I will never understand why public employees insist on discrediting their own work.
It’s as if they have no understanding of how valuable credibility is. They just throw it away.
They know half the country will no longer believe a word they say, right? Was it worth it? I hope so. They just pitched 50 years of work in the trash.
50 years of what exactly.
To Michael Paul Goldberg–you forgot the Huffington Post who has been up-front about their (right) disdain for Trump for a very long time. But you write: “Why is (dirty tricks) okay when it might hurt Trump (or Sanders) but absolutely shocking, filthy, dirty pool when used against Hillary Clinton?”
In this case, it’s an egregious breach of long-standing FBI policy and even the law on the part of Giuliani and others mentioned in the article. Also, you could as easily (even more so) say the same about Trump getting away with the worst kind of hate rhetoric, the worst legal manipulations, racist and misogynist, xenophobic and even enemy-loving, anti-Constitutional escapades, ever, issuing in a not-even-hidden double standard for judging political candidates. I claim those charges to be true. But that brings up the most deep-seated and egregious actions of all:
That is, as a general pattern, it’s often a matter of Trump’s “funny” relationship with the truth <–and I don’t put that in quotes on purpose. That is, from the Trump camp, if the press reports what Trump actually says (the truth of what he says via his own words), and it hurts him politically, his surrogates hurry to clean up after him while all claim that the Press is biased against him–for reporting the truth. “Crooked Hillary and the biased crooked Press.”
Also, if reporters report that something Trump says is false (citing evidence for that claim), then the Press must be biased against Trump, and FOR Hillary. In other words, it’s never about what is true, but what he likes or does not like, or what sounds good for him, or not. If he likes what you say, then he likes you. If he doesn’t like what you say, then you are crooked, biased, a loser, whatever.
We shouldn’t have to say this, but as you and every other sane, authentic, and reasonable person knows, a healthy regard for the truth is something we all have to learn–no one likes criticism; but sometimes it can have some healthy truth in it, even if we hate it with our guts. Trump never learned that simple but powerful aspect–of what is** merely growing up** for the rest of us; and he plans to take that absence of regard to the highest office in the land. Yes–it’s shocking when anyone is so involved. But in this case, it’s Trump, Trump, Trump and his Pooper-Scoopers, like Giuliani. God help us.
And by the way, if there were no truth, there would be no basis to claim “hypocrisy” for anyone. So don’t counter with some relativist cxxp.
I am totally FED UP with this election year. It’s ALL about $$$$$$ anyway. This country is in deep horse hockies.
It is always about dollars . Who in our economy gets them.
Look up Lee Atwater, the master of dirty tricks, for early versions of what is going on now.
Laura, Lee Atwater was good at dirty tricks, but he was neither an original (see Nixon, Richard Milhaus, particularly in his Congressional days), nor a master (see Rove, Karl). And once in a while, a Democrat will play dirty, unthinkable as that may be.
If it’s possible for anyone to be more evil than Atwater, it’s Steve Bannon. Bloomberg news, no left leaning news source, calls him the most dangerous political operative in the US. Bannon took leave from Brietbart news to work with Trump.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/
Agree, jcgrim. Trump has hired the worst thugs he could find…but then he was taught to be a bigot at his papa’s knee. And his great pal Roy Cohn expanded his view of the world of vice, theft, and immorality. His history with the Mafia seems not to matter to his followers.
The ruptures he has caused between people of good will bodes for a different kind of animus and has torn apart the nation. Some people here who are both educated and smart and with similar moral values have lost sight that others who now only VOTE for Hillary, but still know her history and have written of her flaws and past as they supported Bernie, do not ever say she is a great candidate, but only that she is less dangerous than the demented Trump. They forget that Hitler did indeed come after and murder the Jews, the deformed, the gays, and others whom he saw as inferior to himself and the Aryans. Trump is spouting the same behaviors as did Hitler in 1928 onward.
This is a different kind of cat than we have ever had run for Prez in the US before.
Diane…for the umpteenth time, I thank you for providing us with this venue, and with your words, so as to consider as a community of educators and others, the past, present, and future. You personally influenced my pragmatic decision to vote for Hillary. I was and still am a Bernie follower and am grateful that he is indeed still leading the charge.
Ellen, I don’t condemn anyone for weighing things differently and choosing to vote for Hillary Clinton. I just don’t agree with their analysis. Too bad that you have to demonize those who won’t go on record as voting for her or agreeing that Trump is the American Hitler. After eight years of hearing that Obama was the American Hitler (and Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Castro, and bin Laden), I’m a little exhausted at inapt comparisons of that sort. It doesn’t do anyone any good to wax hyperbolic about Trump or Clinton: one will be POTUS and we’ll spend the next four-to-eight years reading unending hyperbole about him/her, absolutely not one word of which will matter. Political action and work that fails to be grounded in some semblance of reason and fact will lead to nothing more than increases in global warming and air pollution.
MPG
I love your feisty resistance to viewing HRC as a progressive. She’s not. And Trump is not Hitler. But in defending your position, I think you ignore two critically important factors.
The potential Trump Supreme Court appointees can unravel a half century or more of social progress that I expect you value as I do.
And equally important, in my view: Trump’s policies, if he has any, may not perpetuate the plutocracy any more than will Clinton’s. In that respect they are tweedle dee and tweedle dum (really, really dum). But Trump is coarsening our commonweal to an unprecedented extent. He may not be “Hitler,” but his careless rhetoric is empowering and enabling a level of ugliness that may be irreparable. He didn’t create white supremacists or hate-filled jingoists, but he has legitimized them in their own febrile minds. He is, on a political level, the political equivalent of one who yells “fire” in a crowded theater. That is categorically different, and immeasurably more dangerous, than any dimension of the Clinton candidacy.
Can you agree with that?
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/meet-activist-who-smelled-something-fishy-fbis-anti-clinton-records-dump-and-got
Apparently the FBI is leaking all over the place -anonymous sources, of course. Who can tell what’s fact or fiction? All we know is that the leaks are aimed squarely at Hillary Clinton.
This might be one of the most disturbing aspects of this entire sordid election: Trump’s call for so called “law and order” -now aided and abetted by our nation’s internal security apparatus.
Wow.
John,
Both the FBI leaks and the Wikileaks have the same target: Stop Hillary. I am starting to think of Occam’s Razor. These are men who can’t bear the idea of a woman president. It can’t be principle, because Trump has none.
I find it a bit hard to believe that Wikileaks is motivated by misogyny or “fear of a woman president.”
And further, I don’t think Russia has anything to do with these leaks: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45778.htm
NSA insiders suggesting that it was Americans, not Russians, leaking to Assange makes way more sense. When you start thinking that Russia = leftists, you’re in the wrong century, and when you start thinking Putin and Donald Trump are in cahoots, aside from plausible rationales I’ve yet to read, there’s the matter of how close and chummy the Clintons have long been with Donald Trump. The mud-slinging that’s escalated between the candidates strikes me as street theatre and pantomime, not genuine hatred OR really deep political differences. Of course, if you’re prone to be swayed to the marrow by Trump’s outrageous rhetoric, you might just miss the reality beneath all the theatrics.
I no longer believe anything I hear from the vast, vast majority of American mainstream politicians or the officials running the show at the White House. And frankly, I think the theory that the FBI or the CIA or the NSA are interested in seeing Donald Trump in the Oval Office (sexists? racists? Tea Party members? All of them?) doesn’t hold water. It’s not that I ‘trust’ them. It’s that I fail to see the angle and have heard nothing plausible that gives real credulity to it beyond the fact that the FBI Director is a Republican, in which case, why didn’t he torpedo her in July?
MPG,
You did not answer my questions about the differences between Clinton and Trump. Are you ok with a Trump Supreme Court that prohibits abortion and gay marriage and gets rid of environmental regulations and gun control? Those are clear differences between them. Are they unimportant to you?
Maybe.
You will never need an abortion.
You are probably not gay.
But you do want to protect the environment, don’t you?
Do you care about gun control? Do you think everyone should be armed? Yes? No?
Diane, I really don’t know why you expect answers to what are clearly rhetorical questions. Nor am I required to state definitive yes/no answers to those questions, since they do not change one iota my statements or opinions about this election. I’ve long ago established that I do not see a lesser evil here. It’s simply a matter of what you believe matters most in the various ethical and practical equations of the world. And despite a lot of mathematics classes and more than average reading in philosophy, history, and political science, I don’t think that which monster gets elected next week will matter as much as the Trump lovers, Trump haters, Clinton lovers, and Clinton haters clearly are invested in believing. Those, too, are a matter of personal calculus, and everyone’s is different. My personally never needing an abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with my overall beliefs and conclusions here. I will never be pregnant, but I believe in choice. I will never want to marry a man, but I believe in marriage equality. There are a lot of things I support that don’t DIRECTLY impact me, but which I think make the nation or world a better or worse place.
Where we likely part company is that when I look at the BIG picture, I see far too much on the negative side of HRC’s balance that you either deny, ignore, or simply don’t see. And I don’t think Mr. Trump is Hitler, is Hitler-like, or is seeking to lead the US into some sort of more blatantly fascist state than we already have (or, for that matter, is more fascistic or totalitarian than what pretty much every POTUS since FDR has supported and promoted).
But of course, I’m a white, straight, male. Guilty as charged. That clearly makes me 100% concerned only with what makes the world better for me. The fact that some people here and elsewhere think that that is the way I think or act is what’s so utterly pathetic about these “debates.” The notion of having ethical beliefs that aren’t completely self-serving seems to have vanished from the minds of many on both the right and the left.
I continue to believe, like pretty much everyone who weighs in here, that my perspective is sound. I don’t need to start calling those who disagree with me insulting names, question their intelligence, or suggest that they spend their spare time eating babies or making child pornography. I just think they’re not seeing or considering things that I believe make me conclude, with integrity and seriousness, something different: we lose regardless of which of these horrid candidates wins. And I think that it will take even less time than it did with Barack Obama for many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters to realize that there was no way to come vaguely close to what they wanted in voting for her. No progressive flame will be felt through her expensive shoes. None.
MPG,
Can’t wait to read leaked e-mails from Anthony/Huma laptop. Huma presumably knows by now that her estranged husband allegedly has a problem and she left thousands of e-mails on “his” computer? Where is the dividing line between carelessness and recklessness? And yes, I am a Democrat.
Maybe Huma was a huge fan of Khadaffi and it’s payback time? Seems as plausible to me as Putin backing Trump and hacking DNC computers. Which is to say that I think someone in the DNC has been leaking the emails, not the Russians, and given how things have gone over the last year, I certainly would like to shake that person’s hand. What’s remarkable to me is the number of people who desperately need to believe that not one single charge of wrongdoing of any kind in her entire political/professional career is true of Sec. Clinton, but there is nothing too exaggerated, too one-sided, too preposterous for these same people to believe about Donald Trump. The man appears to be a twit, but if I were casting someone for the role of America’s Greatest Political Villain, he wouldn’t even get an audition. He’s implausible. Dick Cheney isn’t even dead and it’s as if the mainstream members of the Democratic Party can’t recall what it’s like to have a proven political monster in control of the government. Instead, we’re scaring ourselves with spook stories in order to make the impalatable seem savory.
And we could have had Bernie Sanders.
On Bill Maher, Michael Moore said Assange is an anarchist. The worse, the better. He’s not against Hillary per se; he’s against the Establishment. He thinks –idiotically –that the chaos Trump wreaks will wreck the Establishment and leave us with blissful anarchy.
Hmm, I’m a fan of Michael Moore in many ways, but I’m not sure the term anarchist as he’s using it applies to Julian Assange. That appears to be a far too simplistic label that lacks substance, though it certainly is a popular term to throw around. It used to be associated with a crazed-looking Eastern European bomb-throwing boogie man. Now we have it applied to a more sophisticated European who wants to immanentize the Eschaton? Not buying that one without direct evidence from Mr. Assange.
Assange is either a nihilist or he is on Trump’s payroll.
Why are all the hacks directed at Dems, no hacking of Trump’s emails. Or his tax returns.
Diane, do you think that at this point there’s something to be “leaked” about Trump’s emails or tax returns that will convince a Trump supporter to vote for Hillary Clinton?
But there’s a very good reason that the material about HRC is being leaked: someone with access to it gave it to Assange & Co. The suggestion that it works in reverse – Assange goes out and recruits leakers – is not supported by anything I’ve read or heard. Snowden leaked material; no one bribed or forced him to do so. Someone at the DNC in all likelihood leaked Clinton material. Assange is releasing what he has. No one on Team Clinton has yet to deny the authenticity of those emails. That’s what tells me that it’s authentic. And much of it is vile. That bothers no one who supports her. So the lack of ethics in both camps seems to me to be quite similar. The obligation of Wikileaks (or the FBI, for that matter), to be “fair and balanced” has no standing of which I’m aware. The NYT, WaPo, and countless other media outlets have been demonizing Trump since the conventions (some for far longer than that). It’s very late in a very dirty election for the Clinton Camp and DNC to start complaining about bias and foul play. They made their bed at least as far back as early 2015, before Bernie Sanders announced. They were already plotting to ensure that only Hillary could win. They got what they wanted. They got a lunatic buffoon opponent. How much more did they need the stars to line up for the coronation? And she STILL could lose. Is that ENTIRELY the fault of the FBI, Assange, sexists, racists, and die-hard Berniecrats? Or could it be that the Democratic power structure conspired to ensure the nomination of the most flawed candidate they had available, thinking that the GOP was so weak and scattered that the electorate would fall in line come next week? They’re probably right, but they could have won in a walk with Sanders heading the ticket.
The media hasn’t been “demonizing” Trump. If any other political candidate had said some of the vile things he says in a typical speech, or done some of the things he has done, they would have spent a week apologizing and then been gone. Trump doesn’t apologize and the media stops talking about it.
The man spent 5 years lying about President Obama. Five years claiming he had “proof!” and it was an outright lie. And he wasn’t even truly confronted until this summer. And even then, given a pass. Who’s the liar? Hillary.
This man claimed Ted Cruz’ dad killed JFK. And got away with it. Hillary Clinton says she didn’t get classified e-mails on her server because that is what the policy of her staff was, and she is called a liar because it turns out she didn’t know a handful of semi-classified ones that were never noticed were sent.
There is no equivalency, although I know you disagree and can’t quite decide who lies more.
But for the American public, having a leader who lies like this is very dangerous. Because he has never had to acknowledge his lies. This media that you think is against him has let him get away with it.
And this media that you think is against him have painted Hillary as a congenital liar. All evidence says she is not. Every study of her words says she is not. She is a politician her lies are no more than Bernie Sanders.
Saying that Hillary Clinton brought this on herself is like saying Jews brought on Hitler’s wrath. She is the victim of a very slick targeted campaign to portray her as thoroughly corrupt that has fooled many Americans. Just like her husband was the victim of a similar campaign. Both of them had more scrutiny and more of their lives pawed through than any politician in history — looking for any dirt that could be found.
Bill had sex in the White House with an intern.
Hillary used a private e-mail server that was not illegal to do at the time.
And both were willing to make speeches for as much money as corporations, banks, and foreign dignitaries would pay them.
She has the ability to make real changes to this country. She has the ability to be another Obama sell-out to corporate interests. But anyone who believes her to be especially corrupt has been fooled by right wing propaganda. The truth is this: She is not perfect. She is not progressive She is not Bernie. And she is not corrupt and looking to sell out the White House to whoever pays the most money. She is not a crook. And she never has been.
I went to sleep and missed all these later comments……
Diane wrote, “These are men who can’t bear the idea of a woman president.”
Yup. And, all this “Make America Great Again” stuff is code language for turning the clock back…way, way back….to a past that is NOT returning or never really existed for many people to begin with. (Cue the “Father Knows Best” re-runs.)
NPR had a fascinating piece on the other morning comparing Trump supporters in rural Pennsylvania to some people in England who voted for Brexit. http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500274786/in-the-u-s-and-u-k-anti-establishment-voters-sound-similar-themes
Of course, neither Trump’s paeans to the past nor Brexit will change the fact that the world is becoming increasingly interconnected, diverse and new.
And, women are playing huge and powerful roles in that new, modern world.
In rural America, especially, many men have found themselves to be increasingly irrelevant -economically and socially, too. Their simmering rage, along with the support of those people who enable them, created a political bomb just ready to be lit. And, now we see the fuse burning, getting closer and closer to November 8.
None of what I write hasn’t been said before -many times. Which just makes it all the more tragic.
John, since I don’t support Trump, I won’t even pretend to know what makes ANY Trump supporter tick. I don’t know anyone personally who says s/he’s going to vote for him.
But I am not voting for Hillary Clinton either, and I know many other people who feel the same. They are without exception lifelong progressives, feminists, gay-rights advocates, pro-gun control (sorry, Diane, but I forgot to comment on that issue earlier today), workers for social justice, equity, fair play, etc. Some are men, some women, some straight, some not, some white, some non-white, etc. Speaking only for myself, I don’t trust Hillary Clinton as far as I can toss a piano. I think she’s about as “progressive” politically as the average Republican was in 1966. I think she is dishonest and self-serving above all else.
My opposition to her becoming POTUS is grounded in nothing to do with her identity and everything to do with her political track record going back to her having served on the board of directors of Walmart. If I knew nothing else about her, that would make it very difficult for me to vote for her, unless her service was as a gadfly. Sadly, it was anything but. And sadder still, I know much else that disinclines me to support her, as I knew too many things about Bill Clinton in 1992 to want to vote for him in the Democratic Primary. I voted for him because George H.W. Bush was a former CIA director, two-term Veep under Ronald Reagan, and a proven war-monger in his first term. I could at least hope that all the negative things I read about Bill via Nat Hentoff’s columns in the VILLAGE VOICE were outweighed by the good he might do relative to Poppy Bush. I was wrong. And in hindsight, I think Bob Dole would have been a better choice in 1996. But I still have never voted for a Republican running as a Republican for POTUS. My 1980 vote for John Andersen of Illinois was for a man running as an independent. I probably should have voted for Carter, but it didn’t come close to making a difference, and my vote on Tuesday for Bernie Sanders won’t make a difference to the outcome of the election in Michigan or nationally. Except to me.
All that said, if you’re still reading, I take exception with the notion that a Trump victory or loss will materially impact the overall social direction of the nation. Women will continue to fight for a fair share of everything and will be supported by an increasing number of men. The Neanderthals will continue to fight them (and there are, as we know, females in that group), but they are a doomed and dying breed. We don’t move backward when it comes to social progress, even if there are always those who try to sweep back the ocean with a broom. Abortion, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state, etc., are here to stay, as long as people of good will continue to fight to preserve and extend the rights of all Americans (and beyond), as I believe they will. There are every day more of us than of them.
But I continue to snipe at knee-jerk demonizations of Donald Trump, not because I have any love for him at all, but because of what I see reflected in the extreme comments made by Hillary Clinton supporters and Donald Trump despisers, and because I am ethically obligated to decry the tactics being employed by some of those who honestly believe that anything goes in the Eternal Fight Against Evil!!! It doesn’t. The ends never justify the means, but, in fact, are perverted by the means when the latter are corrupt and inherently evil. I will fight to preserve and improve things as best I can, to protect myself and my loved ones, but not without limits or bounds. There are simply things I won’t do, particularly not when I see better options. Donald Trump isn’t Hitler or Hitler-like, Hillary Clinton isn’t even a holding action against neoliberalism, let alone an antidote. Pulling out the heavy artillary in support of her to fend off him? Not I. I will fight either one of them when the smoke clears because either one of them will need to be fought, vigilantly and fiercely, based on the reality of what they try to do, not a lot of smoke, mirrors, and hot air.
MPG,
I don’t know why I am spending so much time trying to persuade you not to throw your vote away. Maybe because I respect you. Maybe because you live in a battleground state. Maybe because all of the “extreme” characterizations of Trump are reinforced by Trump himself every time he speaks.
But I formally give up. Write in Bernie. Vote for Stein. Don’t vote.
Michigan hasn’t gone Republican for POTUS since 1988 as far as I know. I don’t think Trump has a chance here. But here’s your “win”: my son told me last night that he’s going to vote for Hillary Clinton and I made absolutely no effort to dissuade him. He’s smart, knowledgeable, wanted Sanders desperately, and can’t stand Hillary Clinton. And like his decisions about religion and much else, I let him make up his own mind (do I really have a choice?), which is to say that if he wants my thinking on something, I give it, but I try to use my best judgment about how to go about doing so. On this issue, we’ve discussed things repeatedly for a long time. My mom and aunt have also decided to vote for Hillary. So of the four members of my family including myself that I discuss such things with, 3 are voting for Clinton. That’s two votes for her in NJ and 1 in Michigan. I’d say that we’ve given at the office.
MPG,
Proof you are a good father! Your son is wise. He knows that a responsible citizen must take part in choosing our leadership, and we can’t take the risk of a (God forbid) “President Trump.” Imagine that vulgar mouth speaking for America! Will he pinch Angela Merkel on the backside? Will the Muslim nations break off relations with us?
MPG
Will he jail Hillary Clinton? Will Rudy Giuliani be Attorney General? Will Chris Christie be Secretary of State or safely out of sight as Ambassador to France? Will Ben Carson or Carl Paladino be Secretary of Education? We know Trump has a short attention span and we can safely assume that he will leave the day to day decisions to homophobe and rightwing evangelist Pence.
Thank you, Diane. I see it more as proof that I try to be ethical in my dealings. And that I know the limits of “force,” having been raised by a father who tried to rule by fiat. It rarely worked. And probably why I don’t “move” my views without long contemplation: I’m always looking for attempts at coercion as inherently worth resisting at least temporarily.
Do you happen to watch HOUSE OF CARDS? I love the by-play between the Putin surrogate (played brilliantly by Lars Mikkelson, the brother of Mads Mikkelson who was so amazing as Hannibal Lecter in the TV series and the current villain in DR STRANGE) and Robin Wright’s Claire Underwood. He has a lot of Trump in him, but it almost always seems pointedly motivated by his political agenda (well, mostly, anyway) and she seems to be a master of “internal” martial arts of the psychological kind: when she looks weak, she’s generally being incredibly strong. Or at least that’s part of what I see.
Trump isn’t going to be pinching foreign dignitaries, and I suspect that in his important business dealings, he presents a different face than the one he’s wooing the Teabillies with. But I don’t doubt that he’s also crass, clueless, misogynistic, racist. The problem with each of those latter two terms is that they are ALMOST meaningless. I know a lot of chauvinistic men and racist people, and the ways those general characteristics manifest themselves is incredibly diverse (ironically). I’ve already said that I don’t see Trump and George Wallace as similar sorts of racists. I’m not saying one is preferable, either. I don’t suffer from racial discrimination, though I’ve definitely been dealt with badly for being Jewish, for being antiwar, for being a skeptic about many widely accepted American ‘values,’ and most definitely for believing in the sort of Democratic socialism that informed the Sanders campaign. Sometimes I’ve even been smeared in the comments section of your blog! (Amazing, eh?) I wish the good/evil dichotomous construct worked as well in life as it does in movies and television. And even there, the better stuff invests people with many facets. Six years in, do we really know who comprises the moral/ethical center in GAME OF THRONES?
MPG,
For what it is worth, my ex-husband had extensive dealings with Trump, both in business and when my ex- was in government. He assures me that Trump is no different in private than in public, that he is a bully, and has no ethics. He is not respected by his peers in NYC. He is viewed as a con man and a power-hungry celebrity who needs constant attention and crowd adulation.
Well, Diane, I suppose that’s not shocking. Certainly not “disappointing” under the circumstances, as I have no intention of supporting him for POTUS.
I’m curious: did you read any of Nat Hentoff’s columns leading up the 1992 Democratic primaries regarding what his Arkansas sources had to say about Bill Clinton? They made me REALLY hope he didn’t become the nominee or POTUS. My hopes were dashed and I even contributed to their failure by voting for him in Nov. ’92 & ’96. In retrospect, he was neither what the Republicans tried to smear him as being nor “America’s first black president,” or many of the wonderful things liberals and some progressives hoped, particularly in the face of the non-stop Republican attacks on him.
Then we had the 8-year horror show formerly known as BUSH.
And now 8-years of Obama. I have emerged from it all with a profound sense of despair about the chances of getting another Franklin Roosevelt in the Oval Office (except maybe on the support staff, passing through).
Until Sanders entered the race.
On Tuesday night, if things don’t go all 2000 on us again, we’ll know what at least the next 4 years are “supposed” to look like at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. And then what. I still think it’s going to be HRC. I’m still waiting to hear about plans for how feet will be held to true liberal, let alone progressive or radical, flames. And waiting. And waiting. I predict that it won’t happen or be successful if it does. Trump can scream about whatever he likes. She’s be in, she’ll be cleaning house (James Comey no doubt has resumes out as we speak), and if the Democrats get control of one or both houses, we can look forward to. . . another term of not very much good, I suspect. But many will be excited for a while. Like in 2008-9. I hope things conspire to show me how profoundly wrong I am about her and the people she’ll bring into power with her. It isn’t going to happen.
Sorry, Diane. In my haste (I have a meeting in 3 minutes), I forgot to thank you for the kind words. You know I value your work and deep knowledge. We just aren’t in agreement on the particulars here, but that’s hardly shocking for a couple of members of the religion that encourages us to dispute with God. 🙂
I appreciate your willingness to keep on writing, MPG. I did keep on reading.
The U.S. Supreme Court is a key issue for me, as it is with so many people. Without it, the fight for many good things is going to take all that much longer. And, there’s so much we could lose, too. I don’t want this nation to go backwards -not for me, certainly not for my kids.
Although I don’t see all her points, I have to agree with the bulk of what Susan Faludi wrote in her NY Times op-ed piece last Sunday, “How Hillary Clinton Met Satan”. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/sunday/how-hillary-clinton-met-satan.html?_r=0
To quote Faludi, “The left needs to acknowledge what the right has long known: that it’s a fiction to think we can move on beyond the brawl of the 1990s without settling it — and settling it requires helping Mrs. Clinton triumph once and for all against the calumnies that were created to define her.”
Hilllary is a far from perfect candidate. But she is the candidate our country needs to be president, now.
John O.,
I have seen hats with two variations on Trump’s slogan.
One read: Make America Hate Again; the other, Make America White Again
Giuliani is playing foul. He announced the trump campaign had something up their sleeves 2 days prior???? The ” non-political ” NY FBI obviously out to get Hillary. All smells fishy.
This is big! I heard about Guiliani’s possible inside knowledge of Director Comey’s plans on the Don Lemon CNN show late tonight and am now reading confirmation of it here. I only hope that it makes headlines and gets major media coverage today.
You’re right, though–who would investigate this? Most certainly the FBI finds itself in a quagmire of deceit and dirty politics. Trump immediately used Comey’s announcement to his advantage, heaping on us more of his hyperbole, flagrant lies and contumely.
At this point, I can only pray that Americans will use their heads and imagine what devastation a Trump presidency would be to our nation, and that those with disdain for Hillary Clinton will think rationally about the alternative and vote ethically.
Americans, at their core, don’t like to be manipulated–and the Guiliani thing has the smell of manipulation. To the question “who watches the FBI”?” THE PRESS and THE PEOPLE who, hopefully “get it.”
This revelation is going to cost Guliani, Kallstrom and Comey also Trump because he is on it some sort of indictment and Trump the white house.
Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani and the FBI guy
Comey are all in this conspiracy together
But when you try to dig a hole for somebody else you will fall into it yourself. I don’t understand why people can’t see Chump I mean Trump for the crook he is and those people who support him, if he wins he’s going to shit all over them and it will be too late when
His true colors come out and America is going to be in dire straits. God Bless America.
“I don’t understand why people can’t see Chump I mean Trump for the crook he is…”
I think we both know what the answer to this is, Pamela. It’s a basic: Hillary represents keeping with the status quo. Trump represents change.
And some of what he’s saying is exactly what Bernie was saying: The system is rigged. People in power are pandering to the banks. The government has actually encouraged the exporting of jobs out of our country. The government is subsidizing the dismantling of our public education system. Etc.
And they are both, very unfortunately, correct.
Every successful propaganda campaign begins with a seed of truth. This one’s got a full field full of seeds to work with. And Donald is billionaire master at manipulating the media to his advantage.
Then there’s the race issue. After 8 years of a black democratic president, the people supporting Trump are desperate for change. There’s a deli owner near where I work who said, outright, in front of all his customers, standing on line (white, black, brown): “White man’s gotta take the country back. Vote Trump”.
Add to all of this the fact that so many people are so disillusioned with the system that they’d actually ACCEPT the fact that someone’s a crook as at least the norm in politics, if not an ADVANTAGE as far as “getting things done” (as long as those things are to the voters’ liking)…
People want to blow up what our system of government has come to represent to the point where they don’t want to see or hear about the nuances. It’s a perfect storm. Didn’t come out of nowhere.
Betcha knew that, though…
Sorry: 8 years of Obama. Don’t know where that came from…
It’s because the right wing have led a very successful propaganda campaign to portray Hillary Clinton as the most dishonest, deceitful, traitorous, ready to sell out US interests for a dollar candidate in history. (MPG’s remarks demonstrate how brilliantly that campaign went.)
If the other candidate is even more corrupt and dishonest, you might as well vote for the candidate for change. No difference.
That’s why it was so important to get the FBI on Hillary’s case. To make Trump palatable, Hillary had to be destroyed. Fortunately, they had something they didn’t have with Obama — a media who hated Hillary just as much as the right wing did. A NY Times who led the way in canonizing Ken Starr as a saint who could do no wrong, and then proceeded to do the same with Comey when they accepted his characterization of Hillary’s utter corruption that he was so generously NOT prosecuting in Sept. as a special favor to her. What better to slime her with – charges you never have to prove in court. With the “liberal” NY Times certifying how legitimate they are. And then we’ll play the NY Times again in October with our little new surprise.
By the time the NY Times realized it had been played, a few days ago, it was too little too late. But it is aggravating to see this as Hillary’s fault for being so corrupt instead of a targeted campaign to dig through every drawer to find anything that can be used to promote there propaganda that she is a crook. Blaming the victim is an ugly thing, because it excuses the most reprehensible behavior by claiming that the victim brought it on herself. It reminds me of charter schools who claim that any suspended 5 year old “had it coming”.
No argument there. Trump and Co are playing the media like a fine Stradivarius. It’s easy to do when you have no scruples, have all the connections and advantages that billions of dollars can buy, and have been a celebrated national television celebrity for almost a decade.
But the flames wouldn’t have gotten so out of control if the people weren’t as completely fed up with the lack of government representation as they are, now. I was a full supporter of Bernie Sanders. I’ll vote Hillary as the lesser of two evils. As I voted for Obama for two terms.
People want change. I know I sure do. It’s just that Trumps’ version of change turns my stomach. Gotta keep him out. That’s the bottom line, here, imo.
Hello Michael PG: “. . . like who the good and bad guys are, with an aim to influence their students. . . . I do not proselytize in my classrooms.”
For many years, I taught K-12 teachers who came back to school, while teaching, to get their masters degree. You seem to share the same problem that I saw, over and over again, in my classes: that is, it was a rare teacher who understood the difference between teaching for a political education and political proselytizing (or any other kind).
That is, one helps students become aware of different kinds of political orders, including the one they live in already, and including examples in history, and one uses their position as a teacher to obscure and persuade (as you rightly suggest you don’t do in your note). One teacher is aware of the same; the other either proselytizes or avoids the whole issue in any context and, therefore, ignorantly passes down the same political ignorance that we are experiencing now in a good number of our electorate. (That’s not all it is, but that’s a good part of it.)
There is no in-between choice: that is, there is good teaching in this regard, there is proselytizing, and there is ignorance that leaves a hole in what all of us in a democracy owe students’ education. And just like artistic, psychological, social, historical, philosophical and other human meanings can be teased out of any single situation (by raising those kinds of questions about it),so it is with political meaning.
You share another problem with many of my teachers–offering a view of what may be the truth is thought of as insulting.
Give me a break, Ms. King. I’m not some wet-behind-the-ears novice in either teaching or politics. At 66, I feel like I know a few things about the profession, about personal ethics, and about social justice education. That’s hardly what is going on in this debate. This is 99% about “If you don’t agree to vote for Hillary Clinton to keep the world safe from the American version of German Nazi rule, you’re a moron. And by the way, you have to persuade everyone you know to feel the same way, even kids too young to vote.”
I’m not naive. I am not nihilistic. I’m not neutral. But I have my principles (big dirty word these days among Clinton supporters, apparently, at least when it comes to anyone not on the bandwagon). And if you think you can talk down to me as an effective way to intimidate or – ahem – shame me into voting for Hillary Clinton and/or persuading STUDENTS to do so, you’re mad. (And people wonder why some parents don’t trust teachers to educate!)
When it’s made sense for me to do so, I’ve taught units on the mathematics of elections, a subject I find quite intriguing both for its social import and its tricky mathematical paradoxes. Perhaps you’re familiar with Arrow’s theorem about systems of elections. He proved decades ago that there is no way to have a system of electing people that has all the qualities most people demand a free and democratic basis that guarantees a ‘fair’ outcome. And he wasn’t talking about rigging, cheating, voter intimidation, or all the other tricks that have been employed in this country to derail the will of the voters. Rather, he showed that no matter what system you agree to use, it can be used – knowingly or not – to actually thwart the very notion of fairness. You might want to look at the very readable IS DEMOCRACY FAIR? The Mathematics of Elections and Apportionment by Nielsen, de Villiers, and Alexiev for lessons on the various kinds of systems tried in democracies and why someone’s reasonable expectations of fairness will generally not be met. And changing to the next intriguing system will not fix matters. Some new group will get the shaft or be liable to same.
I must say, it’s been a revelation the last couple of days to find out so many things about myself: my ignorance of nearly everything in the political and educational arenas, my “true” preferences in this election (for everyone but my actual preference, apparently), my inability to know my own mind, my inherent Nazism, and of course, things I’ve known since I was a teenager: that I’m a male chauvinist, homophobic, racist pig. For starters.
MPG says: “I must say, it’s been a revelation the last couple of days to find out so many things about myself: my ignorance of nearly everything in the political and educational arenas, my “true” preferences in this election (for everyone but my actual preference, apparently), my inability to know my own mind, my inherent Nazism, and of course, things I’ve known since I was a teenager: that I’m a male chauvinist, homophobic, racist pig. For starters.”
So sorry to have offended.
Offended? No, I’m flattered to be the object of so much absurd and inaccurate analysis, speculation, and fantasy.
A few more days of presidential politicking. Will be glad when it is over.
MPG, excellent commentary at 11/4 @ 1:31. And this “But of course, I’m a white, straight, male. Guilty as charged. That clearly makes me 100% concerned only with what makes the world better for me. The fact that some people here and elsewhere think that that is the way I think or act is what’s so utterly pathetic about these “debates.”
Thanks, Wayne. It is exhausting trying to explain to people who really don’t know me (when you’ve been involved in progressive politics since junior high school and you’re on SSI and Medicare, there’s just way to much water under too many bridges to try to “prove” my bona fides across a wide swath of issues) that I really am a feminist, an anti-fascist, anti-racist, vehemently in support of GLBT rights, and sick to death of American exceptionalism, xenophobia (including Russophobia that has infected the DNC and Clinton campaign), and the entire disaster/predatory capitalistic system that drive most or all of the above evils. Either I know what I’m talking about or I don’t. Either I’ve spent the last 25 years working in predominately poor, non-white school districts and communities or I haven’t. And frankly, I would just as soon NOT get into all that; I’d prefer to just make my arguments and hope some people who don’t already see things my way will at least consider another viewpoint as having a gram or two of merit. But increasingly, the political correctness and identity politics on both ends of the spectrum mean that unless one is mouthing the words of the particular version of the Hallelujah Chorus that is sung in the particular church in question (Trump Rules! Trump is a Pedophilic, Incestuous Demon!), it’s almost impossible to even QUESTION the main beliefs or the minor ones without being “identified” as whatever labels are used to suppress actual thought. I may be a world-record holder for having been called both ends of more binary constructs – social, political, psychological, etc., than the rest of humanity. Probably not, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility. I’m a skeptic, and I push at the soft spots in people’s dogmas because I think that’s helpful to everyone who actually listens now and again and reflects on his/her own assumptions. That’s one reason I only MOSTLY get sick of hearing the same arguments on certain issues mouthed as if a moment’s thought went into them on the part of the speaker. Mathematics education is very high on that list, but this election has helped put a lot of other things into that area. 😦
I only wish I could simply arrive at political views based on my self-interests. That would be so much easier, believe me. What best helps the needs of a barely-solvent 66 y.o. white male who just unretired to take on a full-time teaching job on top of the very part-time one he’s been scraping by on, kind of, for the last three years? Free cat food would be a start. Maybe I’ll run on that platform for some office next year. 🙂
Exactly! (Except the Wayne part-ha ha!)
Sorry, Duane. Copied the first name from the subject line subconsciously. 😦
Disgusting. Shame on guliani.trump and especially their allies in trumpland… hypocrites! What a disgrace!!!!!
Disgusting. Shame on guliani.trump and especially their allies in trumpland… hypocrites! What a disgrace!!!!!
Wasn’t Giuliani responsible for RICO?
Amazing how far people fall.
That was a bit before Giuliani’s time.
I think he was the first mayor to actually use the RICO laws when he started pushing his weight around the seaport area.
I’m pretty sure that Giuliani is known for using RICO laws to bring down the late John Gotti, the “Teflon Don,” when the former was a federal DA for NY. That is what launched his political career. A little convenient racism (in NYC???) later got him elected over incumbent mayor, David Dinkins.
Yep…that was it. His use of the RICO laws to bust Gotti as the DA was what put him in the spotlight.
The statute dates from the late 60s or thereabouts. Giuliani used it rather famously as a US Attorney.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45784.htm
“Twenty Years of a Dictatorial Democracy”
By James Bovard
“Julian Assange Says Trump ‘Won’t be Allowed to Win'”
By Darren Boyle
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45790.htm
“Barrel Bomb: The Cataclysmic Close of Campaign 2016”
By Chris Floyd
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45785.htm
Spiritual Blackout in America: Election 2016
By Cornel West, The Boston Globe
04 November 16
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/40074-focus-spiritual-blackout-in-america-election-2016
All the above-linked articles are of interest, but the Cornel West piece is particularly important. I don’t agree that Jill Stein is “the one,” but any self-professed liberal/progressive who dismisses Prof. West lightly (as in, ‘without bothering to read him carefully or at all”) does so at her/his peril. He had Obama pegged damned accurately when I and many others were still smoking the crack-fumes of liberalism and progressivism in which Mr. Obama cloaked himself. Eight years of centrism and neoliberal foreign and educational policy later. . . He can’t even come down in staunch defense of democracy and the oppressed in South Dakota. Maybe if he went in with some drones against the cops. . .
Over-posting?
Oh, my. And here I thought this was Diane’s blog. Silly me. Sorry to try to share pieces of interest and relevance. Not.
I just figure that while the pseudo-liberals here and elsewhere don’t hesitate to insult me with bilge and hate, they might have to think twice about doing the same to Prof. West, at least publicly. I suppose he’s a Trump-supporting, woman-hating, sexist, homophobic racist as well. ;^)
I think we are in the presence of another bully.
I agree. I think NYC parent and you are each trying to insult, ridicule, and humiliate me for not just giving you each little rounds of applause. Of course, it isn’t working. I’m trying to figure out how posting article links comprises bullying, Ms. King, but I’m sure you’ll explain it in small words we can all understand.
By the way, I bump into Cornel West on occasion when I’m in NYC at the “Seinfeld” restaurant on Broadway & 112th. Maybe you can drop by there and tell him his business. Where does that silly man come up with his ridiculous ideas about Obama and Hillary Clinton anyway?
Sigh . . .
I apologize, CBK: when you seemed to be suggesting that I was a bully, I assumed foolishly that you meant the actual definition of the word. Instead, I realize you meant, “Someone who meekly take the punishment I and my allies are doling out in an undemocratic attempt to stifle reasonable and polite disagreement on issues about which we believe we’ve got the moral high ground and a hotline to T-R-U-T-H.”
I’ve made that mistake before. You’d think I’d have understood intuitively by now, but I keep thinking that polite, principled, and knowledgeable dissent would be at least tolerated, if not welcomed, by people who profess to be liberals or progressives. But then again, if I’ve learned anything from the last 18 months or so, it’s that there are far more people than I’d imagined in the Democratic Party who think that it’s okay to “go low” if it’s in the service of the angels. Oddly, it turns out that such people are always on the side of the angels and those who don’t quickly agree are working for Satan, Hitler, Stalin, and probably Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and, of course, Vladimir Putin.
Good article by West, Michael. Thanks for the link.
I agree with everything he’s saying. I’ll still vote for Hillary. Bernie endorsed her for a reason, Michael…and he knows what’s going on, here.
I’ll never vote for her, nor do I feel any reason to follow anyone’s secret strategy unless we’re part of the same political coalition and have some sort of shared plan. Bernie stopped consulting me back in . . . oh, wait, he NEVER consulted with me. So I guess that makes me a free agent.
I respect your decision, Michael. Not knocking you. Just telling you mine and why.
I met Bernie on the lawn of a Vermont farmer back in the late ’80s or early ’90s I think. It was a picnic luncheon and he was telling a group of local dairy farmers that, despite his attempts, Congress was stonewalling his attempts at stopping agribusiness from taking over their livelihoods. He advised the farmers to form cooperatives. Advice which was heeded by those who, today, are still in business.
No person is perfect, but I’ve always had great respect for him. I shook his hand and spoke with him that day. His endorsement of Clinton, reserved as it was, means a lot to me. He will be doing all he can to make her keep to her stated platform.
Trump, on the other hand, is beholden to no one. He’ll do whatever he damn well pleases. And a lot of what he pleases doesn’t please me in the least.
But thanks for recognizing the force of West’s piece. He’s always worth reading. Like Nat Hentoff, Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, Michelle Alexander, Lani Guinier, and others: people whose writing is more useful to read even when I disagree than the writing of many others even when they’re basically right.
Hah! Well put, indeed. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
A little more on the gutsy Barack Obama and South Dakota: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/40082-obama-is-pathetic-on-human-rights-in-north-dakota
Er, North. :^)
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304399-threat-of-investigations-hangs-over-clinton-trump
A little opera buffo come January, if not sooner.
Giuliani already had a beef with Clinton during the 911 clean up. An undisclosed source said they overhead him say “he’d bring her down one day” and I guess this was his best try. Problem is according to the FBI agents I know, they are not permitted to generate heresey, leaks or speak with private individuals about an ongoing case and the agents or retired agents knew that when they broke the law. Now who is going to fix that mess, not to mention that is was a deliberate attack on Hillary Clinton without due process with the full intent by Giuliani to interfere with a public election. Now who is going to fix that mess?
Heresy? The FBI is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Vatican? That is a bit of a surprise.
Shaba: Thank you for saying that. Giuliani was on MS-NBC Chris Matthews last night and said that, when he spoke earlier on Fox about something coming that would turn things around (“wait and see, hee-hee.”), he was talking about some really good Trump ads that were coming out over the weekend. I’ll put that in my “Chris Christi didn’t know” file.
More provocative fare: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/04/it-didnt-have-to-be-hillary/
Michael,
When you post trash like that, I’m inclined to think you welcome a Trump presidency.
Trash? In what possible way was that trash? It certainly wasn’t in support of Donald Trump in any way that I can see. And the insistence that fierce critical analysis of how the DNC chose Hillary Clinton is a “vote for Trump” really does elude me.
I will repeat the obvious: she’s a horrid choice for POTUS and her likely impact on US foreign policy – barring a truly remarkable shift from her recent past and the advisors she’s drawing upon – will be ugly and shameful. And if she does go another way than to continue to follow in the footsteps she’s already made and those of her predecessors in the 21st century, there are going to be a lot of dead people around the world who need not have died.
None of which makes Donald Trump into a marvelous alternative. Which continues to be why he won’t get my vote, either.
If you feel that the article misrepresents Hillary’s world view and recent track record, or for that matter the foreign military adventures of Uncle Sam under the leadership of Barack Obama (whom I agree is both deeply flawed and likely to look better in 4 to 8 years regardless of which of our “choices” wins on Tuesday), then maybe you can give your take on what we’ve been up to in Libya, Syria, and what’s going on in the Ukraine. I’ll leave HRC’s China plans for another time. I read a lot of foreign journalists on US military actions because, frankly, there is virtually no one writing/reporting in the American major media on the Obama Administration’s machinations abroad who appears able to see past the anti-Russian propaganda we’re being fed from DC and outlets like the NY TIMES and WaPo. Rarely has neoliberalism has two stauncher voices.
You seem to get that Pasi Stahlberg is on point about GERM. I wonder why you can’t take that analysis to the next level: what drives GERM at the national and multinational level besides pure greed? Or perhaps I should ask, what justifies and rationalize GERM other than profit? I think it’s deeply rooted in American exceptionalism. Hillary Clinton buys that world view. So does Trump. I am reasonably sure that regardless of which of them orders bombs dropped on brown folk in the Middle East, those people will be just as dead and their families and friends who survive will be just as miserable. That’s one of the reasons I keep trying fruitlessly to point out the notion that in many significant ways, loads of people will NOT be better off under one or the other. That keeps getting twisted by some less perceptive or less honest people here as claiming that “there’s no difference between Clinton and Trump.” I’d have to be insane to make the latter claim. But the former one is self-evident when you step outside the context of the screaming rhetoric on various cultural issues at home. And maybe that analysis, if correct, is enough to persuade many people that we’ll be infinitely better off with her than with him. I just feel that to believe that, one has to truly be able to ignore both her history in the State Department and her various AVAILABLE speeches, like the one to AIPAC this year, and her clear commitment to killing people who won’t run their countries to suit her world views. So we can focus on Trump’s countless flaws, his allegedly deep, immutable similarities to Adolph Hitler, while hoping that the reality of Hillary Clinton’s investment in a disaster capitalist mindset, in GERM, and in regime change for pretty much the same shameful reasons Mr. Bush II & friends used get us into the eternal mire of Iraq, a place that eight years after Mr. Obama promised to extract us from, we’re still stuck. Hillary is likely to be worse in that regard, which was a big point of the article. It’s hardly crap. And if it is, where is any warrant for such a claim? I just keep hearing, “We came, we saw, he died” and wondering what liberal or progressive isn’t appalled and chilled to the marrow by it.
Sorry: 2nd paragraph below got tangled. I meant to say that unless she diverges from the path of her immediate predecessors and her own track record in the State Dept., a lot of innocent people will die for nothing in the Middle East, for starters.
Tyrants now rule the free world. Run for the hills. No one is safe, not even the poor stupid bastards who elected a fascist and his partner a right wing zealot fundamentalist anti-evolutionist to the executive offices. Trumps kids will spread out in Wash D.C. and gain access anything and any material data that will be useful to Trump when his term is done. He will use whatever he can to continue his quest to unduly enrich himself. America is blinded by their own petty greed and racism to Trump for what he really is a not so modern fascist weight nationalist protectionist scam artist.
Jackie, was that different on Nov. 7, 2016? No tyrants, here or abroad? Particularly not here? I think some people who aren’t racists might just disagree, including this fella, who voted twice for BHO.