Archives for category: Politics
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Kurt Eichenwald on the Relationship Between Trump and Putin

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2016 //
10

Kurt Eichenwald, a senior editor at Newsweek, writes here about what is known about relationships between Trump and Putin/Russian intelligence services. The central question is who is hacking the emails of the Democratic party and why. Eichenwald has learned that Russian agencies hacked into the State Department server, raising the likelihood that Hillary Clinton’s emails were more secure on her private server than on the State Department’s. Two other interesting observations, among many: Trump was briefed on Russian hacking yet continued to deny it in debates, saying even his 10-year-old son could have hacked into the DNC; also, Russians briefly stopped the hacking after Trump attacked the Gold Star family, as they thought he might be forced to step down.

Whenever anyone brings up the Trump-Putin bromance, a reader is sure to respond that this is Red Scare talk, that it would be refreshing to have a president who gets along with Putin, that we must be careful not to ignite a new cold war. Eichenwald is sure to get thousands of angry tweets from Trump supporters, and he is sure to get thousands of anti-Semitic tweets, as he has in the past, even though he is not Jewish.

If Trump has backdoor dealings with Russia or any other foreign power, the public is entitled to know about it. To my knowledge, no previous presidential election was shadowed by the possibility that a foreign nation was hacking emails of one political party and interfering with the election process. We have a right to know.

Categories Politics

Wayne Barrett: Giuliani, the FBI, Trump, Clinton, and Dirty Tricks

By dianeravitch
November 3, 2016 //
132

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?

Categories Clinton, Politics, Trump

New York: Parent Opt-Out Leaders Target Legislators Who Oppose Public Education in their Own Districts

By dianeravitch
November 2, 2016 //
10

The parent leaders of New York state’s powerful Opt Out movement are taking the next step in their campaign to protect their children and their schools: they are supporting challengers to their own state legislators.

The stronghold of the Opt Out movement is Long Island, the counties of Nassau and Suffolk, where about 50% of all children in grades 3-8 refused to take the state tests. As it happens, Long Island is represented by Republicans who strongly support charter schools (but not in their own districts!), high-stakes testing, Common Core, and test-based teacher evaluations.

The parents have had enough!

Test refusal forces have taken an interest in the race for the state’s 5th Senate District, and they’re using the organizing tools that have been effective in driving New York’s test opt-out movement to try to oust longtime incumbent Republican Sen. Carl Marcellino.

“We’re using all of our skills that we’ve learned over the last four years and we’re applying that to helping candidates who are going to advocate for us,” Jeanette Deutermann, administrator of Long Island Opt Out and co-founder of New York State Allies for Public Education, told POLITICO New York.

With the help of NYSAPE, an anti-Common Core coalition of parent groups from across the state, last spring more than 21 percent of the state’s approximately 1.1 million eligible third- through eighth-grade students refused to take the state standardized, Common Core-aligned math and English language arts exams.

The 5th Senate District, which includes portions of Nassau and Suffolk County, falls in the heart of the test refusal movement.

About 55 percent of public school students in Suffolk County opted out of exams in spring 2016, making the state’s eastern most corner a test refusal hot spot. About 43 percent of students opted out in Nassau County during that period.

Marcellino, who first won his seat in 1995, is the current head of the Senate Education Committee. His opponent, Democrat Jim Gaughran, has turned that position against Marcellino, running a campaign largely focused on education, setting it apart from most other races in the state.

Gaughran, the Suffolk County Water Authority chairman, has hosted listening tours on community education concerns throughout the district. Gaughran is announcing the end of his tour Wednesday, which included 25 events, at least one in each of the 17 public school districts in the Senate district, according to a news release provided to POLITICO New York.

Parents have no money to give, but they are supporting Gaughran with door-to-door campaigning and a social media campaign. They understand now after four years of organizing that they must fight for better leadership in Albany, where decisions affecting their children and their schools are made with no parent input, no evidence, no expertise, no knowledge. Petitions and rallies can be easily ignored. Real change requires better representation.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2016/11/opt-out-leaders-home-in-on-marcellino-senate-district-106975#ixzz4OrtQlovN

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, New York, Opt Out, Parent Groups, Politics, Privatization, Resistance, Testing

CNBC: Comey’s Curious Double Standard

By dianeravitch
October 31, 2016 //
18

James Comey felt compelled to report to Congress and the nation that the FBI had found new emails that might or might not be significant.

However, when he was asked to sign a joint statement that the nation’s intelligence agencies had concluded that the Russian government was behind the hacking of Democratic Party emails, he said he agreed with the conclusion but refused to sign.

CNBC reported:

“FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI’s name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former bureau official tells CNBC.

“The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

“In the end, the Department of Homeland Security and The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued the statement on Oct. 7, saying: “The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations. … These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process….

“According to the former official, Comey agreed with the conclusion the intelligence community came to: “A foreign power was trying to undermine the election. He believed it to be true, but was against putting it out before the election.” Comey’s position, this official said, was “if it is said, it shouldn’t come from the FBI, which as you’ll recall it did not.”

“Comey took a different approach toward releasing information about the discovery of emails on a laptop that was used by former congressman Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, the official said.”

Categories Politics

Ross Douthat: President Trump? Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2016 //
22

The New York Times invited Ross Douthat to be its regular conservative commentator. He writes here about the catastrophes that a Trump presidency would create.

First, he predicts, would come an economic crisis and a recession comparable to Britain post-Brexit.

Then would be inevitable civil disorders as white nationalists flaunt their new power, encouraged by Trump’s mouth.

Add to that international disorder as every other nation seeks to take advantage of Trump’s ignorance and naïveté.

And this is the view of the Times’ conservative columnist!

A portion:

“The first is sustained market jitters, leading to an economic slump. Trump’s election alone would probably induce a Brexit-esque stock market dip, but the real problem would be what happened next. Instead of Theresa May’s steadiness inspiring a return to fundamentals, you would have the spectacle — and it will be a spectacle — of the same Trump team that drop-kicked its policy shop and barely organized a national campaign trying to staff up an administration. Even without his promised pivot to mercantilism and trade war, a White House run as a Trump production is likely to mainline anxiety into the economy, sidelining capital, discouraging hiring and shaving points off the G.D.P.

“The second peril is major civil unrest. Some of Trump’s supporters imagine that his election would be a blow to left-wing activists, that his administration would swiftly reverse the post-Ferguson crime increase. This is a bit like imagining that a President George Wallace would have been good for late-1960s civil peace. In reality, Trump’s election would be a gift to bad cops and riot-ready radicals in equal measure, and his every intervention would pour gasoline on campuses and cities — not least because as soon as any protest movement had a face or leader, Trump would be on cable bellowing ad hominems at them.

“The third likely highly-plausible peril, and by far the most serious, is a rapid escalation of risk in every geopolitical theater. It’s probably true that Trump, given his pro-Russia line, would be somewhat less likely than Clinton to immediately stumble into confrontation with Vladimir Putin over Syria. But it’s silly to imagine Moscow slipping into a comfortable détente with a President Trump; Putin is more likely to pocket concessions and keep pushing, testing the orange-haired dealmaker at every opportunity and leaving Trump poised, very dangerously, between overreaction and his least-favorite position — looking weak.

“That’s just Russia: From the Pacific Rim to the Middle East, revisionist powers will set out to test Trump’s capacity to handle surprise, hostile actors will seek to exploit the undoubted chaos of his White House, and our allies will build American fecklessness into their strategic plans. And again, all of this is likely to happen without Trump doing the wilder things he’s kind-of sort-of pledged to do — demanding tribute from allies, trying to “take the oil,” etc. He need only be himself in order to bring an extended period of risk upon the world.

“The history of geopolitics prior to the Pax Americana is rife with examples of why this sort of testing should be feared. Overall, Trump’s foreign policy hazing, his rough introduction to machtpolitik, promises more danger for global stability — still a real and valuable thing, recent crises notwithstanding — than the risks incurred by George W. Bush’s interventionism, Barack Obama’s attempt at offshore balancing, or (yes) Hillary Clinton’s possible exposure of classified material to the Chinese, the Russians and Anthony Weiner’s sexting partners.

“There is no algorithm that can precisely calibrate how to weigh global instability against the reasons that remain for conservatives to vote for Trump. No mathematical proof can demonstrate that the chance of a solidly-conservative Supreme Court justice isn’t worth a scaled-up risk of great power conflict.

“But I think that reluctant Trump supporters are overestimating the systemic durability of the American-led order, and underestimating the extent to which a basic level of presidential competence and self-control is itself a matter of life and death — for Americans, and for human beings the world over.

“I may be wrong. But none of my fears (and I have many) of what a Hillary Clinton presidency will bring are strong enough to make me want to run the risk of being proven right.”

Categories Politics, Trump

Two Deputy Attorney Generals, Democrat and Republican, Say Comey Undermines Democracy

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2016 //
13

Jamie Gorelick, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, and Larry Thompson, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the George W. Bush administration, strongly criticized FBI Director James Comey for his recent actions.

They write:

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

At the same time, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch — nominally Comey’s boss — has apparently been satisfied with advising Comey but not ordering him to abide by the rules. She, no doubt, did not want to override the FBI director in such a highly political matter, but she should not have needed to. He should have abided by the policy on his own.

Events as they have played out point to the value of the department’s traditions. Having taken the extraordinary steps of briefing the public, testifying before Congress about a decision not to prosecute and sharing investigative material, Comey now finds himself wanting to update the public and Congress on each new development in the investigation, even before he and others have had a chance to assess its significance. He may well have been criticized after the fact had he not advised Congress of the investigative steps that he was taking. But it was his job — consistent with the best traditions of the Department of Justice — to make the right decision and take that criticism if it came. Department officials owe the public an explanation of how events have unfolded the way they have. There must be some recognition that it is important not to allow an investigation to become hijacked by the red-hot passions of a political contest.

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

Categories Accountability, Politics

I Wish I Could Vote for Hillary Clinton Twice

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2016 //
47

[This article was posted last night at zhuffington Post.]

As we all know, James Comey, the director of the FBI, shook up the Presidential election by informing Congress that the FBI is re-opening the investigation of Hillary Clinton after finding thousands of emails on the computer used by her close aide Huma Abedin and her lecherous husband Anthony Wiener. Director Comey said in his brief message that the emails have not been reviewed and may not be significant.

This announcement was contrary to the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations and not interfering in elections within the 60 days prior to the vote. Comey’s intervention may influence the outcome of the election, and he surely knows it. Let me repeat from his own statement to Congress that the emails have not been reviewed and may not be significant.

A Trump supporter in Iowa was arrested for voting twice. She was caught breaking the law. She said she was convinced that the election was “rigged,” as her candidate has said scores of times, so she thought she should vote twice.

Well, I won’t be voting twice, because it is against the law.

But I feel more strongly than ever that Donald Trump is a menace to our nation and to the world. He will do anything and say anything to spew hatred of Hillary Clinton and distrust for our democracy and its electoral process. He said a few days ago that the election should be canceled and he should be anointed President.

Let me count the reasons why I will do whatever I can to support Hillary Clinton.

She is far better qualified for the presidency than Donald Trump, who is completely unfit for the position.

She is better educated, more experienced, more thoughtful, wiser, and more knowledgeable than Trump.

She has a demonstrated commitment to the well-being of all Americans, while he is a bigot who has manipulated his followers’ fear of anyone who is not white and Christian.

Let me count the reasons that Trump should not be president.

He has stirred bigotry against blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and women.

By his own admission, he is a sexual predator.

He will appoint Supreme Court justices committed to rolling back Roe v. Wade, civil rights, environmental protection, and any restrictions on campaign finance and on corporate greed.

He has given no evidence that he understands either foreign or domestic policy.

He has given permission to all the hate groups in the nation to crawl out from under their respective rocks and voice their venom against Jews, blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, and anyone they consider “other.” Anyone who expresses criticism of Trump on Twitter receives hundreds or thousands of responses that are anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-everything but white nationalism.

Trump has unleashed a virulent form of white nationalism that has felt ashamed to show its face–or its hoods–for many years. If you want to know more about the Trump base, read this article that appeared in the New Yorker about a man who spends full time as a “troll for Trump.”

To understand his campaign and the white nationalists who are managing it, read this article “Inside the Bunker,” which I posted a few days ago.

Donald Trump is ignorant of the government, of democratic processes, of economics, and of any of the issues facing our nation.

Trump lacks the character or temperament to be President. He is a bully. He is vengeful. He is thin-skinned. He is a braggart. He is a con man. He is a liar. He has a documented history of defrauding the same people who are now voting for him, the working people to whom he offers lies and false promises of bringing back jobs that were lost to automation and outsourcing (which he participated in with his own products). And then there is Trump University, which ripped off working people, widows, and pensioners with false promises of riches. He should be selling snake oil, not running for the highest office in the land.

Listening to the radio this morning (CNN), I heard one of his biographers defend him (“The Truth about Trump”), saying that he was a consummate performer. He actually believes in nothing. No, there won’t be a wall, and Mexico won’t pay for it. He is running because he wants to win the biggest prize of all: the Presidency. He isn’t interesting in being President, just winning. Not to worry, Mike Pence will run the country. Pence is a homophobe who went on national television to defend discrimination against gays but was forced by corporations to back down when they threatened to leave Indiana. Mike Pence, darling of the far right, former talk-show host, is the Rush Limbaugh of Indiana.

James Comey acted inappropriately. He ignored the policies and norms of the Justice Department and the FBI. He announced a new investigation without any facts or evidence or charges; it will be weeks or months before the FBI decides whether there is anything of significance on the laptop shared by Anthony Wiener and Huma Abedin. If Comey helps elect Donald Trump, he should start a new investigation of the fraudulent voting inspired by Trump’s phony claims of vote rigging and the fraudulent business practices of President Trump. Will Trump separate himself from his hotel chain and his golf courses? Will he use his position as President to drum up money for his business empire? Will his children continue to profit from his businesses? He can’t put his business empire into a blind trust. Will he pause in affairs of state to open a new hotel, as he did a few days ago, or to launch a new line of clothing?

If this charlatan is elected, our democracy is at risk. Our economy is at risk. Our ideals, our values, and our aspirations for a more perfect union will be endangered by the takeover of the national government by the alt-right, by men like Steve Bannon of Breitbart, Roger Ailes of Fox News, and Rudy Guiliani, the skeletal ex-mayor of New York City who cheers on all of Trump’s wildest exaggerations.

Trump says he represents change, and that is true. But Trump’s change would mean chaos, incompetence at the highest levels of government, and a revival of the worst racism and bigotry of our lifetimes.

I can only vote for Hillary once, but I will vote for her with renewed enthusiasm.

Categories Clinton, Fraud, Politics, Trump

Zephyr Teachout Wants to Debate the Billionaires Funding Her Opponent

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
6

Zephyr Teachout is a genuine progressive who is running for Congress in New York. She was endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders. He came to her district to campaign for her. She has written a vivid analysis of the hedge fund managers’ effort to privatize public education (you should read it, it is excellent). She is one of the few people in a position to influence the debate about the future of public education who understands the danger of corporate reform to our democracy. She needs our help.

Three billionaires have flooded her district with money to help her opponent. She needs our help! She deserves our help.

Can you send her $19? That is the average contribution she has been receiving.

I received this email:


I had my final debate with my opponent this week, but there’s a couple more men that voters need to hear from before election day.

I want to debate the three billionaires who are funding the majority of outside spending in our district: casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, and hedge fund billionaires Robert Mercer and Paul Singer. The super PAC they’re funding has spent more money against us than in any of the dozens of other races they’re targeting in the entire country.

These guys think they can just dump millions of dollars into our district to try to buy this seat in Congress. Well, if that’s how these billionaires they want to do things, I think voters deserve to hear from them directly.

When I first brought up the idea of debating billionaire super PAC funders, we never heard back. So let’s try something different. I hear billionaires like money. Let’s send a message to these billionaires in a language they’re sure to understand.

Can you help us raise $50,000 for our campaign today and to send an unmistakable message about the power of our grassroots movement? Please add your $19 contribution — the average amount donated to our campaign — or whatever you can afford to help with this challenge.

I think we can get their attention by showing we can raise the kind of money that can compete with what they’re spending every day in our district.

It’s important for voters that I debate these billionaires because we should hear what the billionaires are really interested in. Because something tells me that Robert Mercer doesn’t have an opinion about how to clean up contaminated drinking water in Hoosick Falls.

I’m willing to bet Sheldon Adelson doesn’t really care about the best way to fight Lyme disease in our district. And Paul Singer maybe hasn’t even thought about the concerns farmers have about sustaining their businesses — except when it comes to how Singer can profit from the banks who deny farmers loans.

What’s happening here is exactly the problem with corruption in our democracy. Billionaires are spending unlimited amounts of money to try and buy a seat in Congress, not because they really care about the Hudson Valley, but because they want a reliable vote to protect their profits.

That’s why it’s so important for our people-powered movement to respond to these super PACs by raising $50,000 for our campaign today. Let’s show we can compete with whatever they come at us next — and maybe one of them will even come to debate before Election Day.

Chip in $19 — the average contribution to our campaign — or whatever you can afford to send an unmistakable message to the billionaires who want to buy our democracy.

Thank you,

Zephyr

CONTRIBUTE

Categories Billionaires, Corporate Reformers, Politics

Trump’s Clever, Risky Plan to Win the Presidency and/or Destroy the Republican Party

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2016 //
66

A stunning story in Bloomberg BusinessWeek reveals Donald Trump’s end game: Suppress the Hillary vote. Target certain audiences and bombard them on the Internet with negative stories that discourage them from turning out.

Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg went “inside the Trump bunker” to learn the campaign’s strategizing. Trump has abandoned traditional fund-raising events and is replying now exclusively on the Web to find campaign contributions. He has a small team with pre-written Tweets, ready to go to synchronize with his speeches. He has a highly sophisticated data team, conducting its own polling. His campaign is led not by veteran political operatives but by people skilled at marketing. Marketing the candidate is no different from marketing any other product.

They write:

When Bannon joined the campaign in August, Project Alamo’s data began shaping even more of Trump’s political and travel strategy—and especially his fundraising. Trump himself was an avid pupil. Parscale would sit with him on the plane to share the latest data on his mushrooming audience and the $230 million they’ve funneled into his campaign coffers. Today, housed across from a La-Z-Boy Furniture Gallery along Interstate 410 in San Antonio, the digital nerve center of Trump’s operation encompasses more than 100 people, from European data scientists to gun-toting elderly call-center volunteers. They labor in offices lined with Trump iconography and Trump-focused inspirational quotes from Sheriff Joe Arpaio and evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Jr. Until now, Trump has kept this operation hidden from public view. But he granted Bloomberg Businessweek exclusive access to the people, the strategy, the ads, and a large part of the data that brought him to this point and will determine how the final two weeks of the campaign unfold.

The Trump team knows very well that they are behind in the polls, and they have shaped a plan to reverse Clinton’s edge: suppress her voters.

Instead of expanding the electorate, Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans. Trump’s invocation at the debate of Clinton’s WikiLeaks e-mails and support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to turn off Sanders supporters. The parade of women who say they were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and harassed or threatened by Hillary is meant to undermine her appeal to young women. And her 1996 suggestion that some African American males are “super predators” is the basis of a below-the-radar effort to discourage infrequent black voters from showing up at the polls—particularly in Florida.

The nation is at risk if Trump wins, and the Republican party is at risk if he loses.

Regardless of whether this works or backfires, setting back GOP efforts to attract women and minorities even further, Trump won’t come away from the presidential election empty-handed. Although his operation lags previous campaigns in many areas (its ground game, television ad buys, money raised from large donors), it’s excelled at one thing: building an audience. Powered by Project Alamo and data supplied by the RNC and Cambridge Analytica, his team is spending $70 million a month, much of it to cultivate a universe of millions of fervent Trump supporters, many of them reached through Facebook. By Election Day, the campaign expects to have captured 12 million to 14 million e-mail addresses and contact information (including credit card numbers) for 2.5 million small-dollar donors, who together will have ponied up almost $275 million. “I wouldn’t have come aboard, even for Trump, if I hadn’t known they were building this massive Facebook and data engine,” says Bannon. “Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We know its power.”

Since Trump paid to build this audience with his own campaign funds, he alone will own it after Nov. 8 and can deploy it to whatever purpose he chooses. He can sell access to other campaigns or use it as the basis for a 2020 presidential run. It could become the audience for a Trump TV network. As Bannon puts it: “Trump is an entrepreneur.”

Whatever Trump decides, this group will influence Republican politics going forward. These voters, whom Cambridge Analytica has categorized as “disenfranchised new Republicans,” are younger, more populist and rural—and also angry, active, and fiercely loyal to Trump. Capturing their loyalty was the campaign’s goal all along. It’s why, even if Trump loses, his team thinks it’s smarter than political professionals. “We knew how valuable this would be from the outset,” says Parscale. “We own the future of the Republican Party.”

Win or lose, he is not going away. White nationalism is his base, and he is cultivating it with dexterity. And keeping it intact for the future.

Categories Clinton, Politics, Trump

An Important New York Congressional Election: Vote for Anna Throne-Holst

By dianeravitch
October 26, 2016 //
1

There is a hot race on the east end of Long Island, where I spend a lot of time.

The incumbent Congressman of the 1st Congressional District is Lee Zeldin, one of Donald Trump’s most outspoken surrogates.

Anna Throne-Holst is running against Zeldin. I went to a fundraiser to meet her, and she is very impressive.

Here she is on education issues, speaking out against Common Core, high-stakes testing, and privatization.

If you live on the east end, I urge you to vote for Anna Throne-Holst.

She will be a strong supporter of policies that are good for the environment, good for the economy, and good for children.

Categories Politics
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »