Archives for category: Trump

There were excellent speeches at the Democratic convention. It would be hard to say which one was best.

But from an informal poll of friends and family, many people thought this this short segment was the high point of the convention. This is the parents of a Muslim soldier killed in action in Iraq while protecting his unit from a suicide bomber; his father waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution and urged Donald Trump too read it.

Or see this version, which includes a description of their son’s heroism.

One of my sons told me he wept as he watched it.

Donald Trump doesn’t like the Washington Post. The Washington Post doesn’t like Donald Trump.

Trump has decided that the Washington Post will not be allowed to cover his campaign’s events.

So when Washington Post reporter Jose DelReal showed up as a member of the press at a campaign rally for Mike Pence in Milwaukee, he was denied admission.

When he sought to enter as a citizen, not a member of the press, he was denied admission.

Do you think it is okay for a presidential candidate to bar a member of the press from covering his campaign?

You know, the First Amendment.

It as Harry S Truman who said, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”

Anthony Cody, co-founder of the Network for Public Education, strongly supported Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. Like Bernie’s many millions of followers, Anthony was deeply disappointed when Bernie lost the nomination and thoroughly disgusted when he learned that the Democratic National Committee had undermined Bernie’s campaign.

What to do now? Anthony will vote for Clinton, but not with enthusiasm.

He writes:

How will education reform be handled by a Clinton administration? We know that big money held sway over education policy under President Obama. Candidate Clinton has been vague and inconsistent, offering both criticism and praise for charter schools and high stakes tests. Tim Kaine has shown a better understanding of education issues. But in 2008, many of us thought that Obama would be better than George W. Bush on education, especially with Linda Darling-Hammond advising him. But then the hedge fund money talked, Darling-Hammond walked, and we got seven years of Arne Duncan. So the only thing that will keep Clinton from going the way Obama went is intense grassroots pressure.

All of this brings us to the great challenge this election presents to us. We have a balancing act to perform. While I plan to vote for Clinton, we cannot simply “get on board” the DNC campaign train. We cannot unsee the corruption, the deep flaws in Clinton and her corporate allies. There IS something wrong with taking big money for speeches from Wall Street financiers, especially when they invite you back time after time – and you refuse to share what you told them.

We must continue to uncover the corruption of both corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans. If grassroots organizing can reclaim the Democratic Party so it fights for working people, then that would be excellent. Such a reclamation is under way over in Britain right now and is worth watching. If corporate Democratic Party leadership clings to power and will not allow this to happen, then a third party alternative should be strengthened. I respect those who have already made this leap, but I cannot do so while Trump looms. I have joined Bernie Sanders effort to continue his political revolution and defeat Donald Trump, and look forward to the continued growth of this movement.

The story about Trump’s rambling news conference had this headline in the Washington Post:

“Trump Invites Russia to Meddle in the U.S. Presidential Race with Clinton’s Emails.”

This is a story that is very troublesome.

He is running for president of the United States, and he asks a foreign power to intervene in the presidential contest.

This is unprecedented.

Either he is suffering from some kind of classifiable mental disorder.

Or he has terrible judgment.

Or he is unbelievably ignorant of foreign affairs and national security.

Or he is a traitor, who puts the interests of a foreign nation above that of his own.

Does he realize that his warm and fuzzy approach to President Putin makes our European allies very nervous?

His comments reek of megalomania at best.

I know I should ignore what he says, but I can’t. At present, he is leading in most polls. A majority of the American electorate appears ready to elect him to lead our nation. If his mutterings do not trouble you, then you have a stronger stomach than I do.

I daresay I am older than 95% of readers. People who run for president are supposed to be leaders, protectors, defenders of our democracy. They are supposed to have the best interests of our nation uppermost in their thoughts. They are not supposed to invite other nations to meddle in our elections. I don’t get it.

Is he the Manchurian Candidate?

The speeches at the convention last night were outstanding.

Here is President Obama. Here is the transcript of his speech.

Here is Joe Biden, who was wonderful. Here is the text.

Here is Tim Kaine. He does a pretty good imitation of Trump.

Here is Michael Bloomberg, eviscerating Donald Trump’s claims to be a great businessman.

TeacherKen (Ken Bernstein) posted a full transcript of Donald Trump’s press conference. It was annotated and corrected for misstatements. It is pretty depressing to read, I warn you. Lot of braggadocio and lies.

I cast my first vote in 1960, when I was 22. That was before 18-year-olds were allowed to vote. I voted for John F. Kennedy, and I worked in his campaign. I was thrilled when he visited campaign headquarters, and I got to shake his hand. He was exciting and dynamic.

At the time, critics said he was no better than Richard Nixon.

They talked about his father, his money, his privilege, his Roman Catholicism; rumors swirled about his private life but were never reported by the media.

Public opinion was so divided about JFK, even among Democrats, that Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. felt compelled to write a short book called “Kennedy or Nixon: Does It Make Any Difference?” Of course, he argued that Kennedy was infinitely preferable to Nixon. Kennedy was elected by a narrow margin.

Democrats were even more divided in 1968 when Hubert H. Humphrey ran against Nixon. Liberals were angry at Humphrey because he had loyally served as LBJ’s vice-president and had not spoken against the war in Vietnam. I worked in the Humphrey-Muskie campaign and organized an event on October 31, 1968, in Manhattan. We didn’t have much money, so we rented a big, shabby labor hall on West 34 street in Manhattan. It was a ragtag affair with a lineup of wonderful speakers: John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Herman Badillo, and a parade of other liberal notables of the time. Vice-Presidential candidate Ed Muskie was supposed to drop in. Actress Shelley Winters moderated. In the middle of Galbraith’s endorsement of the Democratic ticket, two people in the front row–a man and a woman–jumped up, took off their raincoats, and ran stark naked onto the stage, where they presented Galbraith with the head of a pig. Shelley Winters threw a pitcher of water at them. The one security officer on duty began chasing them around the stage, and it was like a scene out of the Keystone Kops. Meanwhile, in the back of the room, about 15 protestors marched in, carrying a North Vietnamese flag, banging a drum and chanting “Ho Ho, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Cong are gonna win!”

By the time the protestors moved out, the rally collapsed, Muskie didn’t drop in.

Nixon was holding his own rally across the street at Madison Square Garden, and he had no protestors. Security was tight, and no one got in without credentials.

Our event was a debacle. I knew that night in my heart that Nixon would win.

Fast forward to today.

There are two major party candidates for the presidency, and one of them will be elected in November.

I am an idealist and I fight for what I believe in, but I am also a realist. Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be elected president.

I will support and vote for Hillary Clinton. I am not telling anyone else how to vote. I am telling you why I am voting for Hillary.

To begin with, I think that Donald Trump is the most unqualified person in my lifetime to be a major party candidate. I think that a presidential candidate should have some prior experience in public life; they should have demonstrated their ability to bring people together and to shape foreign and domestic policies that will advance our national goals and values. Trump represents a nativist view of America, with his open disregard for certain ethnic and religious groups. He openly speaks of “America First,” a long-discredited phrase associated in the 1930s with isolationism. Had we listened then to the America Firsters, Hitler would have conquered all of Europe. Like Nixon, Trump appeals to “the silent majority” and presents himself as the “law-and-order” candidate. His campaign plays on our fears: our fear of Others, our fear of weakness, our fear of decline. His “policies” are boasts: he will “make America great again.” He will turn back the clock. He will bring back all the jobs that were outsourced or that disappeared because of technological change. He will restore the America of a misty and idyllic past. He will revive torture to keep us safe. He believes climate change is a hoax. He thinks women who get an abortion should be punished, or at least their doctors should. He will eliminate gun control and gun-free school zones. He will appoint Supreme Court justices who will roll back reproductive rights, gay rights, and regulations on corporations. He opposes an increase in the minimum wage. He threatens to abandon NATO. He has a thin skin. If someone offends him, he lashes out. He ridicules them, belittles them. Can he be trusted with the nation’s nuclear codes? Will he get annoyed and nuke some country he doesn’t like?

I am not voting for Hillary as “the lesser of two evils.”

I don’t think she is evil. I don’t think she is ethically challenged. I have met her several times in the past and have been impressed by her intellect, her judgment, and her compassion. We all know the ordeal she endured because of her husband’s infidelities. That was not her doing. She tried to protect her family as best she could. We know now that other revered presidents, like FDR and Ike, had affairs; JFK was a serial womanizer. The media abandoned their code of silence about presidential privacy when Bill Clinton was president. Hillary can’t be blamed for Bill’s misadventures, and it was nearly 20 years ago, so who cares? God knows, there are plenty of members of Congress and governors in both parties who would not want their private lives revealed in the news. Remember the Republican Congressman who had a “wide stance” in the men’s bathroom in an airport?

I don’t think Hillary is a liar or a person of low character.

Trump has tried to brand her as “Crooked Hillary,” just as he branded Jeb Bush as “low energy,” Ted Cruz as “Lyin’ Ted,” and Marco Rubio as “Little Marco.”

She got large speaking fees but so what? So has every other major political figure when they left office, as well as every celebrity.

I give her credit for being able to withstand the constant barrage of hatred, vilification, smears, and mudslinging–and she has taken it for 25 years. Republicans blame her for everything.

She must have a very thick skin. They have called her every name in the book, and she is still standing. I admire her courage. I admire her resilience.

I know she is smart. She is super-smart. There are very few people who have run for president who are as well informed about the details of foreign and domestic policy as she is.

I am not happy with her qualified support for charter schools. I would like to explain to her that they are undermining the nation’s public schools, and in some cities, destroying them. I would like to explain to her that the problem is not just “for-profit charter schools.” The problem is setting up a dual publicly-funded school system, one that chooses its students and the other required to accept and enroll every student. It makes no sense.

Like me, she went to public schools. She knows how important they are to our democracy. I believe she would not knowingly sacrifice them to the entrepreneurs and privatizers who want to take them over.

We had a dual system before the Brown decision in 1954 (and for years afterwards). That was a very bad idea. Charters are typically more segregated than public schools. In some states, they are havens for white flight. They are not public schools. They are not accountable or transparent. They are privately managed. They are a form of privatization. They pave the way for vouchers. They encourage parents to think as consumers, not citizens. What we have learned from twenty-five years of charter schools is that deregulation opens the door to fraud, nepotism, and graft. Not all charter schools are bad, not all charter leaders are grifters, but those who are go undetected until a whistle-blower appears.

Hillary says she supports only “high quality charter schools,” but what does that mean? The charters with the highest test scores? Those are the charters that are most likely to exclude students who don’t speak English and students with disabilities and to push out problem students. Why should our government deliberately fund a two-track school system? Charter schools are NOT public schools. They are private schools that receive public funding.

If she is elected, and I hope she is, I will continue to fight for public education. Supporting public education is not a choice, it is a civic responsibility. It is a civic responsibility for those whose children are grown and for those who have no children. This is what good citizens do. I will continue to try to persuade the Democrats to oppose the school privatization policies promoted by ALEC, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Snyder, Rick Scott, Mike Pence, Pat McCrory, Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and the Tea Party.

The American public school is one of the bedrock ideas of our democracy. We must not abandon it. To privatize our schools betrays our democratic values.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because I trust that she will have a steady hand on American foreign policy.

I will vote for her because I trust that she will shape domestic policies to strengthen our economy and to increase equity.

I will vote for her because I trust that she will reflect and think before making decisions and will not act or react impulsively.

I will vote for her because I trust she will appoint Supreme Court justices who will make decisions that protect our rights and strengthen our democracy.

I will vote for her because I trust that she will fight for a society that is more just for all.

I will vote for her because she has experience, wisdom, and deep knowledge of our nation and the world.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because she is eminently qualified to be president of the United States.

Diane Ravitch

#Imwithher

The Washington Post published this editorial.

Trump said at the convention that he is the only one that can fix all our problems. Only dictators think that they are “the only one” and the salvation of the nation. That’s scary.

Trump has said that he will not necessarily support our NATO allies, as we have long pledged to do. The Baltic nations must be terrified as he withdraws America’s promise.

Trump has said he will appoint judges to the Supreme Court in the mold of Justice Scalia.

Trump has said he will eliminate gun-free zones in and around schools.

Here is the beginning of the editorial:

DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.

Any one of these characteristics would be disqualifying; together, they make Mr. Trump a peril. We recognize that this is not the usual moment to make such a statement. In an ordinary election year, we would acknowledge the Republican nominee, move on to the Democratic convention and spend the following months, like other voters, evaluating the candidates’ performance in debates, on the stump and in position papers. This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views on all the candidates. But we cannot salute the Republican nominee or pretend that we might endorse him this fall. A Trump presidency would be dangerous for the nation and the world.

The Weekly Standard is a reliably conservative magazine owned by Rupert Murdoch. Stephen Hayes, one of its regular contributors, wrote after the GOP convention that “Donald Trump is crazy, and so is the GOP for embracing him.”

He focuses on Trump’s remarks the day after the convention ended, when he addressed the volunteers who worked the convention. He rambled on about his hatred for Ted Cruz, that he didn’t want his support, that he would reject his support, that he might start a PAC (after he is elected president) to defeat Cruz. He restated his claim that Cruz’s father was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald and was somehow involved in JFK’s assassination. This is not what you call “moving on.”

He castigates Republicans who pretend that he is normal. Hayes says he is “not of sound mind.”

His amplification of the Cruz-Oswald conspiracies is part of a long pattern of embracing crazy. He hinted that Antonin Scalia was murdered. He’s suggested autism is linked to vaccinations. He claimed “thousands” of Muslims celebrated in the streets of New Jersey after 9/11. He said many people consider Vince Foster’s death a “murder” and called it “very fishy.” And before he ran for president, his deepest foray into politics was a campaign to prove that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States. (It failed.)

Trump has praised Alex Jones, whose radio program is to conspiracy theories what ESPN is to sports. Jones, a prominent 9/11 truther, claimed there was a “98 percent chance” that the 9/11 attacks were controlled bombings perpetrated by the U.S. government. In an appearance on Jones’s radio show last year, Trump offered the host deferential praise. “Your reputation is amazing,” Trump said. “I will not let you down.”

He urges his fellow Republicans to speak out against Trump. He is not a normal candidate.

This is a man who has been repeatedly suedfor discriminating against blacks in his rental properties. The Washington Post says he is a threat to the nation and the world.

And yet Trump is tied in the polls with Hillary Clinton. Many Americans like his fear-mongering and conspiracy theories. They want him to protect them. They believe it when he says he will bring back all the lost jobs. They believe it when he says that he alone can “fix” the problems.

This man could be elected president. Think about that.

George Lakoff, the psycholinguist, is expert in explaining how people respond to verbal messages. His book “Don’t Think of an Elephant,” was a best-seller.

I met Lakoff a few years back and asked him about how to frame issues in the education debate. We spent two hours talking. He left a lasting lesson with me: liberals think that people are persuaded by facts; conservatives persuade with narratives, not facts.

In this important article, he explains the reason for Trump’s success: Trump is the Father, the strong authoritarian father who will protect us and keep us safe from all threats.

“In the 1900s, as part of my research in the cognitive and brain sciences, I undertook to answer a question in my field: How do the various policy positions of conservatives and progressives hang together? Take conservatism: What does being against abortion have to do with being for owning guns? What does owning guns have to do with denying the reality of global warming? How does being anti-government fit with wanting a stronger military? How can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? Progressives have the opposite views. How do their views hang together?

The answer came from a realization that we tend to understand the nation metaphorically in family terms: We have founding fathers. We send our sons and daughters to war. We have homeland security. The conservative and progressive worldviews dividing our country can most readily be understood in terms of moral worldviews that are encapsulated in two very different common forms of family life: The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative).

What do social issues and the politics have to do with the family? We are first governed in our families, and so we grow up understanding governing institutions in terms of the governing systems of families.

In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father’s authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they are in charge of. When his children disobey, it is his moral duty to punish them painfully enough so that, to avoid punishment, they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world. What if they don’t prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. This reasoning shows up in conservative politics in which the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving, and the rich as deserving their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you; society has nothing to do with it. You are responsible for yourself, not for others — who are responsible for themselves.

Winning and Insulting

As the legendary Green Bay Packers coach, Vince Lombardi, said,

“Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.” In a world governed by personal responsibility and discipline, those who win deserve to win. Why does Donald Trump publicly insult other candidates and political leaders mercilessly? Quite simply, because he knows he can win an onstage TV insult game. In strict conservative eyes, that makes him a formidable winning candidate who deserves to be a winning candidate. Electoral competition is seen as a battle. Insults that stick are seen as victories — deserved victories.”