"A bigot and a racist"?

          Tonight I will leave you with a cut and paste worthy post from Dana Milbank.

"Let’s not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist.

Some will think this an outrageous label to apply to the frontrunner for a major party’s presidential nomination. Ordinarily, I would agree that name-calling is part of what’s wrong with our politics.

But there is a greater imperative not to be silent in the face of demagoguery. Trump in this campaign has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and now the disabled. His pattern brings to mind the famous words of Martin Neimoller, the pastor and concentration camp survivor (“First they came for the socialists…”) that Ohio Gov. John Kasich adroitly used in a video last week attacking Trump’s hateful broadsides.

It might be possible to explain away any one of Trump’s outrages as a mistake or a misunderstanding. But at some point you’re not merely saying things that could be construed as bigoted: You are a bigot.

It has been more than a quarter century since Trump took out ads in New York newspapers calling for the death penalty for “criminals of every age” after five black and Latino teens were implicated in the Central Park jogger case. The young men, convicted and imprisoned, were later cleared by DNA evidence and the confession of a serial rapist – and Trump called their wrongful-conviction settlement a “disgrace.”

Since then, Trump led the “birther” movement challenging President Obama’s standing as a natural-born American; used various vulgar expressions to refer to women; spoke of Mexico sending rapists and other criminals across the border; called for rounding up and deporting 11 million illegal immigrants; had high-profile spats with prominent Latino journalists and news outlets; mocked Asian accents; let stand a charge made in his presence that Obama is a Muslim and that Muslims are a “problem” in America; embraced the notion of forcing Muslims to register in a database; falsely claimed thousands of Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey; tweeted bogus statistics asserting that most killings of whites are done by blacks; approved of the roughing up of a black demonstrator at one of his events; and publicly mocked the movements of New York Times (and former Washington Post) journalist Serge Kovaleski, who has a chronic condition limiting mobility.

He hasn’t gone after Jews recently, but his backers have, and Trump was uncharacteristically silent when prominent booster Ann Coulter, responding to Republican candidates’ support for Israel in a debate, tweeted: “How many f---ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

Though all Trump supporters surely aren’t racists or bigots, even a cursory examination of social media reveals that many are.  Those supporting Trump tend to be white, less-educated and middle-aged and older – those who are anxious and angry because they are losing ground as the American economy changes. An analysis of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll by my colleague Scott Clement found that Trump, who has the support of 14 percent of registered voters overall, does particularly well among white men who aren’t college-educated (24 percent) and white, non-evangelical Protestants (27 percent), but gets only 3 percent of non-whites and 5 percent of those under 30 years old." [More]

 

I had almost forgotten about trump calling for the death penalty for those young men in the Central Park  jogger case. Young men, I might add, who have since been vindicated.

 

It's sad that it took a journalist who writes for the Washington Post to do what the republican establishment and candidates should have been doing this election cycle: Call out Donald trump for the racist and bigot that he is.    

 

One of the sad things about the trump phenomenon is that people are always willing to make excuses for him. 

 

"..he defended the treatment of the black man at Trump’s rally (“he was obviously being disruptive and he was a big burly guy”), Trump’s tweet falsely blaming African Americans for most killings of white people (“he just fell for some bad data”) and Trump’s embrace of a Muslim database (“that was brought up by a reporter”)."

 

Whether Donald trump wins the election or not, his rise to prominence has been bad for America. Even if his supporters don't realize it yet.

 

*Pic from thinkprogress.org

 

 

 

A killing in Texas, and "taunts and mockery" in Washington.

Did you hear about the case in Texas where the po po shot a man to death who was handcuffed and it was caught on camera?


"Earlier this year a grand jury declined to charge an El Paso police officer in the shooting death of a prisoner. A video of the incidenct  was published on Monday, after the Texas Attorney General instructed the city to fulfill a request processed by the El Paso Times. The events of the video are deeply unsettling, showing a police officer essentially executing a handcuffed man." [Story]


The most shocking part of this story, besides the obvious of course, is that a "grand jury declined to charge" the police officer. You Texans I swear.


But it's not only those folks in Texas. Right here in Pistolvania the justice system can be just as harsh.


"A Pennsylvania woman died in a jail cell over the weekend while serving a 48-hour sentence for her children’s unpaid school fines. Eileen DiNino was found dead on Saturday in a Berks County jail cell where she was midway through the sentence that would have eliminated around $2,000 in fines and related court fees related to her children’s attendance at school. Police have said her death is not considered suspicious, but the cause has yet to be determined. She was 55 years old and a mother to seven children.


“This lady didn’t need to be there,” District Judge Dean Patton — who said he was “reluctant” to sentence DiNino — told the Associated Press. ”We don’t do debtors prisons anymore. That went out 100 years ago.” More than 1,600 people have been jailed in Berks County alone — the majority of them women — because of similar fines. [Source]


Lord have mercy! This really is no country for poor folks.


If you are rich and kill someone with your car you don't spend a day in jail. If you are poor and owe the school district money you die in jail.


Finally, thank goodness for the video camera. It exposed the cold blooded killing of that poor man in El Paso, and it has also vindicated Dana Milbank.


"On Monday evening, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank live-blogged the Heritage Foundation’s Benghazi panel and described a lengthy exchange between panelists and a Muslim student as “ugly” and having descended into taunts and mockery."


Of course wingnuts were quick to call the report  a lie and declare hat Milbank was exaggerating.


Well, as it turns out, he was not. Those tolerant right-wing Christians were giving the lone female Muslim in their midst the business. All that was missing was the post and the fire to burn the heretic.


Real tolerant folks over there at the Heritage Foundation.


“Are you an American?” Gabriel demanded of Ahmed, after accusing her of taking “the limelight” and before informing her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.”


“Where are the others speaking out?” Ahmed was asked. This drew an extended standing ovation from the nearly 150 people in the room, complete with cheers.
The panel’s moderator, conservative radio host Chris Plante, grinned and joined in the assault. “Can you tell me who the head of the Muslim peace movement is?” he demanded of Ahmed.


“Yeah,” audience members taunted, “yeah.”


Ahmed answered quietly, as before. “I guess it’s me right now,” she said." [Source]






 


  




 

The sequel.

I am not a big fan of movie sequels, give me the original every time. With a few exceptions, (the Bourne franchise comes to mind) the sequel never quite lives up to the original. Big Momma’s House 2? Beverly Hills Cop 11?The Hangover Part 11? Please!

So anyway, now we have “Fast and Furious” playing out in Washington, and if you haven’t been paying attention, you might not realize that this too is a sequel. Yes, let’s call this one 2 Fast 2 furious.

The original came under our friend W, and, as is the case with most originals, I am guessing that it was better than the sequel as well.

"One after the other, Republicans on the panel waved the bloody shirt. “Here’s the proof!” hollered Rep. Trey Gowdy (S.C.), claiming he had evidence that President Obama knew about a botched federal program that contributed to Terry’s death. Gowdy’s proof: that Obama cited executive privilege in denying the committee all the documents it sought. “If he’s not part of it, then he’s got no business asserting executive privilege,” Gowdy concluded.

Terry’s death is indeed a scandal, part of the “Fast and Furious” operation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lost track of 2,000 guns it was planning to trace on their way to Mexican drug cartels; two of those firearms were found near Terry’s body. After that, the Justice Department shut down the program (which followed similar “gun-walking” operations during the George W. Bush administration), fired or reassigned several people who ran the program out of ATF’s Phoenix office, requested an inspector-general investigation and handed over about 7,600 pages of records to Issa’s committee." [Source]

Wait, what was that Mr.Milbank? We have actually seen this movie before? Yes, I thought it looked familiar.

I wonder why this one is such a hit with republicans and the original was such a dud? Hmmmm, I am guessing that they didn't like the first director.

"Republicans didn’t have much on Holder — it’s one of those perennial disputes about how much the executive branch needs to divulge to the legislature — so they did what sensible people usually do when they have an honest disagreement: They accused the attorney general of being an accessory to murder."

Or, maybe they just like a more dramatic script.

One tough cookie.

"The first thing Newt should do while in the big house is contract his bust be added to Mount Rushmore. Think of all the jobs that will create."

That was classic. I wish I thought of that line, but the credit goes to someone writing in the comment section of the Washington Post online.  The person was commenting after this article by Dana Milbank, which outlined just how Nasty Newt can be.

"Nearly two decades ago, Gingrich’s political action committee, with the help of GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, issued a now-famous memo telling Republican candidates which words they should use to describe their opponents. Among them: “anti,” “betray,” “bizarre,” “corrupt,” “destructive,” “disgrace,” “shame,” “lie,” “pathetic,” “radical,” “self-serving,” “selfish,” “shallow,” “shame,” “sick,” “traitors.”

“These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast,” this Gingrich-endorsed memo explained. “Remember that creating a difference helps you. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.”

With that memo, and with the slashing style of politics that brought Republicans to power in the House for the first time in generations, Gingrich did more than anybody else to set the tone in Washington."

Yes Newt, you are Mr. Nasty. Embrace your nastiness and stop wimping out.
You are starting to look like a bigger phony than your closest rival, and, believe me, that takes some doing.

Finally, here is a little issue that has me going, hmmmmm:

Most of you know that Philly fans are rough, and they are catching the business for giving it to the fiance of one of our players this year. The player happens to be one Casey Matthews, who sucks big time as a player. Eagles fans have not been pleased with Casey, and his fiance made the mistake of wearing a jersey with his name on the back to a recent game.

"Eagles linebacker Casey Matthews has had a rough season. Over the past few games, he’s served mainly a special teams role. He’s been bounced from outside linebacker to inside linebacker to eventually the bench. The rookie was given a chance to start multiple times this season but hasn’t been able to put it together. Unfortunately, Eagles fans took note of the fact that he has struggled. What’s even more unfortunate is their decision to take it out on his family.
“I’m trying to,” Matthews said when asked about winning over Philly fans. “It’s hard. One of the earlier games, they harassed my family and made my fiancee cry. It’s tough. It’s frustrating. That’s just how they are here. If you win they love you, so I guess we’ve just got to turn things around and just start winning again.”

Does that surprise anyone? These are the same fans who were chanting for their head coach to be fired just a couple weeks ago. They also allegedly threw beer at the Giants bus earlier in the season. .." [Source]

Oh please! This has been big news all over sports talk radio hear in Philly, and it has been getting some national play as well. Most people are coming down on the fans for their behavior towards this "poor woman", and she has been cast as the poor damsel in distress among the ignorant and boorish fans who make up Eagle Nation.    

Well, this is why I say hmmmmm: Remember when those same Eagles fans gave the business to the mother of  Redskins runner, Clinton Portis?

 "Updated: 12:07 a.m. ET Jan. 3, 2006

Clinton Portis took a beating in Sunday's victory over Philadelphia. Apparently, his mother dished one out.

In the fourth quarter, Portis's mother, Rhonnel Hearn, was sitting in the end zone at Lincoln Financial Field with Portis's stepfather and some friends when an Eagles fan apparently tossed a beer on the group. Portis's mother responded by punching the woman in the face, Portis said.

The altercation explained why Hearn watched part of the game from the Redskins sideline.

"She busted some lady in the nose, but that'll just teach you about messing with her," Portis said. "I think fans take that too serious. People come to the game to have a good time, that's what you should do. If you decide your team is losing and you want to cause trouble, then you're going to get what you're looking for. And yesterday, whoever that fan was, they got what they were looking for."

Portis rushed for 112 hard yards Sunday but re-injured an already sore shoulder and left wrist after being horse-collared in the fourth quarter by linebacker Trent Cole. "It's one of those Mondays where I feel like I ain't going to make it," Portis said with a laugh.

His mother, he said, fared better. "My mom can protect herself," Portis said."

[Story]

After this story, the sentiment went the other way: the fans were right and mama Portis was wrong to go all Joe Frazier on some loud mouth.

Oh those tough black women. Hmmmmm. 

 

Message to O.

"After two years of being called a tyrant and a dictator, President Obama returns to Washington from a five-day overseas trip to find he has become a weakling.

Would-be opponents such as Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Sarah Palin had been trying out this somewhat contradictory line of attack for more than a month as Obama gave mixed signals about events in Egypt and Libya. But the "weak leader" charge gained traction last weekend as Obama chose to launch the attack on Moammar Gadhafi's forces while on an excellent adventure with his family in South America.

At about the moment the Tomahawk missiles began to rain down on Libya, Obama was joking with Brazilians about Carnival, the World Cup, and the Olympics. Rather than an Oval Office address announcing the new war, Americans got word from the president in a scratchy audio recording. As warheads pounded Libyan forces, Obama was kicking a soccer ball, seeing the sights, and watching cowboys in sequins.

It was perilously close to George W. Bush's "The Pet Goat" moment, when he continued reading a children's storybook after being told the second World Trade Center tower had been hit. Bush later said he was trying to maintain calm. Likewise, White House officials tell me the decision to proceed with the South America trip was made in part to convey that the Libya bombardment was not a major military action.

Weak or stubborn?
Obama administration officials calculated that he would take a hit. But they appear to have been surprised by the force of the weakling complaint, coming not just from usual suspects such as Karl Rove, but from liberals such as my Washington Post colleague Richard Cohen, who saw Obama "quite literally distancing himself from the consequences of his own policy."
My own sense, based on years of Obamology and confirmed by discussions with current and former Obama advisers, is that Obama's decision to proceed with spring break in Rio comes less from weakness than from stubbornness. Since his earliest days on the campaign trail in Iowa, he has made clear his aversion to the flavor-of-the-day news cycle, instead measuring his progress toward a few broad-brush goals. If something - such as the uprisings in the Middle East - doesn't fit unambiguously within his big goals, his instinct is to brush it off.

"I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle," he told reporters once. "I'm not. OK?"

Laser focus
This worked to his benefit during the campaign, when he kept his focus on electoral mechanics rather than the vagaries of his opponents' attacks. But his broad brushes have not always served him well in the presidency, as when his laser focus on health care left voters with the sense that he didn't care about unemployment. He lost the House, and with it the rest of his agenda.

The attack on Libya presented the toughest test yet of Obama's defiance of the news cycle. In a USA Today op-ed before his departure, Obama wrote that while the Middle East is important, he was going to Latin America because "our top priority has to be creating and sustaining new jobs and new opportunities."

The administration officials I spoke with argued that this was a sign of strong leadership. "To abandon course at every moment of pundit criticism is not strength," said one of the president's top advisers. They pointed to polls showing most Americans continue to regard Obama as a strong leader, and they argued that, beyond Washington, headlines from Obama's trip justified his strategy. ("Obama's trip to Brazil key to N.J. businesses," reported North Jersey's Record.)

But the White House is also discovering the perils of broad-brush leadership. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found that when Americans were asked who is taking "a stronger leadership role," Republicans had a seven-point advantage over Obama; three months ago, Obama had a narrow lead.

The White House justifiably complains that the criticism of Obama's Libya policy has been inconsistent: First he was too slow to take action, and now he's rushing to attack without congressional approval - even though Congress is on its own 10-day spring break.

But it doesn't matter if the criticism is fair. Obama left a vacuum, and his opponents filled it. For a president suddenly called "weak," such is the tyranny of the news cycle." [Source]

O, I have to agree with Dana Milbank: You are acting as if A-merry-ca still loves you. She does not. You were the flavor of a November month when A-merry-cans were being...well, A-merry-cans. This is, after all, the country that made "Snooki" famous. If you want to win in this country, you have to get out in front of the story. Do not let the story get in front of you. Do not give your political opponents an opening so that they can create their own story.

We all know that if you were a republican president the wingnuts would be calling you a hero. We all know that the pretzel- logic they are using to say that you were wrong to join the UN and other countries (such as the African Union) to attack Libya is laughably ludicrous. But this is politics in A-merry-ca. This is what you came from, so you have to deal with it. I just wonder why no one in your inner circle told you this before

BTW, in the future, you might want to work on your soccer skills before you go kicking a soccer ball with a bunch of Brazilian kids. They are kind of good at that game.