Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Being Global Media Celebrity Dave Weigel: 8 examples from Dec. 9 evening thread

12/9/17, "“He Fights” – President Trump Calls Out Fake News Reporting of Washington Post and Dave Weigel," tcth, sundance

"In an effort to ridicule President Trump, Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel tweeted a fake news picture from last night’s MAGA rally in Pensacola Florida; obviously attempting to frame a narrative that the rally was poorly attended."...


Following are 8 examples of what flowed from Dave's action mentioned above:

Below, WaPo's Dave Weigel says fellow reporter David Martosko (of Daily Mail) alerted him that his Trump rally photo was wrong (posted at tcth at 540pm):

Below, David Martosko says he and Weigel haven't connected in at least a year (posted at tcth at 808pm):

David Martosko's last word is that Weigel is odd but "a very talented reporter," Trump is "ganging up on him," and "Let it go."


Below, comment to Martosko's pathetic "very talented" smoke:

Below, as to Martosko's "ganging up," "very talented," and "let it go:"

Below, Weigel wraps it up, for those interested:


My comment:

Dave Weigel enjoys being a global celebrity. Perhaps that's where his "talent," if any, may best be focused. In 2010 Dave Weigel was fired/forced to resign from the Washington Post for hateful comments he made about Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and conservatives in general. Weigel's statements were apparently made on the Journolist site, at the time an online mob of Deep State media cheerleaders. Some of his comments became public. Whether public or not, Weigel harbors hateful, bigoted opinions. Persons with out of control emotions shouldn't be employed at the Washington Post. There are other ways of being a global celebrity--which is what Weigel is.

6/26/2010, "Washington Post blogger David Weigel resigns after messages leak," Washington Post, Howard Kurtz


Saturday, December 9, 2017

Look, Gloria, all we asked for was the standard, well rehearsed crying victim. What were you thinking with this yearbook thing?-commenter imagines Mitch McConnell chatting with Gloria Allred

"7 posted on 12/9/2017, 11:32:57 PM by Eddie01" 

Image and caption of imaginary conversation between Deep State Republican Mitch McConnell and Gloria Allred posted by Free Republic commenter to article, 12/8/17, "Forgery 101: Beverly Young Nelson and Gloria Allred Both Presented ‘Notes’ as Roy Moore’s Own Writing," Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart 



FDR formed partnership with Stalin and Churchill to defeat Nazis in Europe. FDR outlined for Stalin his view of future United Nations dominated by "four policemen," US, UK, China, and Soviet Union-Politico

Stalin, FDR, Churchill, 11/28/1943 in Tehran


The leaders, known as the Big Three, chose the Iranian capital as the site for their parley, largely at Stalin’s behest. When first lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Roosevelt's daughter Anna voiced a desire to accompany the president, he said no women would be present. Subsequently, they were incensed to learn that Churchill’s wife, Clementine, and Madame Chiang Kai-shek of China had made the trip. 

FDR biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote that rather than feeling any trepidation about the dangers of a secret trip through war zones, Roosevelt was not only eager to meet again with his friend Churchill but also excited at the prospect of meeting Stalin for the first time.

Roosevelt promised Stalin that the Americans and the British would invade Nazi-occupied France, crossing the English Channel, in the spring of 1944. Until that point, Churchill favored a joint strike through the Mediterranean, pushing eastward through the Balkans. That strategy would have presumably secured British interests in the Middle East and India while curbing the Soviet advance into Eastern Europe. For his part, FDR, with the advent of an Allied victory, sought to break up the British Empire; his concessions to Stalin served that goal....

The leaders agreed that the Soviet Union would fight against Japan once the Nazis were beaten. They also promised to offer postwar economic assistance to Iran and guaranteed the host nation’s independence and territorial integrity. 

Roosevelt outlined for Stalin his vision of the proposed world organization in which a future United Nations would be dominated by “four policemen” — the United States, Britain, China, and Soviet Union— who “would have the power to deal immediately with any threat to the peace and any sudden emergency which requires action.” 

Their discussions about a postwar peace settlement were tentative at best. Nevertheless, they voiced their desire to cooperate after what they believed would be an inevitable German defeat. The meeting proved so friendly that Churchill, who mistrusted Stalin, later voiced concern about Roosevelt’s efforts to woo the Soviet leader."



Obama administration cheered Islamic terrorists, particularly the Sunnis. Since 2007 US goal was to destroy governments in 7 countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran-Daniel Lazare, Consortium News...(Peace is bad for business. US taxpayers enable constant war)

"It’s not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington’s bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it."

12/8/17, "When Washington Cheered the Jihadists," Daniel Lazare, Consortium News

"Exclusive: Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better, explains Daniel Lazare."

"When a Department of Defense intelligence report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn’t know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.

Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in August 2014.

The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World Trade Center?

It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information lawsuitThe New York Times didn’t mention it until six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before dismissing it as “loopy” and “relatively unimportant.” With ISIS rampaging across much of Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than hostile.

But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report, attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.

After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter C.J. Chivers wrote that the group “mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning.”

Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, assured the Washington Post that “al Qaeda is a fringe element” among the rebels, while, not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a pin-up of a “ridiculously photogenic” jihadi toting an RPG.

“Hey girl,” said the subhead. “Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny.”

And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington, which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill’s Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists,” which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was completed, didn’t distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: “So the rebels aren’t secular Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn’t much matter.”

Assessing the Damage

Five years later, it’s worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to reduce an entire nation to rubble.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi ambassador to the United States, meeting with President George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, on Aug. 27, 2002. (White House photo)

First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region’s prime imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.

William Roebuck, the American embassy’s chargé d’affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi‘ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are “often exaggerated.” It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.

A year later [2007], former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years,” first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07.)

Since the United States didn’t like what such governments were doing, the solution was to install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington’s joy when the Arab Spring struck Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their own.

Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian chants of “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin,” U.S. enthusiasm remained strong. With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.

Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both unavoidable and far from entirely negative.

“Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship,” he wrote in reference to the Baathists. “Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad’s Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed regime.” 

So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though “the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people,” Gambill said, “it has two important silver linings for US interests.” One is that the jihadis “are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts” thanks to their skill with “suicide bombings and roadside bombs.”

The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in “a full-blown strategic defeat” for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.

“So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies,” the article concluded, “we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame the beast after Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames.”

Deals with the Devil

The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn’t. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place.

Saudi King Salman bids farewell to President Barack Obama at Erga Palace after a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that’s all that counts.

The parallels with the DIA are striking. “The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” the intelligence report declared, even though “the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency.”

Where Gambill predicted that “Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern Syria,” the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish “a declared or undeclared Salafist principality” at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known as Deir ez-Zor).

Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine Shi‘ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality “is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
Bottle up the Shi‘ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi‘ite-influenced Iraq and Shi‘ite-ruled Iran.

As Gambill put it: “Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people, any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran unthinkable, it won’t have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington.”

With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.

Disastrous Thinking

Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria’s Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill’s article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.

U.S.-backed Syrian “moderate” rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]

War-time destruction totals around $250 billion, according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria, the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.

So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.

It’s not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington’s bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group’s founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for.
The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill’s kind words about “suicide bombings and roadside bombs” – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic terrorism.

Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others."


Facebook spanks Breitbart article by John Nolte, places warning, advises readers to check "reporting" from Politifact: “Before you share this content, you might want to know that there is additional reporting on this from PolitiFact." Everyone who tries to share the link sees this message. Politifact says John Nolte's article is from "a conspiracy-minded website"

Excerpt from Breitbart article: 12/8/17, "Bombshell: Roy Moore Accuser Beverly Nelson Admits She Forged Yearbook," Breitbart, John Nolte 

"Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she forged a portion of the infamous high school yearbook that she and attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

And in yet another blow to the credibility of ABC News,...the reporter actually coaches Nelson, puts words in her mouth, downplays the enormous significance of her deceit."...


Facebook spanks Breitbart:

12/8/17, "Facebook Informs Breitbart Gloria Allred Yearbook Forgery is Fake News," Breitbart, Ben Kew

"Facebook warned Breitbart News on Friday that the author of a completely factual story concerning the accuser of Alabama Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore needed to consult “additional reporting” from the liberal fact-checker Politifact.

The story [authored by John Nolte], published on Friday morning, detailed how Beverly Young Nelson, who accused Roy Moore of sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager, admitted to adding “notes” to part of her yearbook, which she claims Moore signed.

This revelation came despite Nelson claiming at her initial press conference alongside her lawyer Gloria Allred, that the entire yearbook document was solely Moore’s handwriting.

In a message sent to Breitbart News’s Facebook page, the company warned that there was “additional reporting” from liberal fact-checker Politifact on the issue.

“Before you share this content, you might want to know that there is additional reporting on this from PolitiFact,” the message read.

This message is now sent to everyone who tries to share the link.

“A conspiracy-minded website attempted to cast doubt on the evidence presented by one of eight women who accused Roy Moore of sexual assault in a misleading headline days ahead of the Alabama Senate race,” Politifact wrote about the incident.

“Nelson says she added the time and location to the inscription. But she says the note and signature were from Moore,” the article continues. “That’s not what the headlines of the Gateway Pundit, Breitbart or Silence is Consent. All three say Nelson said she either tampered with Moore’s signature or forged the inscription. There’s no evidence of that.”"...

[Ed. note: To Politifact: Merriam-Webster defines "forgery": "the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or altering a document." This is exactly what Ms. Nelson says she did. From google search for "definition of forgery": "Synonyms for forgery: fake, counterfeit, fraud, sham, imitation, replica." These synonyms describe what Ms. Nelson's actions produced. Breitbart's article by John Nolte (posted below) never states she "tampered with Moore's signature." I don't know what Politifact means by "the inscription." The fact is the woman now admits she added text to what she weeks ago described in its entirety on national television as "evidence" of text placed by someone else. The woman lied for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a US election. Politifact may slice and dice the meaning of "forgery," but the actions certainly are lies and had the same intent as forgery. When this is done to effect the outcome of a US election, it's quite serious.] 

(continuing): "Facebook’s warning is part of a broader plan announced last year by CEO Mark Zuckerberg to begin adding warning labels on stories they deem to be false, with the help of partisan “fact-checking” organizations such as Snopes and PolitiFact.

Breitbart News has reached out to Facebook for comment, although no reply was received by the time of publication."


12/8/17, "Bombshell: Roy Moore Accuser Beverly Nelson Admits She Forged Yearbook," Breitbart, John Nolte 

"Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she forged a portion of the infamous high school yearbook that she and attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

And in yet another blow to the credibility of ABC News, the disgraced, left-wing network downplayed the bombshell by presenting this admission of forgery as adding “notes” to the inscription. Worse still, the reporter actually coaches Nelson, puts words in her mouth, downplays the enormous significance of her deceit.

“Nelson admits she did make notes to the inscription,” ABC News tells us. “But the message was all Roy Moore.”

“Beverly, he signed your yearbook,” ABC News reporter Tom Llamas says.

“He did sign it,” she replies.

“And you made some notes underneath.”

“Yes,” Nelson says.

And then, after a woman admits to forging a document used in a campaign to destroy the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Alabama, ABC News quickly moves on as though it is not news of extraordinary consequence.

Llamas also fails to ask any follow-ups, such as “If the explanation is this simple, why wait all these weeks to offer it?” Or, “Why did you lie?”

Nelson is accusing Moore of attempting to assault her when she was just 16-years-old. With the election just four days away, this admission of forgery could not come at a better time for Moore. Nelson and Allred are planning a news conference Friday, but nothing will overcome the forgery admission.

How can anyone believe anything she says after admitting to such a thing? Early reports are that Nelson and Allred will produce an expert to prove the rest of the yearbook is not a forgery. So a proven forger is bringing in her own expert. What an insult to the people of Alabama.

Another problem with Nelson is that she has a motive to lie and forge: as a circuit judge, Moore ruled against her in a 1999 divorce case.

The Moore campaign has been pressuring Nelson and Allred for weeks to submit the yearbook for independent handwriting analysis. Now everyone knows why that request was rejected and ignored.

With Nelson now thoroughly discredited, this leaves two accusers against Moore.

One is Leigh Corfman, who claims Moore molested her as a 14-year-old child. She is the most credible of the three, but the narrative behind her story, that Moore’s abuse resulted in Corfman’s living a troubled life of “drinking, drugs, boyfriends, and a suicide attempt,” is directly contradicted by contemporaneous court records.

Moore’s final accuser is Tina Johnson, a woman who claims Moore groped her butt in his office in 1991. But, again, as was the case with Corfman and Nelson, the left-wing media outlets reporting these allegations (the Washington Post, either failed to fully vet the accusers or withheld crucial context.

Thanks to New Media’s going behind these discredited outlets to fact check the reporting, we now know that Johnson did not tell the entire truth. She was not in Moore’s office “on business.” If she was in Moore’s office at all, it was due to a bitter custody battle where Moore represented Johnson’s mother, who was trying to gain custody of Johnson’s 12-year-old son based on the claim that Johnson was an “unfit, absent, and unstable mother.”

If the media and the accusers and Gloria Allred told the full truth to begin with, they would all be more credible.

As far as the accusations against Moore involving his wanting to date teenage girls, those are trumped-up charges, utter nonsense. The age of consent in Alabama was and is 16. Moreover, 40 years ago, it was not at all uncommon in the South for a 32-year-old man to seek a much younger bride. So not only did Moore not break the law, he was not violating any social mores."


Friday, December 8, 2017

Biggest common denominator among the 6.7 to 9.2 million Obama to Trump voters was view that US political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them. These voters won the election for Trump-NY Times, Edsall, 6/8/17

"The biggest common denominator among Obama-Trump voters is a view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them."...There were between 6.7 and 9.2 million Obama to Trump voters, "far more than enough to provide Trump his electoral College victory."

6/8/17, "The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought," NY Times,  Thomas B. Edsall, commentary 
"Priorities also studied Obama-to-Trump voters. Estimates of the number of such voters range from 6.7 to 9.2 million, far more than enough to provide Trump his Electoral College victory.

The counties that switched from Obama to Trump were heavily concentrated in the Midwest and other Rust Belt states. 

To say that this constituency does not look favorably on the Democratic Party fails to capture the scope of their disenchantment....

A solid majority, 77 percent, of Obama-to-Trump voters think Trump’s economic policies will either favor “all groups equally” (44) or the middle class (33). 21 percent said Trump would favor the wealthy.

In contrast, a plurality of these voters, 42 percent, said that Congressional Democrats would favor the wealthy, slightly ahead of Congressional Republicans at 40 percent.

Geoff Garin is a partner in the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group which, together with the Global Strategy Group, conducted the surveys and focus groups for Priorities USA. Garin wrote in an email: 

"The biggest common denominator among Obama-Trump voters is a view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them."

Garin added that

"Obama-Trump voters were more likely to think more Democrats look out for the wealthy
than look out for poor people."... 

If the Priorities analysis is bleak, the 13 American Prospect essays are even more so. 

Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster, writes in his Prospect essay:

"The Democrats don’t have a “white working-class problem.” They have a “working-class problem,” which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate, including the Rising American Electorate of minorities, unmarried women, and millennials. This decline contributed mightily to the Democrats’ losses in the states and Congress and to the election of Donald Trump." 

Greenberg voiced an exceptionally sharp critique of his own party and its candidates. First, he takes on Barack Obama:

"Working-class Americans pulled back from Democrats in this last period of Democratic governance because of President Obama’s insistence on heralding economic progress and the bailout of the irresponsible elites, while ordinary people’s incomes crashed and they continued to struggle financially.""... 

[Ed. note: Campaigning in 2008 Obama promised Rust Belt voters he'd renegotiate NAFTA. One month after his 2009 inauguration, he announced NAFTA would remain as is, that US should avoid "beggar thy neighbor" policies.  2/19/2009, "NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says," Washington Post, Michael D. Shear..."The president's message served as a reminder of last year's private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama's frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers." And: 12/10/2009, "Obama's Big Sellout: The President has Packed His Economic Team with Wall Street Insiders," Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi]

(continuing): "Hillary Clinton does not escape Greenberg’s wrath:

"In what may border on campaign malpractice, the Clinton campaign chose in the closing battle to ignore the economic stress not just of the working-class women who were still in play, but also of those within the Democrats’ own base, particularly among the minorities, millennials, and unmarried women."

Greenberg does not stop there, shifting his focus from individual Democratic politicians to the Democratic Party itself: Past supporters
"pulled back because of the Democrats’ seeming embrace of multinational trade agreements that have cost American jobs. The Democrats have moved from seeking to manage and champion the nation’s growing immigrant diversity to seeming to champion immigrant rights over American citizens’.

Instinctively and not surprisingly, the Democrats embraced the liberal values of America’s dynamic and best-educated metropolitan areas, seeming not to respect the values or economic stress of older voters in small-town and rural America. Finally, the Democrats also missed the economic stress and social problems in the cities themselves and in working-class suburbs.""...

[Ed. note: 4/5/17, "Democrats are still ignoring the people who could have helped them defeat Trump, Ohio party leaders say," Washington Post, William Wan, Youngstown, Ohio. (The Republican Party has no interest in its voters either.)]

(continuing): "Along parallel lines, three analysts at the pro-Democratic Center for American Progress, Robert Griffin, John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, argue that:

"Rather than debating whether Democrats should appeal to white working-class voters or voters of color — both necessary components of a successful electoral coalition, particularly at the state and local levela more important question emerges: Why are Democrats losing support and seeing declining turnout from working-class voters of all races in many places?"

Griffin, Halpin and Teixeira argue that:

"Democrats allowed themselves to become the party of the status quo--a status quo perceived to be elitist, exclusionary, and disconnected from the entire range of working-class concerns, but particularly from those voters in white working-class areas. 

For Democrats who argue that the adoption of economic populism is the best way to counter Trump, Guy Molyneux, a partner in Garin’s polling firm, warns in his American Prospect essay, “A Tale of Two Populisms,” that voters drawn to Trump are anti-government, deeply wary of a pro-government Democratic Party.

“Many analysts and leading Democrats,” Molyneux writes “have attributed Donald Trump’s impressive 2016 vote margin among white working-class voters to his embrace of economic populism.”...

While “Democrats can take obvious comfort in a story about Trump winning in large measure because he stole our ideas,” Molyneux writes, “this assessment misses the mark in important ways.” Why? Because,

"Trump’s brand of populism — and more importantly, that of working-class whites — differs in important ways from the populism of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren." 

While the populism espoused by Sanders and Warren is economic, challenging C.E.O.s, major corporations and “the billionaire class,” Trump is the messenger of what Molyneux calls “political populism,” which “is, fundamentally, a story about the failure of government.” 

Molyneux writes:

"White working-class voters’ negative view of government spending undermines their potential support for many progressive economic policies. While they want something done about jobs, wages, education, and health care, they are also fiscally conservative and deeply skeptical of government’s ability to make positive change. So political populism not only differs from economic populism, but also serves as a powerful barrier to it."

Or, as I have written elsewhere, Democrats cannot simply argue in favor of redistributive government on economic matters because defecting whites are deeply hostile to a government they see as coercive on matters of race."...

[Ed. note: Coercion is what Big Government is all about. Unisex bathrooms, ie, forcing 6 year old girls to face adult male genitalia, were considered a political triumph.]

(continuing): "In May, the Public Religion Research Institute released a report, Beyond Economics: Fears of Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to Trump.” It found that 

"more than half (52%) of white working-class Americans believe discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities" 

and that “four in ten white working-class Americans agree” with the statement that “efforts to increase diversity almost always come at the expense of whites.”

In a separate argument, Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, professors of political science at Duke and Vanderbilt, challenge a basic premise on the left — that the populism of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren could have stemmed the loss of non-college whites to Trump.

Carnes and Lupu contend instead that the oft-cited theory that Trump won because of support from the low-income white working class is itself wrong. 

The two scholars provide data showing that "among white people without college degrees who voted for Trump, nearly 60 percent were in the top half of the income distribution" and that "white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters." 

Democratic pessimism today stands in contrast to the optimism that followed the elections of 2006, 2008 and 2012. 

At that time, the consensus was that Democrats had found the key to sustained victory. The party saw its future in ascendant constituencies: empowered minorities, singles, social liberals and the well-educated.

Democratic activists saw the Republican Party as doomed to defeat without a radical change of course because it was tied to overlapping constituencies that they viewed as of waning significance--for example, older, non-college, evangelical white Christians.... 

Before 2016, no one, Democrat or Republican, thought that the man who would bring about radical change would be Donald Trump, except, perhaps, Trump himself. 

For all the harm he has done [No link to examples of alleged "harm"], continues to do and proposes to do, Trump has successfully forced Democrats to begin to examine the party’s neglected liabilities, the widespread resentment of its elites and the frail loyalty of its supporters."


Added: Perhaps Rust Belt voters remembered being deceived:

One month after his inauguration Obama broke his 2008 campaign promise to struggling Rust Belt Americans to renegotiate NAFTA, confirming Canadian officials' belief that his promise had just been to fool Rust Belt union workers into voting for him. Obama chose to make his announcement in Canada 'during his first trip abroad' as US president. He said now is not the time for "beggar-thy-neighbor policies." Washington Post, 2/19/2009. Definition of "beggar" when used as a verb: "to reduce someone to poverty." Meaning, as Obama told the entire world, if you Rust Belt people wanted NAFTA you were mean and just wanted others to suffer: 

Obama was inaugurated Jan. 20, 2009:

2/19/2009, "NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says," Washington Post, Michael D. Shear 

"President Obama warned on Thursday against a "strong impulse" toward protectionism while the world suffers a global economic recession and said his election-year promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement on behalf of unions and environmentalists will have to wait.

Obama made the comments as he stood with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during his first trip abroad as president. The two pledged cooperation on efforts to stimulate the economy, fight terrorism in Afghanistan and develop clean energy technology.

In a joint news conference, Obama said he wants to find a way to keep his campaign pledge to toughen labor and environmental standards -- and told Harper so -- but stressed that nothing should disrupt the free flow of trade between neighbors.

Now is a time where we've got to be very careful about any signals of protectionism," the president said. "Because, as the economy of the world contracts, I think there's going to be a strong impulse on the part of constituencies in all countries to see if we--they can engage in "beggar-thy-neighbor policies."

The president's message served as a reminder of last year's private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama's frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers.

"Much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the Canadians concluded in a memo after meeting with Austan Goolsbee, a senior campaign aide and now a member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. [Goolsbee was already on his way out by this time: On Nov. 5, 2008, the day after the election, Obama's transition team was announced. The list "was most notable for who was not on it, especially on the economic side. Austan Goolsbee...didn't make the cut." 12/10/2009, "Obama's Big Sellout: The President has Packed His Economic Team with Wall Street Insiders," Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi] 

When the memo became public, Obama advisers rejected the idea as absurd and insisted that he was serious about changing NAFTA. Obama even suggested that the United States might opt out of NAFTA if the standards could not be improved to the nation's satisfaction.

But some longtime observers of the U.S.-Canada relationship said Obama's current position appears to confirm the impression that Canadian officials got from the meeting with Goolsbee. 

"It sounds like [Goolsbee] was right," said former Massachusetts governor Paul Cellucci (R), who served as U.S. ambassador to Canada during George W. Bush's first term. "It looks like [President Obama has] softened that quite a bit, to put it mildly."

That could anger some of Obama's staunchest labor supporters, who blame NAFTA for sending American jobs oversees by not requiring a level playing field in the areas of labor and the environment.

But some of those allies said Thursday that they are giving the president more time to make good on his promise and praised Obama for finding a sophisticated way to express support for trade and changes to NAFTA.

"I am happy for him to frame his way of positioning the issue any way he wants, as long as he actually delivers on the issue," said Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division. "If down the road Obama doesn't deliver on the policy, there will be a whole lot of really upset people."

(p. 2) The trade discussion came as Canadians have expressed concern in recent days about the "Buy American" provision that Congress added to the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama signed into law this week. 

Harper said he has "every expectation" that the United States will abide by trade rules that forbid such preferences. But he used strong language to indicate how seriously the country takes that issue.

"If we pursue stimulus packages, the goal of which is only to benefit ourselves, or to benefit ourselves, worse, at the expense of others, we will deepen the world recession, not solve it," he said. Obama and Harper also pledged to work together to battle terrorism, especially in Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers have been fighting and dying for years.

In his first public comments since sending an additional 17,000 troops to the war-torn country earlier this week, Obama said that "it was necessary to stabilize the situation there in advance of the elections that are coming up."

The president declined to say how long the troops will remain there, citing a 60-day review he has ordered. Harper also declined to say whether his country's troops will remain beyond 2011, but said the long-term goal of the war should be constrained.

"We are not in the long term, through our own efforts, going to establish peace and security in Afghanistan. That, that job, ultimately, can be done only by the Afghans themselves," he said....

 Obama and Harper also pledged cooperation to revive North America's closely linked economy and signed an agreement to work toward developing clean energy technology.

"It will advance carbon reduction technologies. And it will support the development of an electric grid that can help deliver the clean and renewable energy of the future to homes and businesses, both in Canada and the United States," Obama said."


Added: NY Times was "tempted" to accuse Trump voters of "racism," but many of them had been Obama voters:

After Trump's win, a New York Times reporter said it's "tempting" to blame "racism" for it, but can't because many white Obama voters became Trump voters in 2016 (instead of becoming Hillary voters). Why would it ever be "tempting" to cite racism?


Above NY Times twitter image via 11/11/16, "2016: The Revenge Of The White Working Class Voter, And Where Millions Of Obama Supporters Flipped For Trump," Matt Vespa, Townhall




10,000 text messages reveal passions shared by Mueller team adulterous lovers. The deeply embedded Swamp Dwellers' anti-Trump prejudice dates back to presidential debates. Strzok's wife consoles herself in key SEC job Obama gave her in late 2016-Daily Mail...(All 4 adults involved, two adulterers and their spouses, are in position to be blackmailed)

12/7/17, "PICTURE EXCLUSIVE: Married FBI lawyer who exchanged 10,000 texts with her anti-Trump agent lover who was a key player in Mueller's Russia probe and helped clear Hillary is seen for the first time," Daily Mail, Louise Boyle, Alana Goodman in DC, and Cheyanne Roundtree
  • Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with Peter Strzok, her FBI agent lover, was seen for the first time since the affair was exposed
  • Strzok was dismissed from Robert Mueller's Russia probe over the conversation and was relocated within the FBI over the summer, it was reported Saturday
  • Page, a lawyer, was also involved in Mueller's investigation but left the probe [but is still working at FBI] before the messages were discovered
  • Page, 38, is married to non-profit executive Joseph Burrow who was seen wearing his wedding ring on Wednesday morning
  • Strzok was a part of former FBI Director James Comey's Hillary Clinton email probe, and changed the wording in Comey's assessment from 'grossly negligent to 'extremely careless'
  • Strzok was also involved in questioning Michael Flynn before he was prosecuted for lying to the Bureau 
  • The DOJ said they would be handing over the messages to Congress. It is currently going through more than 10,000 messages between the couple that span months"
"The woman who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with her FBI lover, who was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe [but allowed to return to her job at the FBI still on the payroll of US taxpayers], has been photographed for the first time since news of her affair was revealed.

Lisa Page, a lawyer for the FBI, looked somber in's exclusive photos as she was spotted leaving the home that she shares with her husband and children in Washington D.C. on Wednesday. 

The 38-year-old registered Democrat wore all black and her hair was still wet when she left the residence carrying two bags moments after her husband Joseph Burrow, 40, pulled his hood over his head and left the house with their son. 

On Saturday, Page was exposed as being the lover of Peter Strzok, deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI, after it was discovered they exchanged anti-Trump text messages, which led him to be reassigned to the FBI's human resources department in August. 

Strzok, according to the Washington Post, was a key player in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state. He was also responsible for changing the wording in then FBI director James Comey's assessment from 'grossly negligent' to 'extremely careless,' and the probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election.

Page was also working on Mueller's Russia probe for a short time but had already left the investigation [having returned to the FBI] when the text messages were discovered.

According to the Washington Post's sources, the extramarital affair was problem enough, but the greater concern among senior law enforcement officials were the 'text messages the two exchanged during the Clinton investigation and campaign season in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.'

When approached by as he was walking down the street alone, Page's husband, an executive at a non-profit international education organization, refused to comment, shaking his head when asked about his wife’s text messages with Strzok. Attempts to reach Lisa Page and Peter Strzok for comment were unsuccessful. Burrow was still wearing his wedding ring, days after news of his wife's affair was revealed to the public on Saturday.

Page attended Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University and graduated in the class of 2006. A statement from her on the college website, under the title ‘Lisa Page ’06: Living Her Dream’, reads: 'Lisa Page '06 always knew that she wanted to pursue a career in public service, and she figured that the path to her ideal job would be a winding one.

'As a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice, however, she skipped the scenic route and moved immediately from law school to her dream career. "Luckily for me," she says, "it's been as gratifying and fulfilling as I'd hoped."'... 

Strzok is also married. The Georgetown University graduate is married to fellow alum Melissa Hodgman, who was promoted to Associate Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division by Obama in late 2016.

The promotion came after the FBI found emails pertaining to the Hillary Clinton email server scandal on her aide Huma Abedin's husband s laptop.

After news broke of her husband's alleged bias in Mueller's investigation, Hodgman scrubbed all evidence of her supporting Hillary Clinton from her social media, according to Gateway Pundit.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice announced they would be handing over the messages to Congress. The department is currently going through more than 10,000 messages that span months between Page and Strzok, according to Fox News....  

Strzok was among the top officials investigating Clinton and changed Comey's description of her conduct from 'grossly negligent' – language that mirrors the criminal code – to the softer words 'extremely careless.'

Strzok was also part of the team that quizzed disgraced former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn before he pleaded guilty to lying during that interview.

Strzok participated in the FBI's sit-down interviews with two Clinton insiders linked to her email scandal, both of whom got a free pass despite making statements to agents that were later challenged by other records.

The email probe included question-and-answer sessions with several senior Clinton aides including lawyer Cheryl Mills and chief of staff Huma Abedin.

And when those two friends-of-Hillary sat down for their third-degree sessions, Strzok – the partisan anti-Trump agent – was asking many of the questions.

Mills and Abedin both denied knowing of Clinton's unorthodox email server setup, according to summaries of their interviews that the Bureau released last year. 

'Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private server until after Clinton's [State Department] tenure. Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time,' one agent's interview notes read.

And Abedin told agents, they wrote, that she 'did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge.' 

But in emails released by State, Mills and Abedin both referred to Clinton's server specifically, The Daily Caller reported Monday. 

Comey defended the Clinton aides' contradictory statements when he testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing about six weeks before the 2016 election. 

'Having done many investigations myself, there’s always conflicting recollections of facts – some of which are central, some of which are peripheral,' Comey said then....

The Washington Post and New York Times reported that his [Strzok's] text messages 'expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.'

ABC News had reported Strzok's departure from the Russia probe in August, but without offering a reason. Now the controversy could taint not one, but two of the biggest federal investigations in the last year....

[Deputy FBI Director Andrew] McCabe had no role in the Clinton investigation until months after his wife's [democrat] political campaign had concluded.

But Page, the lawyer who exchanged anti-Trump texts with Strzok, was on McCabe's staff." 



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.