Trump Finally Gets De Facto Newspaper Endorsement - From KKK Newspaper

I have noted a number of times how as Hillary Clinton has received endorsement after endorsement from traditionally pro-Republican newspapers, ranging from the Salt Lake Tribune, the Omaha World-Herald, and Arizona Republic to name a few.  Meanwhile, Donald Trump has received no endorsements from any significant endorsement.  Even the Mormon Church affiliated Deseret News advised readers to NOT vote for Trump. Now, at last Trump can claim an endorsement of sorts from the Crusader, the official newspaper of the Klu Klux Klan.  A piece in Salon looks at this fitting marriage of the KKK and Trump, a confirmed racist and bigot.    Here are excerpts from Salon:

The Republican Party is the United States’ largest de facto white identity organization. Its primary electoral strategy for the last 50 years has consisted of using a combination of overt white racism and subtle “dog whistles” to win white voters.

New research by political scientist Michael Tesler shows the power of this strategy: “Old-fashioned” overt racism now predicts if a given white voter will support the Republican Party. Public opinion polling data from Reuters/Ipsos has revealed that Trump’s supporters are more likely than other Republican voters to believe that black people are more “criminal,” “unintelligent,” “lazy” and “violent” than white people. Demographics are important here as well: The Republican Party’s base is about 90 percent white while the Democratic Party’s constituency is multiracial and multigenerational.

Donald Trump is the current standard bearer for the Republican Party and a political moment when conservatism and racism are now fully and nakedly one and the same thing. This is why white nationalists such as David Duke — as well as the other bigots and hatemongers who constitute the so-called alt right — have flocked to Trump’s candidacy and embraced him as their champion and delivery system for mainstreaming their regressive white supremacist beliefs into the American body politic.

Moreover, this is not a claim that Trump is guilty by mere association or endorsement. Trump’s proposed policies are racist and nativist: He has suggested that Hispanic and Latino “illegal” immigrants are running amok in the street while they kill and rape white people. He believes that African-Americans in the age of Obama live in a dystopic hell worse than slavery and Jim and Jane Crow. And in violation of the Constitution he wants to ban Muslims from the United States while placing the ones already here on an enemies’ list.

Trump’s son as well as other political advisers have used social media to circulate white supremacist propaganda and talking points. Trump’s inner circle also has connections to white supremacist and white nationalist organizations.

What follows then is not at all surprising.

Trump has received not one endorsement from a major American newspaper. He has, however, received front page coverage and effusive praise from The Crusader, the official newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan.

His slogan, “Make America Great Again” is the outdated and unreflective speech of those who uncritically embrace the past, a recycling of the Know-Nothing rhetoric of the 1850s, and a maturation of Pat Buchanan’s white “ethnonationalism” screeds from white supremacist websites such as World Net Daily.

The Ku Klux Klan understands its origins and meaning quite well. The organization translates these for the unsure and those who may be somehow duped or tricked into thinking that “Make America Great Again” is race neutral and benign speech. The Crusader has explained:

“Make American Great Again!” It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency. You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally . . . But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon found out! While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, “What made America great in the first place?” The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did — but because of who are forefathers were, America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great.

This is Donald Trump’s America — the basket of human deplorables speaks again, unfiltered. . . . Trump is the Republican Party’s nominee for president with a de facto endorsement from the Ku Klux Klan in his metaphorical back pocket.

Will Donald Trump, the Ku Klux Klan-endorsed candidate, and his basket of human deplorables reign? Or will the American people send them back into the shadows and the dustbin of history?

The American people will again have to decide what type of people they want to be and the country they want to have.

Omaha World Herald Endorses Hillary Clinton

It seems as if at least every other day a traditionally pro-Republican newspaper is coming out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.  As best I can tell, no significant newspaper anywhere in America has endorsed Donald Trump. Like so many other historically conservative newspapers, the Omaha World-Herald labels Donald trump as simply too dangerous of a choice and states that the only prudent choice is Hillary Clinton. Although not a Hillary fan - I backed Obama in 2008 - I have warmed to her, especially with trump being the only other real option.  Here are highlights from the World-Herald endorsement:  

There is little question that the presidential election of 2016 is perhaps the most unusual in our lifetimes.

Both of the major-party candidates, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, have unheard-of negative approval ratings, with more than half the country viewing both of them unfavorably. Many votes will be cast this year AGAINST a candidate, rather than FOR a candidate.

The stakes are high. The United States has a debt — let’s call it outstanding loans — totaling nearly $20 trillion. The annual deficit totals an estimated $590 billion, which increases the national debt total each year.

The Middle East is a powder keg, threatening the stability of the world in general. . . . Multiple Supreme Court appointments are likely to take place during the new president’s term. Racial tensions are spilling over into actions in some communities across the country.

With that much on the line, the prudent vote would go toward the least risky candidate for president. Put another way, the candidate who would have the best chance to implement changes by working with Congress, foreign and domestic leaders and military leaders under normal circumstances as well as during a crisis.

That candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This endorsement comes after careful consideration and with some trepidation. . . . With that said, Clinton’s legislative experience and decades of political involvement — as first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the United States, U.S. senator from New York, secretary of state and two-time presidential candidate — make her the better prepared of the two major candidates for the office of president of the United States.

The risk of a Donald Trump presidency is simply too great.

His alienation of so many groups — women, the disabled, Muslim-Americans, former prisoners of war, the family of a Muslim soldier killed in action, Mexican nationals and Mexican-Americans — is too divisive.

Trump shows a lack of statesmanship that is fundamental to serving in the Oval Office.

He has revealed a lack of command over key issues, such as the nation’s nuclear triad, Russian aggression and the significance of NATO alliances, paired with a propensity for unrealistic hyperbole, such as his promise to end all crime and violence in the country, or to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico and have the Mexican government pay for it, with no pragmatic path to achieve such aims.

His claim that he would have Iranian gunboats “shot out of the water” for taunting a U.S. Navy ship shows a reckless response that could trigger yet another Middle East war.

A man who lashes out impulsively when attacked should not be entrusted to command the world’s most powerful military.

These issues, coupled with his statements regarding women, including the taped comments about grabbing women’s genitals and forcing kisses on them, simply make it too difficult to inspire confidence in him as president and commander-in-chief.

New York Times - Hillary Clinton for President

Not surprisingly, the New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.  In doing so, today's editorial does not tear apart Donald trump - that will come in a separate editorial tomorrow - and makes the argument as to why the undecided or Republicans who find Trump repulsive, should cast their vote for Clinton.  Yes, it may be a case of settling for the lesser of two evils in the minds of some, but the reality is that either Trump or Clinton will be president and that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will not.  Thus, it is critical that we make sure that the lesser evil is elected and that Trump goes down to defeat.  Here are editorial highlights:

In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)

But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.

The next president will take office with bigoted, tribalist movements and their leaders on the march. In the Middle East and across Asia, in Russia and Eastern Europe, even in Britain and the United States, war, terrorism and the pressures of globalization are eroding democratic values, fraying alliances and challenging the ideals of tolerance and charity.

The 2016 campaign has brought to the surface the despair and rage of poor and middle-class Americans who say their government has done little to ease the burdens that recession, technological change, foreign competition and war have heaped on their families.

Over 40 years in public life, Hillary Clinton has studied these forces and weighed responses to these problems. Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena.

Mrs. Clinton’s work has been defined more by incremental successes than by moments of transformational change. . . . It shows a determined leader intent on creating opportunity for struggling Americans at a time of economic upheaval and on ensuring that the United States remains a force for good in an often brutal world.

Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship.

Mrs. Clinton and her team have produced detailed proposals on crime, policing and race relations, debt-free college and small-business incentives, climate change and affordable broadband. Most of these proposals would benefit from further elaboration on how to pay for them, beyond taxing the wealthiest Americans. They would also depend on passage by Congress.

That means that, to enact her agenda, Mrs. Clinton would need to find common ground with a destabilized Republican Party, whose unifying goal in Congress would be to discredit her. Despite her political scars, she has shown an unusual capacity to reach across the aisle.

Her most lasting achievements as a senator include a federal fund for long-term health monitoring of 9/11 first responders, an expansion of military benefits to cover reservists and the National Guard, and a law requiring drug companies to improve the safety of their medications for children.

Below the radar, she fought for money for farmers, hospitals, small businesses and environmental projects. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war is a black mark, but to her credit, she has explained her thinking rather than trying to rewrite that history.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was charged with repairing American credibility after eight years of the Bush administration’s unilateralism. She bears a share of the responsibility for the Obama administration’s foreign-policy failings, notably in Libya. But her achievements are substantial.

She has evinced a lamentable penchant for secrecy and made a poor decision to rely on a private email server while at the State Department. That decision deserved scrutiny, and it’s had it. Now, considered alongside the real challenges that will occupy the next president, that email server, which has consumed so much of this campaign, looks like a matter for the help desk. And, viewed against those challenges, Mr. Trump shrinks to his true small-screen, reality-show proportions, as we’ll argue in detail on Monday.

Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president. A lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job, and the country should put her to work.

Ted Cruz Continues to Face Blow Back for Refusal to Endorse Trump

As noted in a post last evening, I loath Ted Cruz.  At the same time I have to applaud his refusal to endorse Donald Trump and his attempt to remind those gathered at the Republican convention in Cleveland that principles do matter.  Granted, I may not agree with Cruz's principles, but at least he has some motivation other than the mere self-promotion, narcissim and egomania that motivate Donald Trump.  The New York Times looks at more of the blow back swirling around Cruz for not kissing The Donald's ring.  Here are highlights:

The Republican convention erupted into tumult on Wednesday night as the bitter primary battle between Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz reignited unexpectedly, crushing hopes that the party could project unity.

In the most electric moment of the convention, boos and jeers broke out as it became clear that Mr. Cruz — in a prime-time address from center stage — was not going to endorse Mr. Trump. It was a pointed snub on the eve of Mr. Trump’s formal acceptance speech.

Mr. Cruz was all but drowned out as he asked for God’s blessing on the country and left the stage, while security personnel escorted his wife, Heidi, out of the hall. One delegate yelled “Goldman Sachs!” at her — a reference to the company that has employed her, a job that Mr. Trump attacked during the primaries.

A short while later, Mr. Cruz faced insults as he made his way down a corridor — one woman yelled “Traitor!” When he tried to enter the convention suite of the Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, he was turned away.

“I’ve seen some crazy things,” said Brandon Bell, the chairman of the Rhode Island Republican Party, who was still stunned as he absorbed what had happened on the convention floor. “I don’t think this is going to play well.”

Mr. Cruz, who has all but declared that he wants to run for president again in 2020, especially angered Republican leaders who had been counting on him to keep his pledge that he would support the eventual nominee, a vow that other leading Republican contenders also made last fall.

Trump had been unhappy with the text of Mr. Cruz’s speech but held out for the remote possibility that Mr. Cruz would make a last-minute endorsement.

When none arrived, and with Mr. Cruz sounding like a nominee-in-waiting, Mr. Trump grew impatient with the stubbornness of his rival. Gov. Chris Christie, a close ally to Mr. Trump, could be seen shaking his head watching Mr. Cruz go on, just before Mr. Trump made his unplanned entrance into the hall.

Convention organizers were furious at the length of Mr. Cruz’s speech. He was originally allotted 12 minutes, but planners made a late decision to allocate 20 minutes instead.

The rumpus on the floor, which broke out shortly before 10 p.m., captured a reality that Republicans had hoped to minimize: that significant factions of the party remain hostile to Mr. Trump, while his own base of supporters are fervent and unyielding.

[T]he scene that will be remembered for years is the split screen image of Mr. Cruz, seemingly stunned on the stage as the boos grew, and a scowling Mr. Trump dramatically entering the arena to wrest back control of his convention.

When I see Trump supporters I am reminded of the fervent supporters of Adolph Hitler in the 1930's. The mindsets of both groups are the same, motivated in particular by bigotry and xenophobia. Things turned out badly for Germany and the world and I fear the same will occur if Trump is not defeated in November.   

Bernie Sanders To Endorse Hillary Clinton Next Week

Perhaps Bernie Sanders has awoken to the reality that his refusal to concede defeat and actions that some view as helping Donald Trump is undermining his standing in the Democrat Party and among voters opposed to Trump.  Whatever the factors that caused the change of heart and suppression of Sanders' huge ego, CBS News is reporting that Sanders will endorse Hillary Clinton next week at an event in New Hampshire.  Here are story highlights:

CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett reported the Vermont senator will endorse Clinton next Tuesday in New Hampshire and bring the Democratic Party together before Donald Trump and Republicans meet for their convention.

Garrett told WCBS 880 the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee would have preferred the endorsement sooner but the campaigns are organizing it in a way to build sense of unity and momentum to counteract Trump and the Republicans a week before the Republican National Convention.

“Bernie Sanders will make it clear that he is not only with Clinton, but diametrically opposed to Trump,” Garrett explained.

Garrett also reported Sanders was getting word from Democrats that he was taking too long to endorse Clinton, and that he needed to get on board and unify the party “because Trump is the overriding existential threat to the Obama agenda and everything the Democrats accomplished the last eight years.”

Sanders told PBS’ “Charlie Rose” show that Clinton needs to be elected president.

“We have got to do everything that we can to defeat Donald Trump and elect Hillary Clinton,” Sanders said. “I don’t honestly know how we would survive four years of a Donald Trump” as president.

Better late than never!!  All efforts need to be focused on defeating Donald Trump, seeing Democrats retake control of the U.S. Senate and  drastically reducing GOP power in the House of Representatives. 

Why I am Supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016

In the 2016 presidential election, now more than ever there is a contest between the competing agendas of the Republican Party, most likely embodied by Donald Trump on the one hand and the Democrat agenda, likely to be embodied by Hillary Clinton on the other.  The former calls out the ugliest, most selfish and worse impulses of Americans and would benefit vulture capitalists, the self-fish modern day Pharisees of the Chistofascist set, white supremacists (who have endorsed trump) and the wealthy and privileged.  The middle and lower classes would continue on the road to a modern day version of economic serfdom as attacks on unions intensify and more wealth moves from the middle class to the 1%.  

The Democrat agenda is starkly different and seeks to equalize the playing field and to give all Americans, not just the privileged few, a chance to pursue the American dream.  It seeks to restore upward social mobility which now lags behind that achievable in Canada and Europe. Yes, "Old Europe" as the GOP derisively calls it, now offers more upward mobility than the USA.  As I see it, while admittedly sounding melodramatic, it is a contest between good and evil, with today's GOP and its racist, homophobic, religious extremist agenda embodying a form of social evil that must be stopped.  A piece in the Daily Beast looks at this contest and also the need to not fall for the anti-Hillary narrative that the GOP has disseminated for years and which sadly some of Bernie Sanders' followers have embraced.  Yes, some readers will shriek and scream since I am not backing Sanders, but I remain unconvinced that he can win in November.  Hillary withstood 11 hours of a GOP lynch mob during the Benghazi hearings.  We need that toughness in the coming months.  Here are some column highlights:

I hear you’re still not Ready for Hillary.  I get it. I didn’t start off as her biggest fan either. During the 2008 campaign, I wrote plenty of less-than-complimentary words about Hillary Clinton in my role as Barack Obama’s speechwriter. Then, a few weeks after the election, I had a well-documented run-in with a piece of cardboard that bore a striking resemblance to the incoming Secretary of State.

 It was one of the stupider, more disrespectful mistakes I’ve made, . . .  I had the chance to serve in the Obama administration with someone who was far different than the caricature I had helped perpetuate. . . . . She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president. And she’d spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda. 

Most of all—and you hear this all the time from people who’ve worked for her—Hillary Clinton is uncommonly warm and thoughtful. She surprises with birthday cakes. She calls when a grandparent passes away. She once rearranged her entire campaign schedule so a staffer could attend her daughter’s preschool graduation. Her husband charms by talking to you; Hillary does it by listening to you—not in a head-nodding, politician way; in a real person way. 

This same story has repeated itself throughout Clinton’s career: those who initially view her as distrustful and divisive from afar find her genuine and cooperative in person. It was the case with voters in New York, Republicans in the Senate, Obama people in the White House, and heads of state all over the world. There’s a reason being America’s chief diplomat was the specific job Obama asked Hillary to do—she has the perfect personality for it. 

You don’t often see or read about this side of Hillary. You don’t doubt her fierce brilliance when she’s debating policy with Bernie Sanders. You don’t doubt her stamina or tenacity when she’s sitting through hour eleven of the Benghazi Kangaroo Court. But when it comes to nearly everything else, Clinton can seem a little too cautious and forced—like she’s trying too hard or not at all, preferring to retreat behind the safety of boilerplate rhetoric and cheesy soundbites. It’s a tendency that can’t just be blamed on her opponents or the media, though I wonder how many of us would be so brave and open in our public personas after being subjected to 25 years of unrelenting and downright nasty criticism of what we say, what we do, and how we look. . . . Recently, though, there are signs that Hillary is finding this courage. 

If nothing else, you’ll notice that Hillary Clinton’s words are the very antithesis of the mean-spirited, xenophobic bile that spits from the mouth of Donald Trump. And that’s my point.  Every election is a competition between two stories about America. And Trump already knows his by heart: He is a celebrity strongman who will single-handedly save the country from an establishment that is too weak, stupid, corrupt, and politically correct to let us blame the real source of our problems—Muslims and Mexicans and Black Lives Matter protesters; the media, business, and political elites from both parties. Trump’s eventual opponent will need to tell a story about America that offers a powerful rebuke to the demagogue’s dark vision for the future.

I like Bernie Sanders. I like a lot of what he has to say, I love his idealism, and I believe deeply in his emphasis on grassroots change. My problem is not that his message is unrealistic—it’s that a campaign which is largely about Main St. vs. Wall St. economics is too narrow and divisive for the story we need to tell right now. In her campaign against Sanders, Hillary has begun to tell that broader, more inclusive story about the future.

 Hillary Clinton isn’t perfect. She isn’t flashy or entertaining. She isn’t cool or hip, so please stop forcing the poor woman to learn the Dab on Ellen. As someone who’s been in politics for a few decades, she’s made plenty of mistakes, and will probably make many more.

But Hillary is also more than just a policy wonk who can’t wait to start shuffling through white papers in the Oval Office. She cares. She tries. She perseveres. And now she has a chance to tell the story she’s always wanted about America: the story about a country that found the courage to turn away from our darkest impulses; that chose to embrace our growing diversity as a strength, not a weakness; that pushed the boundaries of opportunity outward and upward, until there are no more barriers, and no more ceilings. 

At stake in this election is control of a Tea Party-run Congress, at least one Supreme Court vacancy that could tip the balance for a generation, and the very real chance that a highly unstable demagogue could become the 45th president of the United States. So while I may not have imagined myself saying this a few years ago, I certainly believe it now: It’s far more important to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016 than it was to elect Barack Obama in 2008.

Like the author, I did not support Hillary in 2008, and instead backed Barack Obama.  The contrast between the GOP agenda and the Obama agenda was stark in 2008, but the differences in what the nation's future may be depending on which party wins the White House in 2016 is even more extreme now. Like her or not, if you believe in a positive future for all Americans (including my grandchildren), we need to make sure Hillary is elected in November.  We cannot allow the GOP to spread its cancer further and pervert the United States Supreme Court for a generation or more.

The Truth About the 2016 Presidential Race

My college classmate Larry Sabato has co-authored a piece in Politico that looks at the circus that is the 2016 presidential nomination contest, especially on the GOP side of the fray.  On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton remains the most likely winner barring a disaster on the e-mail front, which is yet another self-made Clinton problem.  On the GOP side, it remains a free for all with The Donald dominating even though his winning of the nomination remains a long shot. Despite all the uncertainty, the piece suggests that there are factors to keep an eye on.  Here are article highlights:

Still, the real factors that will decide the contest in 2016 are starting to come into view. As the media’s focus on the horserace intensifies, and they obsess over minor gaffes and meaningless slights, here are eight factors you should keep in mind as you size up the state of the race.

#1. Will a recession doom the Democrats?

A good or even great economy doesn’t guarantee success for the incumbent president’s party—see Al Gore in 2000—but a bad one just might guarantee failure, like John McCain in 2008. That’s not to suggest that the nominees don’t matter—both parties could end up making strong or poor choices—but if there a recession over the next year the Democrats’ chances of retaining the White House could dwindle.

#2. Obama looms over the race.

In the polling era, no major-party nominee has won a third term for his party when the White House incumbent has been below 50 percent. At the moment, President Obama is around roughly 45 percent approval and slightly over 50 percent disapproval in both the RealClearPolitics and HuffPost Pollster averages. No one knows whether Obama will go up, down or stay the same in the 14 months ahead, but to win the Democratic presidential nominee will need Obama either to add a few points of popularity or stimulate disproportionate turnout among those who approve of his performance. It may also be that in this partisan era, voters are more willing to affirm the party of a president whose performance in office they find lacking because they just dislike the other party so much.

#3. Don’t Count Bernie Sanders out in the early states.

Sanders could beat Hillary Clinton in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The most recent polls in those states have found Sanders in his most competitive position yet. The Vermont senator is strongest in the Granite State, where successive polls have shown him leading. In the Hawkeye State, the latest Des Moines Register/Bloomberg survey, run by well-regarded Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, showed Clinton ahead of Sanders just 37 percent to 30 percent, though her leads are larger in other polls.

Aside from threatening in the first two states, the intensity of the crowds attending Sanders’ appearances could translate into electoral victories in several caucuses.

#4. But Clinton remains a strong favorite for the nomination.

Now for the reality check. For better or worse, the Democratic Party has placed an early bet on Hillary. In all the traditional ways—endorsements, money, media coverage—she has lapped her opposition. With respect to her announced opponents, Clinton hasn’t drawn especially potent rivals. (Compare her to Jeb Bush, who intimidated no one and drew 16 competitors on the GOP side despite having the ultimate establishment name and oodles of cash.)

Consider this: As long as the email mess doesn’t sink her, Clinton could lose both heavily white Iowa and New Hampshire, and still have a fairly unobstructed path to the nomination because of her mighty position with women and minorities. This is true even if Vice President Joe Biden enters the race. . . . beating Hillary in 2016 would be much tougher than it was last time.

#5. Most of what has happened so far won't matter.

A few weeks ago CNN produced a list of “jaw-dropping moments” from the 2016 campaign. It included several Trumpisms and items such as Hillary Clinton saying that she and her husband were “dead broke” after leaving the White House. It’s a reasonable and entertaining collection of anecdotes, but we don’t see them having any effect on the election.

The one exception might be Jeb Bush’s repeated stumbles over whether he would have gone to war in Iraq. Bush’s difficulty with the most predictable question he could get is part of a larger problem: His campaign performance been weak so far, and it might be hurting him in his quest to lock up the support of party poohbahs . . .

#6. Keep an eye on endorsements.

As The Party Decides has famously and compellingly argued, endorsements from party regulars, particularly sitting members of Congress and governors, are useful indicators of a candidate’s relative strength or weakness in a nomination fight. So who is winning the endorsement race?

On the Democratic side, the story is pretty straightforward: Hillary Clinton is dominating.

The Republican endorsement picture is far fuzzier. Jeb Bush has earned the most support from GOP eminences, winning 22 endorsements—which is still quite meager.

#7. Trump is still unlikely to be the nominee.

We’re not disputing that Donald Trump is the clear polling frontrunner on the GOP side, or that he has struck a chord with millions of voters unimpressed with politicians that “talk rather than do.” Two other candidates who’ve never held elected office, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, are also attracting large shares of support.

However, the Trump candidacy has all the markings of an early bubble that will eventually burst. We’re betting that most Republicans will return to traditional politicians as the election season rolls on.

#8. The 2016 election will be unique.

With a couple of leading legacy candidates, it’s natural for observers to make connections between 2016 and previous presidential elections. Should Clinton and Bush emerge as the major-party nominees, there’ll be comparisons galore to the last race between those famous names in 1992 (or to the 1988 contest that Bush’s father won, and the 2000 and 2004 contests that produced Jeb’s brother’s presidency).

It’s already obvious that Hillary isn’t Bill, despite the fact that scandal seems to shadow them both. Hillary Clinton appears to be more policy-oriented and organized than her husband, but she can’t begin to match his natural political gifts. As for the Bushes, they all have mixed but mainly successful electoral records. However, inspiring rhetoric didn’t get any of them elected, and early impressions suggest Jeb Bush may be the least exciting speaker of the three. Moreover, Bush has a tougher path to victory than his family predecessors, much of that due to his brother’s controversial and unpopular White House record.

Richmond Times Dispatch Rips Cuccinelli - Opts to Not Endorse in Gubernatorial Race

I have been waiting to see how the ultra-conservative Richmond Times Dispatch would handle this year's 2013 gubernatorial contest.  Historically, the Times Dispatch almost always endorses Republican candidates no matter how extreme the contortions required to find a means to endorse the GOP candidate.  This year, given the obvious extremism/insanity of Ken Cuccinelli, the Times Dispatch chose to endorse no candidate for governor.  However, it did manage to trash Ken Cuccinelli in the process of its decision to endorse no gubernatorial candidate.  Sadly, the Times Dispatch could not bring itself to endorse a Democrat even though Terry McAuliffe is the far better choice between the two viable candidates. Here are excerpts from the non-endorsement:

During recent months, numerous editorials in The Times-Dispatch have lamented the gubernatorial campaign.

The major-party candidates have earned the citizenry’s derision. The third-party alternative has run a more exemplary race yet does not qualify as a suitable option. We cannot in good conscience endorse a candidate for governor.


This does not gladden us. Circumstance has brought us to this pass. This marks, we believe, the first time in modern Virginia that The Times-Dispatch has not endorsed a gubernatorial nominee.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli rigged the process for the Republican nomination when his minions changed the system from a primary to a convention, which they considered more likely to produce their desired outcome. The switch mocked Cuccinelli’s advertised fealty to first principles. The expression of raw power would have delighted sachems of Tammany Hall. Virginia does not welcome an in-your-face governor.

On social issues such as abortion and homosexual rights, Cuccinelli not only takes stands we find objectionable but pursues his divisive agenda with a stridency that was unbecoming in an attorney general and would be unbecoming in a governor. We do not support abortion for any reason at any time and have embraced bans on late-term abortions, for instance; we remain troubled by Cuccinelli’s approach to personhood and to regulations on clinics. Questions involving abortion will be resolved not by government policy but by transformation of the human heart.

Cuccinelli’s hostility to marriage equality offends. The rights applying to human beings by definition apply to homosexuals.
We disagree with Cuccinelli’s opposition to Gov. Bob McDonnell’s transportation package. McAuliffe scores points here.

Cuccinelli may have performed the legal tasks of his office with professional competence, but his focus raises questions about his gubernatorial ambitions.As AG, he stressed things he did not have to, and, if he stayed in character, he would do the same as governor.

Ouch!!  My money normally would have been on the Times Dispatch holding its nose and endorsing Cuccinelli.  However, Cuccinelli has shown himself to be so insanely extreme that even the far right Times Dispatch could not endorse him.  That speaks volumes and ought to send a laud and clear messages to Virginians as to just how toxic Cuccinelli and his warmed over agenda dictated to him by The Family Foundation/Tea Party would be for Virginia. 

Daily Press Endorses Ralph Northam

In yet another sign that perhaps the moribund Daily Press is waking up to the fact that being a far right rag is not conducive to its continued survival, the Daily Press has endorsed Ralph Northam for Lt. Governor of Virginia.  While it would be hard for anyone remotely sane to endorse the GOP candidate, "Bishop" E.W. Jackson - I put bishop in quotes since Jackson formed his own tiny church and gave himself the title of bishop - more insane things have appeared on the Daily Press editorial page in the past.  Thankfully, the editorial board saw that Jackson is an extremist and, arguably, unfit for any elected office while Northam is an educated, rational man with a track record of problem solving.   Here are excerpts from the endorsement:

Ralph Northam has served in the state Senate since 2008. This year he has earned our endorsement for lieutenant governor, the position that serves as the president of that house of the General Assembly.

Mr. Northam, the Democratic nominee, impressed us as a plainspoken man who approaches issues in a thoughtful, even-handed manner. He has the right temperament to work with the governor and lead the state senate as a negotiator in search of bipartisan compromises.

We extended several invitations for Republican nominee E.W. Jackson to meet with us, but his campaign never arranged a time. It is a policy of the Daily Press Editorial Board that we do not consider endorsing local or statewide candidates without discussing their positions with them.

In that way, Mr. Jackson made our decision easy, by leaving us no choice but to endorse Mr. Northam. But had we been able to meet with Mr. Jackson, he would have had a hard time winning our confidence. Mr. Jackson, a bishop from Chesapeake who has never held elective office, has drawn considerable attention for incendiary comments about those with whom he disagrees. 

Many of these quotes come from sermons rather than stump speeches, such as last month when he told a church congregation in Northern Virginia that people who don't follow Jesus Christ "are engaged in some sort of false religion." Mr. Jackson has tried to say that his words from the pulpit should be seen as separate from the policies he stands for as a candidate. But it has to raise red flags when a candidate for statewide political office says, in any context, that homosexuals are "very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally." When he refers to Democrats as "the anti-God party," it does not fill us with confidence in his ability to reach across the aisle for the sort of productive negotiations that are critical to efficient government.

In recent years, our General Assembly has grown increasingly distracted by divisive social issues, often on women's health. The result has been indefensible legislation mandating needless and overly invasive ultrasounds and specifically targeting clinics that provide abortions. To this mix, we cannot afford to add a lieutenant governor who said, in a scripted and professionally filmed video: "Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was. And the Democrat Party and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide."

Mr. Northam, an Army veteran who served in Desert Storm, favors sensible gun laws that balance public safety with the Second Amendment rights of private citizens – though we take issue with him for supporting the legislation that sealed the public records on concealed carry license. He progressive views, tempered by his conservative upbringing on the Eastern Shore, make him a centrist. A doctor who specializes in pediatric neurology, he brings a distinctive perspective on issues such as health care, Medicaid and the relationship between doctor and patient.

Mr. Northam was one of the strongest supporters of Gov. Bob McDonnell's $6 billion transportation deal, a significant piece of legislation that will provide funds for badly needed repairs and expansions for this region's interstates and tunnels. In discussing jobs and the state's economy, he stresses sensible measures addressing transportation, health care and education aimed at making Virginia the most appealing place possible for businesses.

These two candidates for lieutenant governor offer a stark contrast in personalities and in approaches to governing.

Mr. Northam chooses his words carefully and addresses issues in measured tones. He has a diplomatic disposition that would serve him well as the president of a state Senate that has been too polarized in recent years.  For these reasons, we endorse Ralph Northam for lieutenant governor.

Fairfax Chamber of Commerce Backs Democrat Statewide Ticket

As the last post underscores, Ken Cuccinelli and his Christofacsist climate denying running mates are a threat to Hampton Roads' economy and long term future.  Today, the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce endorsed Democrats Terry McAuliffe, Ralph Northam and Mark Herring.  For non-Virginians, Fairfax County has the largest economy of any city or county in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Combined with the neighboring Arlington and Alexandria, it has nearly one third of Virginia's population and is a main economic powerhouse for the Virginia.  That the Fairfax Chamber endorsed the entire Democrat ticket speaks volumes about how the GOP slate will be bad for business and seek to drag Virginia backward in time to when racism and homophobia were state sanctioned policy and women were subordinate citizens.  Here are highlights from the Richmond Times Dispatch:

The political arm of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the Democratic ticket for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general.

The coveted endorsement of NOVABizPAC -- which backed Republican Bob McDonnell in 2009, is a key pickup for Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

Today's announcement follows a contentious, chamber-sponsored televised debate between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli Wednesday that saw each portray the other as unfit for the Executive Mansion.

A news release issued by NOVABizPAC said McAuliffe won the endorsement "based on his pro-business policy positions and proposals."

"Mr. McAuliffe was a major supporter of Governor McDonnell’s landmark transportation funding legislation and a consistent supporter of rail to Dulles," airport, Jim Corcoran, Fairfax chamber president and a trustee of NOVABizPAC, said in the release.

 

The organization also endorsed Sen. Ralph S. Northam, D-Norfolk, for lieutenant governor over GOP rival E.W. Jackson, and Sen. Mark Herring, D-Loudoun, for attorney general over Republican Sen. Mark Obenshain of Harrisonburg.

In other endorsements, NOVABizPAC favored Northam based on his support for the Fairfax Chamber's legislative priorities and for his "record and experience in the Virginia Senate."

The group endorsed Herring for "serving the Northern Virginia business community well in the state Senate," and highlighted Herring's "commitment to Virginia's right to work laws, Governor McDonnell's landmark transportation funding plan and economic development initiatives."

Virginia does not need to return to the 1950's - or preferably the 1850's in the eyes of the many white supremacists now in the Virginia GOP base - and the Fairfax Chamber recognized this reality.

 

Hampton Mayor Molly Ward Endorses Aneesh Chopra for Lt. Governor

The boyfriend and I count Hampton Mayor Molly Ward among our good personal friends.  She has been an outstanding advocate for LGBT issues locally and is one of only three Virginia mayors the last time that I looked who have signed the national mayors for marriage equality resolution.   I have yet to meet Aneesh Copra in person, although I suspect that will change now that Ward has endorsed him in the race in the lieutenant governor Democratic primary (we seem to frequently be invited to attend many politic events at her home).  Her endorsement cannot be good news for Chopra's opponent, Norfolk State Senator Ralph Northam who regrettably seems to be aligning himself with some of the most reactionary elements in the Norfolk political power structure, including Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim who I regard as a major homophobe who seems to act as if gays are communicable disease carriers.  I know Northam personally and historically he has been very gay friendly.  However, some of his alliances of late are very troubling.  Here are excerpts from Chopra's campaign website:

HAMPTON, VA - Today, Molly Ward, Mayor of the City of Hampton, endorsed Aneesh Chopra for Virginia Lt. Governor. Ward, who is currently serving in her second term as Mayor, praised Chopra's vision for Virginia's future.

"Aneesh's positive vision for Virginia is exactly what we need," said Ward. "He knows we must turn the page on the politics of the past and work to respect and empower all Virginians. He represents the future of politics in the Commonwealth, where we dedicate ourselves to finding innovative new ways to address our greatest challenges."

"As a Mayor in the Hampton Roads area, I am confident that Aneesh Chopra will be a Lt. Governor who represents all corners of the Commonwealth," Ward continued. "His experience working for Governor Kaine and President Obama have prepared him to be an effective leader on day one."

Upon receiving the endorsement, Chopra said, "I am honored and excited to have the support of Mayor Ward. She has been an incredible leader for Hampton and I am thrilled to work with her to move Virginia forward."

Ward joins a growing list of Virginia mayors in endorsing Chopra, including most recently Mayor Dwight Jones of Richmond.

Molly Ward has shown herself to be the most gay friendly mayor in Hampton Roads and has been instrumental in Hampton's close ties with HRBOR, the local affiliate of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.   It should be noted that Richmond mayor Dwight Jones also has a pro-gay rights track record.  I plan on digging more on this race between now and the primary on June 11th.   Stay tuned for updates.