The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
ml1 said:
mtierney said:
The article in part shows him working as recently as 2016 for Clinton...
WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.
Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, a co-founder of the American Values Network, and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.
He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.
no it doesn't. It specifically says "independent group."
It does, but CTR and the Clinton campaign were coordinating efforts at the time, as we know from Podesta's hacked emails.
ridski said:
RNC Finance Chairman Steve Wynn is about to go down in flames.
Dang. I did NOT have him on my bunga bunga bingo card.
mtierney said:
The article in part shows him working as recently as 2016 for Clinton...
WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.
Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, a co-founder of the American Values Network, and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.
He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.
I thought you forfeited your right to comment on issues of sexual harassment and assault when you defended pedophile priests and a rapist President. I guess I was mistaken.
For the record, Strider sounds like a hypocritical scumbag, exactly the sort of predator you would embrace if he happened to be a conservative.
mtierney said:
wash time...
If the positions you have taken make you feel so filthy you have to wash, perhaps you should reconsider your positions.
I know that just reading your outrageous defenses of these monsters leaves me feeling soiled.
There are 3.5 million immigration hopefuls on the waiting list — many for decades.
The phrase, chain migration, used by academics since the 1960s, has taken on such a racially charged definition in 2018. But, as noted in the link, we are in an age of conspiracy mentality.
I would think we should consider taking those waiting longest for legal entry — along with the Dreamers brought here by their parents. These parents must get some penalties for illegally entering the country — short of deportation — perhaps, ironically, being placed on a waiting list.
Then, America must overhaul our immigration system.
mtierney said:
The phrase, chain migration, used by academics since the 1960s, has taken on such a racially charged definition in 2018. But, as noted in the link, we are in an age of conspiracy mentality.
I think the more relevant point is that we are in the age of an overtly racist President.
BTW: How are you doing with your hygiene problem this morning? I wonder whether you might want to try a Spiritual Antifungal. They say that can sometimes work on people who support sexual predators.
It's taken on a racially charged connotation because it's being used as a racist term by white supremacists who are concerned that that the US is becoming too brown.
mtierney said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/the-facts-behind-the-weaponized-phrase-chain-migration.html?ref=todayspaper
There are 3.5 million immigration hopefuls on the waiting list — many for decades.
The phrase, chain migration, used by academics since the 1960s, has taken on such a racially charged definition in 2018. But, as noted in the link, we are in an age of conspiracy mentality.
I would think we should consider taking those waiting longest for legal entry — along with the Dreamers brought here by their parents. These parents must get some penalties for illegally entering the country — short of deportation — perhaps, ironically, being placed on a waiting list.
Then, America must overhaul our immigration system.
galileo said:
Klinker - Stop being so sarcastic. Say something nice for a change.
I just can't abide the fact that an individual who openly supports rapists, pedophiles and sexual predators thinks that she can masquerade as a reasonable citizen. We shouldn't be tolerating Trump in the White House and we shouldn't be tolerating a pedophile groupie on MOL.
This behavior is not normal, it is not ethical and it should not be acceptable. Some things are just irredeemably deplorable.
Rape, pedophilia and sexual assault are not abstractions. They are real atrocities and they have real victims. Some of us here have been touched directly by these atrocities and others have just seen the damage they have done to our loved ones but I doubt that any of us have gone untouched.
Harvey Weinstein was a monster but the actions of those who supported him and allowed him to perpetrate his crimes without comment or outrage are also, in their own way monstrous. How can we condemn their silence and support while we let mrierney's ardent support of equally outrageous assaults on decency go unremarked?
Something is rotten here on MOL and no amount so spiritual Febreeze is going to drive away the stink.
The Finance Chair of the RNC and Trump pal, billionaire Stephen Wynn has resigned from his post amid accusations of horrific sexual misconduct.
Wynn donated heavily to Republican causes and candidates who received his funding are already being pressured to return those funds.
Klinker said:
Something is rotten here on MOL and no amount so spiritual Febreeze is going to drive away the stink.
I heartedly agree. Seven incoherent direct personal attacks is a bit over the top even for this individual.
What is the personal attack? Do you not support Donald Trump, a man who was recorded bragging about sexually assaulting women? A man against whom dozens of credible accusations of sexual assault have been made? A man who cruised the dressing rooms of teen age beauty pageants hoping to catch little girls with their tops off?
To say that you support sexual predators is simply to tell the truth.
mtierney said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/the-facts-behind-the-weaponized-phrase-chain-migration.html?ref=todayspaper
There are 3.5 million immigration hopefuls on the waiting list — many for decades.
The phrase, chain migration, used by academics since the 1960s, has taken on such a racially charged definition in 2018. But, as noted in the link, we are in an age of conspiracy mentality.
Your summary is a little bit of "spin" that obscures the reality. The accurate description is in the article.
“Chain migration” was originally a neutral, if not dry, phrase used by academics to describe the immigration process. For example, an academic paper from 1964 describes the benefit of “initial accommodation and employment arranged by means of primary social relationships with previous migrants” while discussing the growth of Italian neighborhoods in American cities.
In scholarship, the term appears to have emerged in the 1960s before tapering off in recent years, and even being eclipsed by the more recently established “family reunification.”
But popular use of the older phrase has skyrocketed. According to Google Trends search data, there were only modest spikes in user queries while immigration policies were debated in 2005 and 2015, before a spike in December 2017.
Why the sudden uptick?
The White House and allies have deployed the phrase to label existing policy they find undesirable. In talking points and white papers, they have stated a preference for a merit-based system while labeling the current sponsorship process as “chain migration.”
Democrats, meanwhile, prefer the term “family reunification” and say the practice is a reflection of American values.
The GOP uses the older phrase because it helps them obscure the reality of what it means for the general public. It's silly to argue otherwise.
Heard on NPR(?) a while back (but not looking up sources now), the original purpose of chain or family immigration was to maintain the European advantage in immigration after passage of the 1960s immigration law(s) that were intended to even the playing field between Europe/Asia/Africa. It was a sop (would prefer a more neutral term, but no luck right now) to conservatives in Congress at that time. What goes around....
iow, chain migration was fine when we were re-uniting white families. Now that skins are darker, maybe not so much.
mjc said:
Heard on NPR(?) a while back (but not looking up sources now), the original purpose of chain or family immigration was to maintain the European advantage in immigration after passage of the 1960s immigration law(s) that were intended to even the playing field between Europe/Asia/Africa. It was a sop (would prefer a more neutral term, but no luck right now) to conservatives in Congress at that time. What goes around....
informative retrospective...
‘The Final Year’ Depicts The Chaotic Legacy Of Obama’s National Security Team
As the world implodes around them, President Obama and his advisors blithely find time to lavish praise on each other and themselves.
By Julie Kelly 29, 2018
In one shot in “The Final Year,” a documentary about President Obama’s national-security team during the last months of his presidency, the camera zooms in on a dead cockroach in the West Wing. An off-camera voice explains how the building is so old that roaches roam free and people can hear rats scurrying in the pipes overhead. Feel free to draw your own metaphors.
“The Final Year” is now available on HBO and showing in select theaters across the country. Although the film features Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, it focuses on United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, a 29-year-old speechwriter with no foreign policy experience when he joined the administration in early 2009.
As the world implodes around them and the political landscape at home shifts in unforeseen ways, largely in protest to his reign, Obama and his advisors blithely find time to lavish praise on each other and themselves for the “arc of progress” they commanded over eight years. The film is a view into their collective incompetence, rooted in a combination of naiveté and smug superiority and fed with college-level platitudes about war, diplomacy, and engagement. Knowing how the story ends is the only thing that makes it tolerable to watch 90 minutes of their preening and moralizing.
The Least Experienced Guy Is the Star
Rhodes is pretty much the star of the show, and he knows it. His performance might remind you of every quasi-serious role George Clooney has ever played: He acts like he’s unaffected but it’s obvious that each word, hand gesture, and facial expression is stagecraft designed to make him look pensive and really, really smart.
Rhodes holds his gaze on someone just a bit too long, either to make the person uncomfortable or to non-verbally say “F-you.” His twitching and pacing are supposed to show an indefatigable thinking man in constant motion. As one of Obama’s longest-serving and closest advisors to the president—Rice explains the “mind-meld” between the two—Rhodes is never far away from the commander-in-chief, seated close to him in meetings and whispering advice in his ear.
This explains why Rhodes is so impressed with himself: “The first thing that struck me when I walked into [the West Wing] was how small it was. Then I realized, this is it, there are like thirty people who are setting the direction for the entire U.S. government and the world.” He boasts about how he’s joined Obama “on every foreign trip except one,” and while sitting in a summit room waiting for the president he remarks how he’s been “in hundreds of these.”
One of Rhodes’ key diplomatic objectives from the outset was to normalize U.S. relations with Cuba, a project on which he was the lead negotiator: “We got a lot farther than I imagined,” he says. Pat, pat.
Rhodes repeatedly cites what he views as the administration’s top national-security achievements: Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Paris climate accord. At one point, while musing about what more could’ve been done to halt the murder, rape, torture, destruction, and resulting refugee crisis in Syria, Rhodes says, “if we would have gone full-bore into Syria, we wouldn’t be sitting here with a climate agreement, we’d have no Iran agreement, we wouldn’t have had the time to do Cuba.” Sorry, Syrians, you were sold out for carbon emissions targets.
Echoing his boss (or could be the other way around), Rhodes insists climate change is a bigger threat to humanity than the Islamic State—“only one thing could destroy the world”—and dismisses any rebuke to that grievous misjudgment as “cable news” fodder. Rhodes also admits the administration miscalculated Russian President Vladimir Putin. “The error we made is that Putin doesn’t pursue Russia’s interests, it is to pursue Putin’s interest. We figured it out, but it took us too long.”
John Kerry Comes Off as the Empty Mind He Is
Viewers are reminded what good fortune it was that Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election, sparing us four years of his banality and pretentiousness. He describes the Iran nuclear deal “as measurable action in progress,” and talks about the serious challenges faced by the administration, including “Syria, Yemen, Libya, North Korea, climate.”
The Obama administration’s focus on climate change was an egregious waste of tax money, talent, and political capital. To think that major international crises were bargaining chips to win support for a meaningless, costly climate pact is disgraceful. The film also shows Kerry doing the obligatory Al Gore photo-op, looking at floating icebergs, as if “extreme diplomacy” could stop them from melting.
Rhodes has an influence on Kerry, too. Before one speech, Rhodes preps Kerry on his presentation and asks about questions afterwards. Kerry indicates he will take as many questions as the press wants, but Rhodes cuts him off and instructs the secretary of state to only answer two. “Let us deal with the rest. You don’t want to subject yourself to too many.”
I will spare you the obscenities that flew out of my mouth every time Rice appeared on-screen.
‘All the Trendlines Are Going in the Wrong Direction’
The only likable figure is Power. A mother of young children, she’s shown trying to juggle motherhood with an extremely demanding job that requires constant travel. An Irish immigrant and compassionate woman easily moved to tears, Power was probably better suited to fill a less-visible position, or at least one that didn’t require a lot of moxie.
She meets with Syrian refugees, then travels to Nigeria to visit parents of the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. While she’s genuinely distraught by their plight, Power can do little more than offer empty words of sympathy, and says the United States “will never give up” helping find the girls. During the trip, Power’s motorcade accidentally kills a seven-year-old boy who ran into the street. She stops by the parents’ home to express her condolences.
There is tension between Rhodes and and Power over Obama’s final U.N. speech. Power explains the “fundamental differences” between the Obama-Rhodes’ stance that the world is generally in good shape, and her much more pragmatic view where “65 million people are displaced” and “all the trendlines of democracy are going in the wrong direction.”
She clicks off a list of nearly 20 countries that are in complete chaos. Power is proven right shortly thereafter, when a tenuous Syrian ceasefire breaks down, and the country devolves into what one news outlet can be heard describing as “a complete meltdown of humanity.”
Then, election night. Power invited Gloria Steinem, Madeline Albright, and 37 female UN ambassadors to her home to watch the election coverage: The mood and facial expressions change dramatically as state after state is awarded to Trump. Power was mocked for her comment in Politico about wanting “to milk the soft power dividend of this moment,” but that’s just how she talks.
After the election is called for Trump, Rhodes is filmed sitting outside the Javits Center, alone. He’s at his most Clooney-ish in this scene, struggling for several minutes to come up with a reaction, only to conclude with, “I can’t put it into words.”
“The Final Year” is a reminder of Obama’s chaotic and weak approach to foreign policy, and the mess they left behind for the Trump administration: Plenty of cockroaches and rats around the world to chase.
Julie Kelly is a National Review Online contributor and food policy writer from Orland Park, Illinois. She's also been published in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tr
galileo said:
Klinker - Stop being so sarcastic. Say something nice for a change.
This won't happen. Too much hate.
Ah.... The Federalist. More garbage from the folks who brought us Tully Borland's impassioned defense of Roy Moore. Of course you are a subscriber!
Klinker said:
Ah.... The Federalist. More garbage from the folks who brought us Tully Borland's impassioned defense of Roy Moore's right to molest children. Of course you are a subscriber!
Apparently someone likes to lump folks into narrow stereotypes like any run of the mill racist.
mtierney said:
informative retrospective...
‘The Final Year’ Depicts The Chaotic Legacy Of Obama’s National Security Team
As the world implodes around them, President Obama and his advisors blithely find time to lavish praise on each other and themselves.
Gee, I missed that. You'd really think the world imploding would have been more noticeable.
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
Ah.... The Federalist. More garbage from the folks who brought us Tully Borland's impassioned defense of Roy Moore's right to molest children. Of course you are a subscriber!
Apparently someone likes to lump folks into narrow stereotypes like any run of the mill racist.
Nope. Just don't like sexual predators and the folks that support them. Surely this is cause we around which we can all rally.
no it doesn't. It specifically says "independent group."