HassleCat
HassleCat's JournalSend message to Cantwell
The Internet is alive with a message wanting you to call Maria Cantwell's office and tell her to oppose President Obama's proposal for a nuclear arms deal with Iran. As you would expect, it's from a right wing group called MakeAmericaSecure.com2014. Of course I sent an email to Cantwell, urging her to support the President. I hope all my fellow Washington citizens will do the same. Thanks.
Going after Gowdy
I'm so happy someone is giving Trey Gowdy a taste of his own medicine. There is a post on the Hillary page that alerted me to this, but it's good for general discussion, I think.
There seems to be a group called Correct the Record, and they're trying to defend Clinton against the ceaseless attacks by Gowdy and his Benghazi (excuse me... BENGHAZI!) "investigation." They're demanding Gowdy turn over all of his emails, which they believe will reveal a pattern of using his "investigation" to perform a political hatchet job on Clinton. They allege Gowdy lied when he said his "investigation" would not be used for political gain, and they claim releasing his emails will prove Gowdy coordinated with anti-Hillary organizations to conduct a smear campaign.
Well, I'm not sure the emails would reveal all that, but they would surely show Gowdy's "investigation" is a three ring circus comprised entirely of clowns. It was proven he and Darre Issa slow-walked the process and leaked information to make it look like they had something when they had nothing. If we saw the emails flying around, I'm sure we would see frequent communication with various right wing groups, and probably some specific stuff about how they planned to skew the "investigation" to make it look like they had ore than they actually did.
Dog fight? Cat fight? Clown fight?
Is this funny, or ironic, or both? Donald Trump and Rand Paul are in a HUGE pissing match. Here is a link to the WaPo story.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-mocks-rand-paul-calls-on-him-to-quit-presidential-race/ar-BBlHdrl?ocid=iehp
Anybody know this guy?
Jonathan Allen of Vox.com has a piece expressing undisguised joy that Hillary Clinton is in trouble about her e-mails. I thought he was a liberal, but he appears to delight in Clinton's troubles, mentioning that she is being caught by Sanders in Hew Hampshire. Is everybody piling on Clinton? If so, why? Is it because she's the frontrunner? Because she has the "unlikeable" thing going on? Here's a link.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders-and-top-secret-emails-are-catching-up-to-hillary-clinton/ar-BBlGenh?ocid=iehp
I'm having doubts
I figured I would be OK if Bernie Sanders did not become the nominee. After all, he's not connected to the Democratic Party establishment, and he has no celebrity status, and... Well, anyway, I figured Hillary Clinton would mop the floor with whatever fool the Republicans chose. Now it looks as if that may be wrong.
Yeah, I know. The e-mail thing can be shown to be essentially nothing. There is no accusation of any real wrong doing. The best Gowdy can come up with is a few post-classified messages, which is almost less than nothing. But the goddamn media is latching onto this and treating it as if Gowdy is a real person with a real brain and a real sense of public service. I think they're doing this because it plays into the image of Hillary Clinton they have been feeding for years, the image of someone who is arrogant and doesn't feel the rules apply to her. Is there any substantial evidence for this parallel to Dick Cheney? Not that I can see. It's too soon to tell if the public will buy this, but all the news outlets are pushing it hard.
Again with this explanation
Once again, Clinton supporters are circulating this information, emphasizing the fact that many of Clinton's contributions come from individuals, while campaign finance reporting rules make it appear she's getting money from the financial industry.
Guess what? There is a reason the rules make individual contributors "lump together" according to where they work. Because it prevents a particular form of deception. Let's say I'm Fred Bigbucks, CEO of Bigbucks Investments. I hold a campaign party at my house, invite all the people who work for me, and "suggest" they each write a check for $2600 to my favorite candidate. So the contribution records for my candidate show $2600 from John, $2600 from Sue, $2600 from Andy, $2600 from each of the 100 or so people attending my party. This is a form of "bundling," the practice of collecting individual contributions from a bunch of people and giving the aggregate amount to the campaign. Unless you knew they worked for me, you would never know those contributions were all related through my company. To prevent this sort of deception, campaign finance reporting procedures require information that allows the reader to figure out when 100 people who work for Bigbucks Investments all get together and pony up $1700 each.
What's the dif? Who cares? "Bundling" is responsible for almost half the campaign money that flows to major national candidates. If it wasn't reported as bundled, you would think it came from John, Sue, Andy, etc. and you would never know they all work for me, Mr. Bigbucks. You could find out, but you would have to do a lot of independent research, and the election would be long over by the time you established John, Sue, Andy and 100 other "individuals" all work at the same place.
Some Clinton supporters are circulating this information to refute the accusation she is "in the pocket" of large financial organizations. Well, the accusation may be unfair, but the denial is disingenuous. The fact is, Clinton has the support of big Wall Street firms, investors, traders, etc. This does not justify the claim that she is a shill, a stooge, a sock puppet, etc. for Wall Street, but it does illustrate a significant difference between Clinton and Sanders. To claim otherwise is deceptive. It's up to the voter to interpret this distinction between the two candidates. One reason I support Sanders is because his campaign finance reports show little connection to Wall Street, but I'm not ready to conclude Clinton will sell out the working class and middle class to benefit her Wall Street contributors. I support Sanders because I like Sanders, not because I hate Clinton.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/08/11/you-know-that-meme-about-hillarys-vs-bernies-campaign-donors-its-a-lie/ via Addicting Info
I believe the polls except when I don't
I believe the polls showing Clinton with a big lead over Sanders on the D side, and I even accept the term "presumptive favorite." I do not believe the polls suggesting Trump will be the Republican nominee, and I do not expect the media to name him "presumptive favorite." Yes, double standard, but I figure the Trump surge is just the result of a crowded field and a need for some excitement. The Democrats are sincerely weighing two credible candidates against each other, while the Republicans don't really care which loser they get to vote for. Agree? Disagree? Why?
Pop-up ads are great
Lockheed Martin has one for the F-35 fighter. "When the future strikes, the enemy will never see it coming." That's for sure. You can't see what never arrives.
Clinton's Favorability numbers all over the news
I'm not even sure what "favorability" means. All the major news outlets this morning are blasting us with the drop in Clinton's favorability ratings, as if this were the sole qualification to be president. We need to stop thinking this way when we vote for candidates. "I like this guy" is what stuck us with GW Bush. If I wanted somebody to hang out with, I might pick Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, but I don't vote for pals and buddies. I vote for president. This "favorability" thing is too much like a popularity contest.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 PMNumber of posts: 6,409