The Commentariat -- April 8, 2016
Afternoon Update:
The Party of Fear. Charlie Savage of the New York Times: "Vulnerable Republican incumbents are increasingly raising fears about Guantánamo Bay detainees, following a campaign strategy used by Scott Brown before his surprise victory in a Massachusetts special election for a Senate seat six years ago." ...
... CW: Never mind that we learned only yesterday that "Far more convicted terrorists are being held in federal prisons in the United States than in Guantanamo Bay." Reason seldom factors in to any Republican talking point.
*****
Juliet Eilperin & Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post: "President Obama returned Thursday to the institution where he forged his academic expertise in constitutional law -- the University of Chicago Law School -- to make the case that confirming his current nominee for the Supreme Court is the best way for the nation to uphold its founding principles." -- CW:
... Dahlia Lithwick of Slate: "On Tuesday, [Sen. Chuck] Grassley [RCrotchety-Iowa] gave a speech that went after the Supreme Court as a purely political institution, pantsing the entire high court, and Chief Justice John Roberts by name, on the floor of the United States Senate. In so doing, he not only damaged the Senate's relationship with the court in a way he may not be able to repair, but also exposed his own hypocrisy as chairman of a judiciary committee tasked with ensuring that the court can function.... What is really being said here is that there is only one way to interpret the Constitution and that is in the way that 'advances conservative policy.'" -- CW ...
... Pat Rynard of the Daily Beast wonders if Chuck Grassley (R-Indolence) can be shamed into doing his job. "Some of the pressure at the events [in Iowa] came from activists from NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) and Progress Iowa, the state's main progressive advocacy group. NARAL even had one of their Iowa members dress up as Ben Franklin at each event to remind Grassley about constitutional duties." -- Akhilleus ...
... Akhilleus: The mistake these people make is thinking that Confederates like Grassley give a hoot about the Founders or the Constitution. Just because they say they do don't make it so. When asked by a constituent about why he's not doing his job, Grassley replied "We know that over half of the Senate is going to not go along with that this year, so I'd rather spend our time on things we can do in a bipartisan way". Forget that silliness about bipartisanship. This is the answer of a follower, not a leader. And besides, if Ben Franklin can't get him to do his job, what good is he?
David Nakamura of the Washington Post: "The Panama Papers' detailed revelations of a massive international tax-haven scheme have snowballed this week into a fierce debate among Democrats over President Obama's trade policies with the tiny Central American nation and again laid bare sharp divisions within the party over such agreements. Trade critics lambasted the administration as failing to heed their prior warnings and win sufficient financial reforms from Panama before signing a landmark free-trade deal in 2011, missing a chance to disrupt the elaborate financial arrangements disclosed in a massive leak of private data last weekend." -- CW
...The "Panama Butterfly Effect" - Juan Cole of Informed Comment: "The revelation in the leaked Panama Papers that Mossack Fonseca and Swiss bank HSBC serviced the companies of corrupt Syrian billionaire Rami Makhlouf (first cousin of dictator Bashar al-Assad) long after the US imposed sanctions on him is a reminder of why Syrians revolted against the regime in 2011 in the first place." -- LT note: The Butterfly Effect - the scientific theory that a single occurence, no matter how small, can change the course of the universe forever.
Carol Morello of the Washington Post: "Secretary of State John F. Kerry touched down in Baghdad Friday to show support for a government in political and economic turmoil even as it readies a long-awaited military campaign to wrest territory back from Islamic militants." -- CW
Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times: "The Senate passed several provisions to bolster security throughout the nation's transportation system Thursday, the first legislative response to the attacks on the airport and train station in Belgium last month. The measures, which are expected to pass as early as next week, are attached to a large-scale bill to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration." -- CW ...
... Mike DeBonis: "If you're seeking relief from sardine-can conditions on airline flights, don't expect any help from Congress. The Senate voted down an amendment Thursday that would have ended any further reductions of airplane seat sizes. The amendment failed on a 54-to-42 vote, with most Democrats supporting the amendment by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and most Republicans opposed." CW: Because it would be wrong to regulate business when the only beneficiaries are the little people/sardines. ...
... CW: Here's a November 2015 CBS News report on the incredible shrinking airline seat:
"Bench-Slap." Mark Stern of Slate: "In an utterly inevitable turn of events, the First Circuit Court of Appeals restored marriage equality to Puerto Rico on Thursday, reversing a bizarre district court ruling, which held that the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges did not apply to the territory. 'The district court's ruling errs in so many respects that it is hard to know where to begin,' the First Circuit wrote, in reference to U.S. District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez's 10-page anti-gay rant." CW: Pérez-Giménez is a Carter appointee.
Eric Kleefeld of the Raw Story: The Chicago Tribune "finds that at least four different people have made credible allegations [of sexual abuse] against ... [former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert]. And what's more, Hastert did something truly unbelievable: He asked one of his victim's family members to write him a character reference for the judge." -- CW
Laurie Goodstein & Jim Yardley of the New York Times: "In what could be an important moment for his leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis is scheduled to issue a major document on Friday regarding family issues.... In the document, known as an apostolic exhortation, the pope could change church practice on thorny subjects like whether divorced Catholics who remarry without having obtained annulments can receive holy communion. He might address debates over same-sex relationships, cohabitation and polygamy, an issue in Africa. Or, he could sidestep such divisive topics and stick to broader philosophical statements." -- CW
... Update. Jim Yardley & Laurie Goodstein: "In a broad proclamation on family life, Pope Francis on Friday called for the Roman Catholic Church to be more welcoming and less judgmental, and he seemingly signaled a pastoral path for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive holy communion." -- CW ...
... Here's Francis's proclamation.
Presidential Race
Harper Neidig of the Hill: "... Bernie Sanders on Friday morning announced a visit to the Vatican next week to attend a conference hosted by Pope Francis on social, economic and environmental issues." -- CW
Jesse Byrnes of the Hill: "Bernie Sanders on Friday walked back his criticism that Hillary Clinton was not qualified to be president, saying 'of course' the former secretary of State is qualified. 'The Clinton campaign has changed its tone and I think they were pretty public about it,' Sanders told NBC's 'Today,' suggesting Clinton's campaign was being more negative as the campaign shifts to New York ahead of the April 19 primary." -- CW ...
... Alan Rappeport & Yamiche Alcindor of the New York Times with the latest on the Bickersons: "Tension flared in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday, with the candidates questioning each other's fitness to lead and Senator Bernie Sanders pressing his attack that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president." -- CW ...
... John Wagner of the Washington Post interviews Bernie Sanders on the state of the Democratic presidential race. -- CW ...
... David Graham of the Atlantic: "The first thing to say about these remarks is that the escalation is almost entirely semantic, rather than material. All of the attacks that Sanders leveled here ... are things he's talked about for months now.... [Clinton's attacks on Sanders have been] classic Clinton: She's cautious, careful, and stays on message. And the 'qualified' broadside is classic Sanders too. He's angry, and he's not afraid to show that. This directness -- and its contrast with the impression that Clinton is calculating -- is one of the forces that has powered Sanders's campaign. He may have overdone it in this case." -- CW ...
... Eric Levitz of New York: "'Disqualify him, defeat him, unite the party later.' On Wednesday, that was how CNN characterized the Clinton campaign's plan to contain an ascendant Bernie Sanders. Shortly after the insurgent senator's 14-point win in Wisconsin, the Clinton camp sent out a fund-raising email that suggested Sanders's widely criticized interview with the New York Daily News showed that he isn't qualified for the presidency.... [Hillary] Clinton went on the offensive Wednesday, questioning the democratic socialist's party loyalty and the depth of his policy knowledge, accusing him of putting gun manufacturers' interests before those of the victims at Sandy Hook, and then refusing to say whether she believes he's qualified for the presidency when asked by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.... But by actually uttering the words 'I don't think you're qualified,' Sanders stumbled across a political redline: In a partisan primary, you're supposed to leave yourself cover for an eventual endorsement.... On Thursday..., [Clinton] appeared to have adopted a new strategy: Mollify him, unify the party, and defeat him later." -- CW ...
... Charles Pierce: "This is just dumb politics on both sides. First of all, there's no question that HRC was questioning in that interview whether Sanders was unqualified to be president. She just didn't want to use the word, because that would have been the day's headline. (As, indeed, was the case when the Post used it for her.)... And, while we're on the subject, it was pretty damn creepy for HRC to wave the bloody shirt of the Newtown massacre at Sanders.... (She's been draping herself in other people's grief for a while now, and it's distasteful as all hell.)... I'm starting to wonder seriously about both of these people. Neither campaign seems able to avoid the easiest mistakes in optics." -- CW ...
... "Not Good at All." Josh Marshall of TPM: "All candidates, by definition, say that they're more qualified than their opponent. Various things Clinton said can be reasonably interpreted as questioning whether Sanders is up to the job of the presidency. But it is an entirely different matter when an opponent, in his own voice, says flatly his challenger is 'unqualified' to serve as President of the country.... Primaries that drag on get intense. Especially in the venomous and kinetic New York media environment. The Clinton operation has plenty of sharp elbows themselves. But it is incumbent on both candidates to fight hard and yet not say things that can't be unsaid...." ... CW ...
... Krugman Goes "Over the Edge." Paul Krugman: "... the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues." CW: Which is exactly what I would say of Krugman. This is a shocking column in that it presents a serious mischaracterization of the tick-tock. Marshall's post, linked above, is a well-considered criticism of Sanders. Krugman has used his valuable NYT space to rant. Period.
Eric Levitz: In Philadelphia, Bill Clinton clashes with Black Lives Matter protesters opposed to his policies he signed into law & to Hillary Clinton's remark about "superpredators," ca. 1996. -- CW ...
... Michelle Goldberg of Slate: "I wonder if there's a part of Bill Clinton that doesn't really want Hillary Clinton to become president, particularly if she has to distance herself from his legacy to do so.... At a time when Hillary Clinton is dependent on black voters and campaigning with mothers who've lost sons to police violence, Bill Clinton yoked her to his own discredited policies.... It is somehow only when he is working on his wife's behalf that he veers into sabotage.... Hillary should shut him down. She can't divorce him, but she can fire him." -- CW
Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog seems to agree with the possibility that Bill is a problem for Hillary. In more ways than one. The crime bill is a big one: "The flaws in the bill are a huge moral issue -- but then, beyond that, failing to reckon with them fully on the verge of 2016 is political malpractice." He goes on to reference the ineptness (described in the Goldberg piece linked above) Bill has displayed, in this and in the 2008 campaign, on Hillary's behalf. -- Akhilleus
Jonathan Chait: "Donald Trump would probably be the worst candidate any major party has ever nominated -- grossly uninformed, disorganized, personally and ideologically repellent to a majority of the public, and so unreliably attached to its core agenda he could potentially blow the party apart. Ted Cruz would be a much better choice. But ... he'd be very, very bad." Chait explains why. "Were it not for the rise of Donald Trump, the Republican Establishment and even most conservatives would be frantically working to prevent [Cruz's] nomination." -- CW
A look into the life of Trump's right hand man. I think the title itself gives you a good primer: Patricia Murphy of The Daily Beast: "Corey Lewandowski Called Coworker 'F*cking B*tch,' Yelled at Subordinate for Visiting Dying Grandma" --safari
Steve M.: Time goes all in for Cruz on its cover story. Zeke Miller's interview of Cruz "is barely an interview at all -- Miller mostly expresses his amazement at Cruz's success in the race, while the candidate regurgitates his Wisconsin victory speech, which was clearly geared to the general election.... 'Learning to Love Ted Cruz,' Michael Scherer's cover story, is a bit more skeptical -- but it's all about how Cruz is recalibrating his focus now that he's gone from purist Senate pariah to possible presidential nominee. Scherer, for instance, doesn't say a word about carpet-bombing or torture.... If Cruz really does slip into all-platitude mode for the general election, while nodding and winking to his feral base, can he beat Hillary Clinton? He's already within 3 points of Clinton. Sure he can. Watch out for this guy." -- CW
Jessie Hellmann of the Hill: "An apology from Ted Cruz for calling Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar 'ain't gonna happen,' the presidential hopeful said during a Thursday interview with CNN's Dana Bash. 'If the Washington lobbyists want to see that happen, they can hold their breath a long, long time,' Cruz said." -- CW
Guardian: Fox "News" host Megyn Kelly "spoke openly about her evolving relationship with [Donald] Trump during a discussion with Katie Couric at the Women in the World Summit in New York City on Wednesday night, revealing that he used to call repeatedly after shows and send her signed press clippings in an attempt to 'curry favor' ahead of his presidential run." Video. -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Trump Wrong on Lots of Things but apparently especially so on his assertions about China driving down its currency to "beat" the US. Randall Forsyth on Barron's points out that "...where [Trump's] concerned, far more pernicious than any of his much publicized foibles and faux pas is his insistence that China is systematically manipulating its currency, cheapening it to gain an unfair advantage in trade." -- Akhilleus
Beyond the Beltway
Haley Takes the High Road. Mark Berman of the Washington Post: "A South Carolina lawmaker introduced a bill on Wednesday that would mandate that public restrooms and school bathrooms in the Palmetto State only be used based on the gender on a person's birth certificate. However, Gov. Nikki Haley (R) said Thursday that there had been no complaints that would suggest such a bill is needed." -- CW
Tim Egan has a fine column on "a Mason-Dixon line of progress."
Charles Pierce: A lawsuit alleges that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's administration engaged in "racketeering activity" in its Flint water shenanigans. -- CW
Camilo José Vergara, 71, "...a photographer who has spent more than half his life obsessively documenting American cities is creating an expansive and eye-opening record of how poor, segregated neighborhoods have transformed over time. [Vergara] has systematically photographed the same set of intersections in New York, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities over and over again since 1977." The time lapse photos demonstrate the dramatic changes in inner cities.... Once largely minority communities, these neighborhoods are now more and more gentrified. -- Akhilleus
How Big Data Harms Poor Communities: Kaveh Waddell in The Atlantic, points out the highly discriminatory outcomes that can befall Americans who don't have the wherewithal to live in upscale communities, or in one of Trump's towers. "For many poor people in the U.S., the data that's gathered about them at every turn can obstruct attempts to escape poverty. Low-income communities are among the most surveilled communities in America." -- Akhilleus
Way Beyond
Neil MacFarquhar & Stephen Castle of the New York Times: "The reverberations from a leaked trove of Panamanian documents rippled through several nations on Thursday, with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia calling the exposure of a proliferation of shell companies and tax havens an American plot, while Iceland picked a new prime minister and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain admitted that he had profited from an offshore trust." -- CW
Robert Booth, et al., of the Guardian: British Prime Minister "David Cameron has finally admitted he benefited from a Panama-based offshore trust set up by his late father. After three days of stalling and four partial statements issued by Downing Street he confessed that he owned shares in the tax haven fund, which he sold for £31,500 just before becoming prime minister in 2010. In a specially arranged interview with ITV News' Robert Peston he confirmed a direct link to his father's UK-tax avoiding fund, details of which were exposed in the Panama Papers revelations in the Guardian this week." -- CW
James Kanter of the New York Times: "The European Union is stepping up pressure on the United States to add more European [-- Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania--] countries to the list of those whose citizens can travel across the Atlantic without a visa, holding out the threat of requiring Americans to get visas for trips to Europe if Washington does not agree." -- CW
Tim Hume, et al., of CNN: "A new Prime Minister took the reins in Iceland Thursday as fallout over the Panama Papers document leak continued. Sigurdur Ingi Johannsson, who had been the country's agriculture minister, was sworn in as Prime Minister Thursday afternoon. That came two days after former Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson announced he was stepping down amid mounting protests and calls for his resignation after leaked documents from a Panamanian law firm revealed his links to an offshore company. Gunnlaugsson's resignation doesn't mean the dust has settled. He will remain head of the Progressive Party...." -- CW
Modigliani, "Man with a Cane," 1918.Holly Watt, et al., of the Guardian: "Mossack Fonseca helped a New York art gallery defend itself over a claim about a Nazi-looted artwork after the apparent original owner's descendant launched a legal battle for its return, the Panama Papers reveal. The case involves a $25m (£18m) Modigliani painting taken from Paris when the Germans marched into the city in 1940 and the role played by Mossack Fonseca, as the family who say it is theirs fought for its return.... The descendant claims the painting was owned by Oscar Stettiner, a Jewish gallery owner in Paris who fled weeks before the Nazis entered the city." -- CW
Adam Taylor of the Washington Post: "Prosecutors in Belgium have released a new video that shows a third suspect in last month's Brussels airport attack allegedly leaving the scene after the bombing. The suspect is believed to have been the only surviving participant in the attack on March 22. The two other suspects, identified as Najim Laachraoui and Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, are believed to have died in the airport bombing...." With video. -- CW
Max Bearak in the Washington Post: "But what's so scandalous about the Panama Papers isn't just that there's a nexus of rich people, some elected, who make profits by evading taxes. It's that so much of the money moved through tax havens would otherwise be taxed by some of the world's poorest, most revenue-hungry governments." -- CW
Share Article
Reader Comments (13)
There is an old political adage about attacking your opponent's strengths, not their weaknesses. John Quincy Adams attacked Andrew Jackson's military record– his–brutal behavior––executions for Militia men, and killing his own men. Today we are witnessing our democratic opponents in a heated controversy that we were hoping would not develop in quite the way that it has. Sanders, unfortunately, has stepped into one of those sticky holes that he is now struggling to pull himself out of. When he says Hillary "bears responsibility for the Iraq war deaths" and then when asked does he really mean that? and says, "no, of course not," then one has to ask––why would you SAY it? A tit for tat excuse is not acceptable. When Sanders says he got Hillary's "he's not qualified to be president" from a Wash-po headline but previously said, "It's not a question about the headlines," why then did he respond to those very same headlines? Will he, however, when all is said and done support her if she does win? Yes, he says, of course.
We might complain about the long campaign season, but it does bring out the bugs and the beetles, some very large ones that destroy the very fabric of the candidate's messages. But I am hoping on the democrat's side we take a different tactic and stick to issues and not go off half cocked like our republican reptilian front runners.
Had a chance to see Rep.Adam Shiff (D-CA) in an interview. Shiff sits on the House Intelligence Committee and says the whole Benghazi and email probe is for naught––nothing's there––it's the Republican's desperate attempt to stop Hillary from becoming president. (Shiff is an impressive man––been in Congress for over a decade).
Grassely, by the way, should retire (will he be beat in the next election?) he is such an embarrassment! What a fool.
It's a tough time! It's no country for old men! The Tales of Talese " and Paul Krugman. and Bernie Sanders! Krugman (seemingly, for the first time in my many year's of reading him) has certainly dug his heels in on Bernie.
In life one should pick his/her battles...but, lately that is a caution that has been carelessly tossed aside with these rather, trival over-hyped controversies. A lot of needless 'ink' has been spilled in outrage for the sake of outrage.
I almost overlooked the Bernie put-down in Krugman, more stunned by his ease up on TBTF bankers. Where's that coming from?
@MAG: I understand that Krugman is a Clinton supporter. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think there's an excellent argument to be made that Clinton would be the better general election candidate. Right now Sanders is beating her by a couple of points in hypothetica head-to-head polls against the remaining Republican candidates, but that is likely a function of Clinton's much better name recognition & the high level of her polling negatives.
But if you're going to question a candidate's character, you need to do so by presenting all the facts, not cherrypicking them as Krugman did. There's no question that Clinton has been goading Sanders & suggesting he is not qualified to be president & not qualified to be the Democratic nominee, the job he is campaigning for right now.
Did Sanders go over the line with what David Graham called "semantics"? I think so. And evidently so does Sanders. After all, "semantics" matter. Should Sanders have allowed Clinton to so effectively get under his skin, as she clearly intended to do? I don't think so. Presidents have to be "better than that."
Both Clinton & Sanders (and their campaigns and the press) have handled this badly; i.e., not "presidentially"! And it shows.
But my big problem with Krugman goes beyond his evident distemper in today's column. Here, where he writes about an issue I know something about, he has succumbed to partisanship in a way that distorts the facts. However, I don't know much about economics, & I have trusted his remarks about macroeconomics to be at least mostly correct & fact- or model-based. But now I have to wonder.
Marie
@MAG: Thanks so much for "The Tales of Talese"––what a list of female journalists––but why is Jane Mayer missing? I'm looking forward to reading some of these writings. Something I just read this morning, also from "The Cut," by one of my favorite journalists––Rebecca Traister regarding the Bernie/Hillary contretemps.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-tries-too-hard-ambitious.html
Yes, quite the reactions to Krugman, today! spotted your comment, Marie...and sometime RC poster, Jack Mahoney as well. Paul sure poked the bee's nest!
In other news: What we all already knew, but one of our 'favorite" curmudgeon's, Alan Simpson sez "Grover Norquist is 'a fraud' "
Such fun when the ani-mules begin eating their own" Meow! "
"What Grover did, and it was very clever, was to get a pledge from people that under no circumstances would they ever raise taxes. And they sign it," Simpson said. "I think he has got a bust of Ronald Reagan in his office. And Ronald Reagan raised taxes eight times in his eight years of presidency. Why? To make the country run. If anyone believes this revenue-neutral business can go on much longer, they need help. This revenue neutral is impossible."
Rip van Winkle upon waking up!
Krugman - Then & Now . . .
Marie -
I was brightened by your comments of Krugman's latest publication. Thank you.
Coming on its heels, an email arrived from a friend with another PK piece, from 2008, in which The Times' PhD ("Piled Higher & Deeper": I'm quoting a PhD buddy- not not casting aspersions) was - also - shilling for HRC, *and* fashioning (then Senator) Obama in terms similar to those he has attributed to Sanders:
" I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their **hero** [my emphasis] or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a **cult** [my emphasis re: PK's 'cultishness'] of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again. "
Here is that 2008 piece, if of interest:
"HATE SPRINGS ETERNAL"
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?referer=
'Fraid Copy & Paste Is Where I'm At: Mea Maxima Culpa
@Ophelia: ..... Checkmate!
Appears that I short-shrifted the 2008 Krugman piece's URL.
(And that my Copy/Paste skills also need refinement. Ha!)
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?referer=
Okay - I surrender!
Seems the URL will fit in its entirety when I plunk it down.
Yet will not once posted.
(Does one "cut" a URL to space-accommodate?)
Lost In Cyber-Space -
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?referer=
Same old, same old " Krugman 2008 "
@Ophelia, here's a link...but I had no problem even with your first Copy & Paste. You can always verify if you open another Browser Tab and paste to see if yours works. Another thing, you can usually stop behind html as in http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html (didn't need the referer= ) but, both worked anyway.
My last post today. Bye!
@Ophelia-
You and are I are definitely in the same boat. I have an article I have been trying desperately to embed, using ALL of the suggestions applying to my iMac. No luck. I am definitely "techie-brain-damaged!" I don't feel too terrible about that though, since I recently took a lovely quiz: "Are you more left brained or right brained?" Turns out, according to the lovely quiz, I am 88% right brained and 12% left brained. Yikes! How did I ever make it through graduate school? And a year of post-grad?
Here is the article I wanted to embed. It is a review by Bill McKibben in NYRB of Jane Mayer's superb book, "Dark Money." I am guessing many of you have read the book. If not, it is a must read IMHO! However, in the meantime, you can read McKibben's excellent review. (Hope I did not post this before, she said uncertainly!)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/10/koch-brothers-new-brand/
OK. So, I lied.
One more, and this is really my last post with a link to Matt Taibbi: " What's so : " baffling about Krugman's column " is that there is a massive amount of documentary evidence outlining this behavior, committed by virtually every major bank in America. There was a $7 billion settlement paid by Citigroup, which incidentally is the company that Bill Clinton originally repealed the Glass-Steagall Act to create."
Krugman's position on who should get the blame for the 2008 recession bothered me more than his blasting Sanders.
What's happening to the NYTimes Op-Ed writers? As CW posted earlier, "Krugman goes over the edge..."
Here in CT. there is much fury over Sander's repeated support for a law shielding gun manufacturers, specifically the Bushmaster Firearms International, from lawsuits filed by gun violence victims. Local papers are running with this and the Sandy Hook families that lost their children in the horrific blood bath are speaking out. Democratic lawmakers from CT., including Governor Malloy, have weighed in. Chris Murphy said he respected Sanders, but "historically he has supported a bizarre law that basically makes the gun industry immune from lawsuits." But having read Bernie's stance on this it's clear he's for gun control and has supported legal action against gunmakers. So it appears that his messaging is not clear and/or his response to this particular lawsuit, which was an empathic "No," got people here in a fury. I think Bernie needs to stop listening to people like Tad Divine and take maters into his own hands or listen to Jane–––but on second thought maybe Jane, who was interviewed by Rachel last night, might not be the best person to quell the thunder. She was very firm when she said, "People say Bernie and Hillary are on the same page on issues; I can assure you they are not!"