Presumptuous Politics

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Sanders wins Oregon primary, deadlocked with Clinton in Kentucky

Sen. Bernie Sanders won Oregon's Democratic presidential primary Tuesday night while front-runner Hillary Clinton appeared to have notched a narrow victory in Kentucky, a split decision preventing the former secretary of state from turning her full attention and resources to battling Donald Trump.
The outcomes do not dramatically change the Democratic delegate count and the former secretary of state remains on track to clinch the nomination on June 7 in the New Jersey primary. But Sanders' strong performances threaten to expose Clinton's weaknesses before she takes on Trump in the fall.
With 77 percent of precincts reporting in Oregon, Sanders led Clinton 54 percent to 46 percent, a difference of just over 43,000 votes.
“We just won Oregon, and we’re going to win California,” the Vermont senator told supporters in Carson, Calif., where he vowed to “take our fight” to July's Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
Sanders' victory was his 21st of the election cycle and his 11th in the past 17 contests. The win also broke Sanders' streak of eight straight losses in so-called "closed primaries", where only registered Democrats can vote.
With 99 percent of the precincts reporting in Kentucky, Clinton led Sanders by just over 1,900 votes out of more than 423,000 that were cast. Though the race remained too close to call, the Clinton campaign claimed victory in the commonwealth late Tuesday.
The Kentucky Secretary of State's office reported that Clinton led Sanders 46.8 percent to 46.3 percent with 100 percent of the votes in. The Sanders campaign did not immediately say whether it will challenge the results in Kentucky, which does not have an automatic recount.
According to an Associated Press tally, Clinton and Sanders each received 27 of Kentucky's 55 Democratic delegates, with one delegate to be awarded to the statewide winner. In Oregon, Sanders had won at least 28 of the Beaver State's 61 Democratic delegates, with Clinton winning at least 24 and nine other delegates outstanding.
Clinton currently has 2,291 pledged delegates and superdelegates to Sanders' 1,528. She requires a total of 2,383 to clinch the Democratic nomination.
Clinton repeatedly tried to turn the focus to Trump while campaigning in Kentucky over the weekend, calling the billionaire real estate mogul a "loose cannon" and saying she had "never heard such reckless, risky talk from somebody about to be a nominee for president than I’ve heard from Donald Trump when it comes to nuclear weapons."
For his part, Trump taunted Clinton on Twitter shortly after the polls closed in Kentucky Tuesday night.
In Oregon's Republican primary, Trump faced no active opposition in winning 67 percent of the vote. Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz received 17 and 16 percent of the vote respectively, as more than 104,000 ballots were cast for Trump's former rivals.
Trump won at least 17 of Oregon's 28 Republican delegates, with Cruz and Kasich each receiving at least three and five other delegates outstanding. Trump now has 1,160 delegates, just 77 away from the threshold needed to clinch the GOP nomination.

Deja Vu again? Trump critics still trying to block his nomination

Just as the rest of the world is focused on a Donald/Hillary matchup, the #NeverTrump crowd is still hoping to somehow derail him in Cleveland.
Isn’t it a little late for that? The Republicans running against Trump have all dropped out. This feels so last month.
I understand why those who believe Trump will lead the GOP to defeat, ruin the party’s brand or just don’t like the guy are still taking their whacks. But it seems like there’s an air of unreality around these last-ditch schemes.
And if they did succeed, of course, the hijacking of the nomination from a man who clobbered the competition and won more than 10 million votes in the primaries would totally rupture the party.
If Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor, succeeds in launching an effort to mount a third-party conservative bid, it will, in my view, hand the election to Hillary Clinton. I know there’s this fantasy that no one gets to 270 and the contest winds up in the House, but that sounds more far-fetched than the notion that Trump wasn’t going to get to 1,237.
And it comes at a time when Trump has stunned the media establishment by pulling almost even in the polls. NBC has Clinton narrowly beating him, 48 to 45 percent, which is essentially a tie. Sure, May matchups don’t mean much, and a presidential campaign is all about the swing states. But those are eye-opening numbers for a non-politician with high negatives who is widely portrayed as polarizing.
Still, the Washington Post gave front-page display yesterday to a story on Trump declaring that “grass-roots conservative activists are still trying to find a way to stop him at the party’s convention in July.”
How could this be? Forget the fact that primary and caucus voters turned out to support delegates pledged to their candidates, which is the whole point of the democratic process. Now these activists want the delegates “unbound”:
“Veteran Republican campaign operatives familiar with convention planning are offering to educate delegates on how they can act as free agents, even if the Republican National Committee insists that delegates adhere to the results of their state primary.”
Conservative blogger Erick Erickson is on board:
“It should be increasingly clear to Republican delegates that their rendezvous in Cleveland is going to be a ritual mass suicide. In addition to losing the presidency, they will lose the Senate, endanger the House, and see catastrophe all the way down the ballot. But they can choose not to commit suicide. The Republican delegates have the power to reject the purported nominee.”
The new wave here is ripping Republicans who are, with whatever degree of reluctance, boarding the Trump train. A Washington Post editorial slams Reince Priebus for having “exposed the rank nihilism that is driving Republican leaders’ acceptance of Mr. Trump.”
Post columnist Michael Gerson, a former George W. Bush staffer, says that Trump was right on one point: “He attacked the Republican establishment as low-energy, cowering weaklings. Now Republican leaders are lining up to surrender to him — like low-energy, cowering weaklings. The capitulation has justified the accusation…
“For the sake of partisanship — for a mess of pottage — some conservatives are surrendering their identity.”
But the anti-Trump folks have a bit of problem: they have no horse to ride. Even if they could overcome the inherent problems of an independent bid, such as ballot access, which conservative is going to be the standard-bearer? Mitt Romney, Tom Coburn and Ben Sasse all say they don’t want to do it.
Kristol, whose old boss Dan Quayle is backing Trump, has bought the web address NeitherTrumpNorHillary.com. But right now the site is just a logo featuring a dog.
Kristol got a little testy yesterday with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota for pointing out the lack of a leader:
“Yes, no one stepped forward,” Kristol said., adding: “Have I been in touch with people? Yes. Do I think the country deserves better? Yes. If you just want to say people so far said, no, can’t happen, great, you guys would love a Trump/Clinton race. Fantastic news every day. Two unattractive candidates fighting stupidly about their personal lives, fighting with the New York Times. I’d like someone to run who could really do better for the country.”
At this point, it’s not about what the press wants. Primaries have consequences. The time for Trump’s detractors to derail him was somewhere between Iowa and Indiana. The question now isn’t whether Trump can win over conservative leaders in the media and the GOP, it’s whether rank-and-file Republican voters are falling in behind him.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Megyn Kelly Special: Trump defends tone, says bid will be ‘complete waste’ if he doesn’t win

Donald Trump, in an extensive interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, responded to critics of his barbed campaign style by saying he never would have been successful in the primary race if he had acted “presidential” and held back on hitting his political rivals – while declaring that if he doesn’t win the election this fall, he’ll consider his campaign a “complete waste.”
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was blunt in describing the stakes of the 2016 race as he sees it. Without a victory in the fall, he said, he won’t be able to lower taxes, strengthen the military or “make America great.”
“I will say this: If I don’t go all the way, and if I don’t win, I will consider it to be a total and complete waste of time, energy and money,” Trump said, in the interview that aired Tuesday night on Fox Broadcast Network affiliates.
The candidate addressed a range of topics in his sit-down with Kelly, from his tone to the lead-off presidential debates to his past clashes with the Fox News host.
Trump conceded that, in looking back, he “absolutely” has regrets, without going into detail. But he said if he hadn’t conducted himself in this way, he wouldn’t have come out on top.

Fox News host previews Fox Broadcast Network prime-time special

“If I were soft, if I were presidential … in a way it’s a bad word, because there’s nothing wrong with being presidential, but if I had not fought back in the way I fought back, I don’t think I would have been successful,” he told Kelly.

Trump argued that he’s a “counter-puncher” who’s only responding to the attacks against him.
“I respond pretty strongly, but in just about all cases, I’ve been responding to what they did to me,” Trump said. “It’s not a one-way street.”
The interview was conducted on the heels of an April meeting between Kelly and the Republican candidate at Trump Tower in New York City.
Before that meeting, the two had been at odds for months – dating back to a Fox News-hosted debate last August, when Trump accused “The Kelly File” host of asking him unfair questions.
Today, Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, having vanquished 16 primary rivals and now turning his attention toward an expected general election battle against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state, while still trying to shake a primary challenge from Bernie Sanders, has sharpened her criticism of Trump as well in recent weeks, even saying Monday that he’s a “loose cannon” who would be dangerous for the country. And she said he’d return to “failed” economic policies.
Speaking with Kelly, Trump suggested the August debate actually helped prepare him for the battle ahead.
“In a certain way, what you did might have been a favor, because I felt so good about having gotten through -- I said, ‘If I could get through this debate, with those questions, you can get through anything,’” he said.
Trump pointed to that debate when asked at what moment he realized he might actually win the race. “I think that first debate meant something,” Trump said, adding that he felt comfortable with the subject matter and the people he was competing against.
At the same time, Trump tried to explain why he fired back at Kelly for confronting him about his past disparaging comments about women. “I thought it was unfair,” Trump said of the question, while noting it was the first question he’d ever been asked at a debate. “And I’m saying to myself, man, what a question.”
He added, “I don’t really blame you because you’re doing your thing, but from my standpoint, I don’t have to like it.”
As for his role in the presidential election in this year, Trump said: “I really view myself now as somewhat of a messenger… This is a massive thing that’s going on. These are millions and millions of people that have been disenfranchised from this country.”
Trump for the last several weeks has been working to reach out to members of the so-called Republican establishment in Washington he’s spent much of his campaign railing against. He met last week with GOP congressional leaders, including House Speaker Paul Ryan – who has held back an endorsement for now. Trump and the lawmakers came away describing the meetings as positive.
In the interview with Kelly, Trump briefly discussed his personal life, and how his older brother Fred died after a battle with alcoholism. “I have never had a glass of alcohol,” he said, calling his brother’s death the “hardest thing for me to take.”
And while defending his tone on the campaign trail, Trump also said he takes “very seriously” the responsibility of the office he’s seeking.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Hillary Clinton + Bill Cartoons

The virtues of dullness? Why Hillary's allies are saying she's boring and uninspiring

Hillary Clinton is really boring. A terrible campaigner. An awful politician who will have a tough time against Donald Trump.
And that’s the assessment coming from her allies.
It’s a bit of political jujitsu, taking your candidate’s weaknesses and trying to spin them into strengths. It is also a classic case of lowering expectations.
Above all, it looks like a coordinated effort by Hillaryland to blunt criticism of the presumptive Democratic nominee who’s still having trouble beating a 74-year-old socialist in many of the primaries.
My own reporting indicates that Clinton has decided she’s never going to out-Trump Trump, she’s never going to be flashier, so she would rather run as the candidate of stability. The campaign believes that if she’s seen as a nerdy wonk with lengthy position papers, that’s not a bad contrast with a Republican accused by some in his own party of being thin on policy specifics.
I was thinking about Hillary and the media even before this latest spate of stories. On my show, I often look for good sound bites after she has done an interview—she doesn’t do that many--or given a speech, and there’s very little to work with. The same thing applies to finding a juicy quote or two for a column. (This is not exactly a problem with Trump.)
I’m not referring here to Clinton’s disciplined refusal to respond to Trump’s attacks. That may make sense from her point of view. It’s her plodding, cautious, bureaucratic style that often fails to break through. Her answers may be substantive, but to use a television term, she doesn’t pop.
Does this matter? Well, Trump has driven the news coverage surrounding this campaign from the day he got in the race. Clinton just doesn’t make that much news.
The Clinton camp’s view is that she gets plenty of good local press when she campaigns in such states as Kentucky, which votes today, and there’s little desire to compete with Trump in racking up segments on the cable networks—especially if those are about his relationships with women or not releasing his tax returns.
For many months, the imbalance in the national media could be explained away by the fact the Republican contest was a wild roller-coaster ride while Clinton was easily cruising to the Democratic nomination. But now that it’s essentially a general election—even though Bernie is still hanging around—Trump is still dominating the news.
Some of the Trump stories are obviously negative, as with the lengthy New York Times report saying he “crossed the line” with some women. (That story took a hit when the woman in the lead anecdote, Rowanne Brewer Lane, who dated Trump after he asked her to change to a swimsuit at a pool party, told “Fox & Friends” and others that her experience was positive and the paper unfairly spun her words.)
But even the critical stories give Trump a chance to counterpunch against the media (such as calling the Times report a “lame hit piece”), grabbing the available oxygen and denying it to his Democratic opponent. Clinton tends to make news more through her aides and surrogates than with her own words.
That’s why a Time magazine headline declares: “Hillary’s new plan to trump Trump—by being boring.”
She doesn’t want a “mud fight” with Trump, the piece says. “She’s a lousy politician, by her own admission…Americans like Hillary Clinton the nerdy technocrat. They do not like Hillary Clinton the candidate.” The magazine casts the race as “the great boor vs. the great bore.”
The Washington Post weighed in yesterday by quoting “more than a dozen Clinton allies” who identified her “weaknesses” against Trump, “including poor showings with young women, untrustworthiness, unlikability and a lackluster style on the stump.”
Advisers, the Post says, are trying “to soften her stiff public image by highlighting her compassion…She is scripted and thin-skinned, they say. And with a sigh, they acknowledge the persistent feeling among a lot of Americans that they just don’t like her.”
They just don’t like her. Well, the polls show that many voters don’t like Trump either. But those who do are passionate about the billionaire, just as Sanders supporters are passionate about their man. Clinton, despite her long experience, doesn’t come across as an inspirational figure.
Stories like these don’t appear in the press by accident. Those in Clinton’s orbit are trying to justify a soft-spoken strategy that, at the moment, is being drowned out by the high-decibel Trump. They want Hillary to be viewed as a reliable grandmother, not the calculating politician who is under investigation for using a private email server, and not as risky as the bombastic Trump.
But she still has to find a way to make news, on her own. The danger is that she’ll come to be viewed as a dull and conventional candidate in a year in which voters are rejecting politics as usual.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Nevada Democrats warn DNC Sanders supporters have 'penchant for ... violence'

The Nevada State Democratic Party warned the Democratic National Committee Monday that supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have displayed a "penchant for ... actual violence' and could disrupt this summer's Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
The allegation is the latest fallout from a divisive Nevada Democratic convention that had to be shut down Saturday night because security at the Paris Las Vegas hotel could no longer ensure order. The gathering closed with some Sanders supporters throwing chairs; later, some made death threats against state party chairwoman Roberta Lange.
Sanders' backers had been protesting convention rules that ultimately led to Hillary Clinton winning more pledged delegates. Clinton won the state's caucuses in February, 53-47, but Sanders backers hoped to pick up extra delegates by packing county and state party gatherings.
Sanders had released a statement Friday night asking supporters to work "together respectfully and constructively" at the convention. But the state party alleged in its letter to the co-chairs of the DNC Rules and By-laws committee, "The explosive situation arose in large part because a portion of the community of Sanders delegates arrived at the Nevada Democratic State Convention believing itself to be a vanguard intent upon sparking a street-fight rather than attending an orderly political party process."
Michael Briggs, a Sanders campaign spokesman, said, "We do not condone violence or encourage violence or even threats of violence." He added that the campaign "had no role in encouraging the activity that the party is complaining about. We have a First Amendment and respect the rights of the people to make their voices heard."
On Saturday, Sanders backers shouted down the keynote speaker, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and others they thought were tilting the rules in Clinton's favor. Protesters shouted obscenities and rushed the dais to protest rulings.
"We believe, unfortunately, that the tactics and behavior on display here in Nevada are harbingers of things to come as Democrats gather in Philadelphia in July for our National Convention," the state party's general counsel, Bradley S. Schrager wrote in a letter to the DNC. "We write to alert you to what we perceive as the Sanders campaign's penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior — indeed, actual violence — in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting, and furthermore what we can only describe as their encouragement of, and complicity in, a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats."
Several Sanders backers have condemned some of the threats against Lange and other actions Saturday. Former state assemblywoman Lucy Flores, a current congressional candidate, said in a statement: "There were actions over the weekend and at the Democratic convention that very clearly crossed the line. Progressives need to speak out against those: Making threats against someone's life, defacing private property, and hurling vulgar language at our female leaders."
State party offices remained closed Monday for security reasons after Sanders supporters posted Lange's home and business addresses, email and cell phone number online. Copies of angry and threatening texts to Lange were included with the letter.
Lange said she'd been receiving hundreds of profanity-laced calls and texts from inside and outside of the U.S., threatening her life and her family. Lange said the restaurant where she works has received so many calls it had to unplug the phone.
"It is endless, and the longer it goes the worse it gets," Lange said in an interview. "I feel threatened everywhere I go."

Congressman: Classified details of Iran's treatment of US sailors will shock nation

The classified details behind Iran’s treatment of several U.S. sailors who were captured by the Islamic Republic during a tense standoff earlier this year are likely to shock the nation, according to one member of the House Armed Services Committee, who disclosed to the Washington Free Beacon that these details are currently being withheld by the Obama administration.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.) told the Free Beacon in an interview that the Obama administration is still keeping details of the maritime incident under wraps. It could be a year or longer before the American public receives a full accounting of the incident, in which several U.S. sailors were abducted at gunpoint by the Iranian military.
“I’ve had a full classified briefing” from military officials, Forbes told the Free Beacon. “It could be as long as a year before we actually get that released.”
Details of the abduction are likely to start an uproar in the nation and call into question the Obama administration’s handling of the incident, which many experts say violated international and maritime law.
“I think that when the details actually come out, most Americans are going to be kind of taken aback by the entire incident, both how Iran handled it and how we handled it,” Forbes disclosed. “I think that’s going to be huge cause for concern for most Americans. That’s why I’ve encouraged members of Congress to get that briefing so they do know exactly what did take place.”
Forbes suggested that Iran’s treatment of the U.S. sailors—which included filming them crying and forcing them to apologize at gunpoint—may have been much worse than what has been publicly reported.

White House snubs Chaffetz, refuses to let aide testify after controversial Iran remarks

The White House confirmed Monday that Obama adviser Ben Rhodes will not be allowed to testify before House lawmakers on the Iran nuclear deal, after a last-ditch attempt by Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz to pry the controversial aide loose for the hearing.
Chaffetz and the White House have been engaged in an escalating feud, all on the heels of a New York Times Magazine piece where Rhodes was quoted boasting about the administration’s success in crafting a public narrative for the Iran deal. The profile on Rhodes quotes him saying they built an “echo chamber” of experts who sold that narrative to young, often inexperienced reporters.
Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, wanted the deputy national security adviser to testify at a hearing set for Tuesday titled, “White House narratives on the Iran Nuclear Deal.”
“We’re planning as if he is attending, and he’ll have a comfortable seat awaiting his arrival,” Chaffetz said Monday afternoon of Rhodes.
But W. Neil Eggleston, White House counsel, sent a letter to Chaffetz late Monday saying Rhodes would not attend.
He cited what appeared to be an executive privilege-related claim, asserting that such a senior presidential adviser’s appearance “threatens the independence and autonomy of the President, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel.” For those reasons, he said, “we will not make Mr. Rhodes available to testify.”
Chaffetz earlier had made a last-ditch attempt to pressure Rhodes into appearing. After White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest initially said he should invite GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, whom he accuses of spreading false information about the deal, Chaffetz did exactly that -- inviting Cotton to testify, on condition that Rhodes appeared as well.
“[Earnest] suggested that you should be invited to appear at the hearing as well, because you have some 'interesting insight' into the JCPOA [the Iran deal]. Therefore your appearance before the Committee would be contingent on Mr. Rhodes’ appearance at that hearing,” Chaffetz said in a letter Friday.
Asked earlier Monday about the possibility of a Rhodes appearance, Earnest did not rule it out but expressed what he called "thinly veiled skepticism about the whole exercise" and reiterated his claim that it is Republicans who should answer "for saying a lot of things about the Iran deal that turned out not to be true."
The letter from Eggleston later made clear Rhodes would not attend. Though Eggleston cited an executive privilege claim, Earnest told Fox News just four days earlier that “this has nothing to do with executive privilege.”
Sources tell Fox News that the committee was keen for Rhodes to appear voluntarily so they avoid the territory of a possible subpoena.
The magazine article that touched off the controversy outlined how Rhodes created a narrative of the deal coming out of the 2013 election of “moderate” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Iran’s subsequent “openness” and willingness to negotiate.
In fact, the story stated, the majority of the deal was hammered out in 2012, well before Rouhani’s election. However, the Rhodes narrative was politically useful to the administration as it presented them as reaching out to the moderates who wanted peace.