Thursday, July 25, 2019

He dampened their spirits and then some

Hope you already saw this about the disappointment in Robert Mueller's testimony:
“Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster,” Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe tweeted, in reference to Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Tribe is an outspoken critic of Trump who often calls for his impeachment and indictment. He noted Mueller’s appearance failed to provide the made-for-TV moment that Democrats could rally behind in their efforts to bring down the president.
“Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it.”
Left-wing documentarian Michael Moore had even harsher words about Mueller, and all the “pundits and moderates and lame Dems” who thought he would deliver.
Democrats did get Mueller to make certain statements that were clearly damaging to the president, including refuting Trump's claim that he was exonerated by the investigation. But Mueller largely was retreading ground already covered in the report. And his critical comments were undermined by his stumbling in the face of Republican questioning, and confusion over key details. Several on the left readily acknowledged this was not the home run for which they hoped.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin scored it as a win for President Trump.
“Look at who’s winning now, it certainly seems like Donald Trump is winning between the two of them,” Toobin said Wednesday.

And THE HILL is reporting on what Democratic House members thought:

 Multiple members argued that the media was complicit in pumping up Mueller’s appearance by drawing comparisons to the Watergate hearings during the Nixon administration, writing stories about bar specials and watch parties and generally forecasting Mueller’s testimony as the most historic Capitol Hill event in years, if not decades.
“I think that the media hyped the hearing to a point where it was very hard to meet the expectation,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), an Intelligence Committee member. “I remember getting ready yesterday morning listening to the coverage and thinking, 'My gosh, they’re making this into Watergate II.'”
Other Democrats said Mueller, 74, fell flat by stumbling over responses and appearing confused on specific questions about details in his report.
“He’s older, forgetful, and yeah that was a personal disappointment because he’s a lion, you know?” said one Democrat who questioned Mueller on Wednesday.


Mr. Mueller was a dud.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:


Thursday, July 25, 2019.  A lot questions for 'front runner' Joe Biden.

Starting in the US where a presidential election will take place in November 2020 and the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is on.  Joe Biden stumbles and bumbles his way through a poorly planned campaign.

Yesterday's snapshot noted that America really doesn't elect stumblers for president and used Gerald Ford as an example:

 Joe is a nightmare.  He is one gaffe after another.  The bumbling vice president might be cute and funny but for the person who sits in the Oval Office, that's not what we want.

Yes, Gerald Ford got in there but on a pass.  He only got him because he was an (unelected) Vice President.  When he finally faced an election, he lost to Jimmy Carter. 


An e-mail to the public account insists:

Just because Mr. Ford was not top of the ticket does not mean people did not vote for him.  I voted for John Kerry more because he had John Edwards as a running mate.  We don't just vote for the top of the ticket, we also vote for the running mate.  That should have been clear to everyone but obviously you are too dense to get it.

Thanks for sharing.

Gerald Ford was never Richard Nixon's running mate.  Spiro Agnew was his running mate in 1968 and 1972.  Both times they won the election.  Spiro had to resign after the 1972 election in 1973.  At which point, Nixon selected Ford.

Ford was never on the ticket as Nixon's running mate.

When Ford faced election -- Nixon was forced out of office in disgrace and Ford became president -- it was 1976 and the voters went with Jimmy Carter.

As the saying goes, keep coming back, it works if you work it.


Joe Biden bumbles and stumbles along.  He really doesn't sit down interviews unless he can have someone beside him to say all the things he's afraid to.  Which is a real shame because one question that should be asked of him has not been asked.

Why are you running?

In 2016, Joe Biden was the sitting vice president.  Barack Obama had served two terms and could not run again.  When this happens, traditionally the vice president makes a run for the presidency.

Now he shows up promising to turn back the clock to the age of Obama.

Why?

Why didn't he run in 2016?

What makes him more qualified now?

Why now but not then?

Or is that an attack?  The press seems to feel every question of Joe is an attack.  After all, they've declared him the front runner so any obstacle -- like his past, his present or his future -- that might impede his journey to the White House is an attack.

They say Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris attacked him.  For weeks, they've said that.  Poor innocent Joe, right?


  1.  15 hours ago
Here is the Fox News headline that Joe Biden is generating with his dishonest attacks on the Medicare for All legislation that is being pushed by more than 100 congressional Democrats
1 reply36 retweets113 likes
 
 



Joe's been attacking all along but hiding behind others to do it.  All that's changed is now he's carrying out his attacks all by himself.  Which should make the debate very interesting.  Speaking with the NAACP, he had a finger wagging moment that the press is largely ignoring but it bubbling up and becoming a problem.  Maybe, when replying to the African-American woman asking you questions in a sit down discussion, the thing not to do is point your finger at her as you huffily reply.

Again, the debate next week should be very interesting.

And maybe, another question, they can ask Joe why he ever supported mandatory sentencing in the first place?

Three strikes you're out?

If Joe had been ruled out of politics after three strikes, he wouldn't be allowed to run today.

Iraq, Anita Hill, mandatory sentencing -- that's three alone.  And that's far from a list of Joe's worst hits over the years.

Iraq?  His excuse is that he was tricked by Bully Boy Bush.  Outsmarted by the village idiot as a campaign strategy?  Again, let's note Ryan Grim (THE INTERCEPT):


 Joe Biden’s new foreign policy adviser was a supporter of the Iraq War while serving in the George W. Bush administration, though he now says it was “a pretty serious blunder.” Nicholas Burns, whose hiring was first reported by CNN on Monday, has also called NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden a “a traitor.”
Biden, of course, was a supporter of the war himself and later advocated splitting Iraq into three independent countries along sectarian lines. In the runup to the war, Biden was chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Burns worked on the National Security Council staff under presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He then served as ambassador to NATO, and later undersecretary of state for political affairs, the third-ranking position in the State Department, under George W. Bush. Burns retired in 2008 from public service and has since been a senior counselor at the Cohen Group, a global lobbying and influence firm, as well as a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School. He was an adviser to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. 
According to his Harvard resume, he is a consultant for Goldman Sachs. His Harvard bio also lists speeches he gave in 2018, some of which he says he was paid for. He spoke to Bank of America, State Street, CitiBank, Honeywell, and a number of other companies, universities, and associations. 

“The most important thing Joe Biden needs to prove regarding foreign policy is that he has learned from his disastrous decision to support going to war in Iraq and other foreign countries around the globe,” said Alexander McCoy, political director of Common Defense, a progressive, grassroots veterans organization. “It’s not encouraging that, out of countless possible choices, Joe Biden selected a foreign policy advisor who also supported the invasion of Iraq, the biggest foreign policy mistake of a generation — a mistake that veterans like us still are suffering the consequences of.” McCoy added that Biden had yet to sign the group’s pledge to end the nation’s “forever wars.”



So Joe made a mistake on Iraq and his solution is to bring in Burns who also made a mistake?  How does that improve him as a candidate?  How does that demonstrate that he has learned a thing?  Or can learn?  If you know you made a mistake how does adding another person who made the same mistake help you.



Joe has made a lot of mistakes but what is worse is he never seems to learn from them.

On the topic of Iraq, NDTV notes:
The commander of a U.S. Special Operations task force in Iraq has sent home a platoon of Navy SEALs for drinking while deployed, U.S. defense officials said, the latest discipline incident that has emerged for an elite force relied upon heavily by the Pentagon.
U.S. Special Operations Command said in a statement Wednesday night that the platoon was forced out early to San Diego "due to a perceived deterioration of good order and discipline within the team during non-operational periods" of their deployment.
"The Commander lost confidence in the team's ability to accomplish the mission," the statement said. "Commanders have worked to mitigate the operational impact as this SEAL platoon follows a deliberate redeployment."
The statement did not state what prompted the decision, but two defense officials with knowledge of the issue said that SEALs drinking alcohol prompted it. The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, said that the SEALs violated General Order No. 1, which bans alcohol use.


Let's wind down with this from the Connecticut Green Party:



NEW LONDON, CT — Community organizer and author Frida Berrigan has begun collecting petition signatures for ballot access as she seeks the Green Party nomination to run for Mayor in the November elections. A newcomer to electoral politics, Ms. Berrigan has a long history of involvement, at the local and national level, in support of peace, social justice, and environmental responsibility.

Green Party of Connecticut
ctgreenparty.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 22, 2019

Contact:
Frida Berrigan, 860-389-8566, frida.berrigan@gmail.com
Ronna Stuller, 860-772-8439, rstuller@snet.net


“I am a parent and a community gardener. I try to be a good neighbor. I have sought to support existing initiatives, show up in solidarity, lead from behind and create conversations. I am not an expert in anything. But, it seems to me that the mayor’s job is to be present and listen, catalyze conversation, invite inquiry and question assumptions. I can do that.”

The Green Party will hold its nominating convention at Riverside Park on Sunday, August 4, at 5:00 p.m. Candidates are still being recruited for City Council and Board of Education; individuals who would like serve as elected officials and to join a campaign focused on involving young people in the political arena; celebrating New London’s racial, economic, and ethnic diversity; and making space for new ideas are encouraged to contact the Green Town Committee at info@nlgreens.org.

The Green Party is committed to peace, social and economic justice, ecology, and grassroots democracy. Due to our firm belief that government should be accountable to its citizens, New London Green Party candidates do not accept contributions from corporations, lobbyists, political action committees or labor unions. For further information regarding the New London Greens, visit nlgreens.org.



The following sites updated:



Posted by at