Showing posts with label minority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minority. Show all posts

Friday, July 4, 2014

Mississippi GOP and the Cotton-Pickin' Conference Call

 photo Bales-of-Cotton.jpg

The Mississippi Republican Senate Race is getting weirder by the day. Chris McDaniel lost on the vote count of the run-off, but he won't concede to Thad Cochran. There was a conference call the other day which included members of both campaigns along with national and local reporters, but McDaniel supporters turned it into a circus by equating black votes with bales of cotton. No, really, that happened. And McDaniel keeps saying the black votes are somehow not legal even though it was an open primary, meaning anyone from either party could vote. But the actual laws don't seem to matter much to the Mississippi Tea Party!

Previous Related Posts:
Mississippi Chaos ~ Voter Fraud and Suicide
Mississippi Senate Race Shenanigans
Poutrageous ~ McDaniel Loses to Thad Cochran

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Conference Call:

From the Clarion-Ledger
A conference call set up by the campaign for U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran devolved into a shouting match and then ended, after which time supporters of GOP primary challenger Chris McDaniel chatted for a bit.
California-based blogger Charles C. Johnson posted the call-in number on Twitter and encouraged people to call in and crash the call. He succeeded.
. . . an unidentified male started asking about harvesting cotton and black votes.
. . . (Austin) Barbour (Cochran advisor) tried to continue on, but he was repeatedly cut off by the man. Eventually Barbour and Cochran spokesman Jordan Russell told media that they could be reached by email or cell phone and then hung up.
. . . As word of the debacle spread on Twitter, it quickly became journalists dialing in to see what the commotion was about, only to sit and laugh about the fact that it was over.

From Roll Call
The conference call line did not give the Cochran campaign the ability to mute callers’ lines, so there was no way to force the caller to stop speaking.
“I’m happy to address any question, no matter the lunacy of it,” he said.
But the man on the line, who did not identify himself, could not be placated. Finally, Barbour apologized and announced he was ending the call, telling national press that they had the contact information for the campaign if they had any questions.
. . . Thirty minutes after the call ended, the call line was still open. Someone was using a soundboard of President Barack Obama’s voice saying “Hey! What’s up?” Someone else was playing the audio from the movie “Animal House.”













Chris McDaniel was given time on CNN to denounce the conference call, and instead got all huffy about Cochran's ability to get out the black vote in Mississippi. The problem is, every time he defends his challenge to the vote count he sounds like a racist who thinks black votes aren't valid. There are theories about why McDaniel thinks this is a good idea - he lives in a conservative bubble, all his friends are racist, or he just has a tin ear for politics. Perhaps all of the above?

The point is, McDaniel never seems to understand that Cochran's appeal to black voters worked so well because the Tea Party is inherently racist, and they are all about cutting funding for minority programs. That is the platform on which McDaniel was running, but now he denies that he ever intended to cut anything - a complete lie!

CNN New Day, Transcript 7-4-2014

BOLDUAN: Do you regret that this has gotten so ugly for any part that you've played in this whole race that it's gotten so ugly?

MCDANIEL: Let me tell you what I regret. Here's what I regret. The last two and a half weeks of that campaign, they went out to Democratic communities, predominantly African-American in our state. They called me a racist. They race-baited.

They said if I was elected, I would suppress their right to vote or do away with it. They said if I was elected that welfare would be cut off. They said if I was elected that funding to historically black colleges and universities would be cut off.

I regret any campaign of divisiveness that deals with race in the manner they dealt with it. That was unfair. It's improper, and in so doing, they ran a scare tactic campaign that pushed 42,000 at least Democrats into the Republican primary.

Do I think that's a problem? Absolutely. Because I don't think divisiveness and that type of race-baiting belongs in the Republican Party.

BOLDUAN: You definitely don't like how they run their campaign. That is absolutely clear, Mr. McDaniel.

But for the part that you've played, this is two people running in this race, any regrets you have in how ugly this has gotten?

MCDANIEL: Which examples do you have where we've been ugly?

BOLDUAN: I'm just saying there are two people running in this race. Do you think you've run a completely fair campaign?

MCDANIEL: Help me understand which examples do you have that show I haven't run a clean campaign?

BOLDUAN: I'm asking if there are any regrets now that you're part in one of the ugliest primaries we've seen in a long time.

MCDANIEL: I can't control the Cochran's race baiter, name calling. If you can find an example where we did something like that you let me know and we'll talk about it.



Friday, November 22, 2013

GOP Cries "Tyranny!" as Reid Nukes the Filibuster

 photo 1d59b7c1-ad6c-48a5-87a8-d02355c37745.jpg

Harry Reid is giving them hell in the Senate! But Honey Badger Don't Care!

The change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominees get an up-or-down vote on confirmation – yes or no. This rule change will make cloture for all nominations other than Supreme Court nominees a majority threshold vote – yes or no.
The Senate is a living thing. And to survive, it must change. To the average American, adapting the rules to make Congress work again is just common sense. This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about making Washington work – regardless of who’s in the White House or who controls the Senate. To remain relevant and effective as an institution, The Senate must evolve to meet the challenges of a modern era.
~ Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, Asking for Filibuster Reform on Floor of the Senate, 11-21-13





From Huffington Post
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the trigger Thursday, deploying a parliamentary procedure dubbed the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules to pass most executive and judicial nominees by a simple majority vote.
The Senate voted 52 to 48 for the move, with just three Democrats declining to go along with the rarely used maneuver.

From now until the Senate passes a new rule, executive branch nominees and judges nominated for all courts except the Supreme Court will be able to pass off the floor and take their seats on the bench with the approval of a simple majority of senators. They will no longer have to jump the traditional hurdle of 60 votes, which has increasingly proven a barrier to confirmation during the Obama administration.

 photo c8b7f26e-f019-4858-bcfb-e0cf381f07f9.jpg

I realize that neither party has been blameless for these tactics. They developed over the years. But today’s pattern of obstruction, it just isn’t normal. It’s not what our founders envisioned. A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the results of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations we can’t let it become normal.
~ President Obama in remarks after the Filibuster Change





 photo DPCC_Cloture-Votes-01.png



Neither a Democratic president or a Republican president should face this level of obstructionism in exercising their Constitutional responsibility. They have a right to get an up or down vote on staffing the administration and on judges. Now a Republican president of the future will not face this unacceptable obstacle, either.
. . . The filibuster has been used to wage continuous warfare on the presidency. The Senate said today that’s not acceptable. A huge thank you to the leadership team.
~ Senator Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, to Greg Sargent on The Plum Line, WaPo

. . . Reid never would have used the “nuclear option” without the lemming-like behavior of Senate Republicans. Less ideological GOP members could have voted more frequently to break cloture and force an up-or-down vote, as members of both parties have done, even as filibuster use has increased. They could have stopped the unprecedented number of filibusters of presidential nominations, given that the president has a clearly defined constitutional responsibility to appoint people. They could have stopped blocking duly passed laws. But they didn’t.
So Republicans decrying filibuster reform as “dictatorial” or “a day to be sad” or other hyperbolic claims should look in the mirror. No one forced them to turn filibusters from a rarity to an oft-used tool for nullification and unprecedented obstruction. They have only themselves to blame.
~ James Downe on Washington Post










































Saturday, December 15, 2012

GOP State of Confusion

Photobucket

We lose because we choose liberals like Romney.
~ comment by SameOlBS on Daily Caller

I don't think the Republican Party schooled their candidates very well or supported their candidates very well.
. . . We had a lot of candidates quite frankly that did dumb things out there.
~ Dick Armey on CBS News

Republicans have lost a majority of the popular vote in five out of the last six elections. There’s a message there. The Republicans need a new business model, and a new product for the new century. It’s not just a problem of one candidate or one campaign.
~ GOP Pollster Whit Ayres

I simply want to highlight a temptation all of us in politics face, which is to assume that because we hold a certain view, a majority of the public does, too. Those who hold this mindset usually fall back on an explanation that goes something like this: Republican politicians simply didn’t make sufficiently forceful and articulate arguments. If they had, the public would flock to our side since, after all, the arguments are all on our side.
The people who take comfort in this explanation usually reside in the “we have a communications problem” school. They lament the fact that we don’t have another Ronald Reagan to articulate conservatism and if we did, all would be right with the world once more.
. . . it’s unwise to pin one’s hopes on producing, election after election, a candidate who possesses a once-in-a-lifetime set of skills.
~ Peter Wehner on Commentary

My own view is that conservatives should recommit themselves to federalism and states’ rights. The party of Lincoln should protect core civil rights, but beyond that, states and localities should be given as much freedom as they can handle. If California wants to become Sweden with better weather, let it. If Texas wants to become Singapore on the Rio Grande, great, go for it. And the same principle goes for cities and towns within those states.
~ Jonah Goldberg on National Review

My suggestion: Buy some women’s magazines. No, really. Or at least some women’s Web sites.
One of the groups with whom Romney did worst was female “low-information voters.” Those are women who don’t really follow politics, and vote based on a vague sense of who’s mean and who’s nice, who’s cool and who’s uncool.
Since, by definition, they don’t pay much attention to political news, they get this sense from what they do read. And for many, that’s traditional women’s magazines — Redbook, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, the Ladies Home Journal, etc. — and the newer women’s sites like YourTango, The Frisky, Yahoo! Shine, and the like.
. . . For $150 million, you could buy or start a lot of women’s Web sites. And I’d hardly change a thing in the formula. The nine articles on sex, shopping and exercise could stay the same. The 10th would just be the reverse of what’s there now.
~ Glenn Harlan Reynolds on NY Post

There are just so many off-putting comments from the Republican party. It's crazy to me that they're still acting as if women are a niche market.
~ Sara Stevenson, single voter, quoted on Huffington Post

Viewed a certain way, the 2012 election can be seen as a gift to Republicans wrapped in ugly paper. The wrapping looked like a hostage note with a message scrawled in crayon: "We hate you." But inside was a gift, and the gift was time. The party was given the opportunity, when it is still strong, to hold the kind of fresh, open-the-windows debate it would have been forced to have in 2016 anyway, and in less favorable conditions.
. . . Organisms that survive a shock are often able to see their surroundings more acutely. The establishment, hardy self-seeking survivors that they are, already knew the party was in trouble. Now, importantly, the base does. Now local precinct leaders know. The tea party knows, Christian conservatives know. They're all reading the same data, the same polls.
. . . For the past 10 years the party has operated under an ethic of Questioning the Team Is Disloyal, Dissent Is Disloyal, as Is Criticism.
This has been a recipe not for peace but for disaster. Which is what we saw on Nov. 6.
~ Peggy Noonan on WSJ

Monday, November 26, 2012

Filibuster Fight Club in Senate ~ "Minority Rights" vs. "Naked Power Grab"

Photobucket

Scary Graphic from Politico

America believes Congress is broken. Once again the only ones who disagree are Mitch McConnell and Republicans in Congress.
. . . To stomp a filibuster on a motion to proceed to a bill, to take 10 days to just get on a bill — I don’t think that’s good and we need to change that.
. . . He [McConnell] keeps talking about not following rules. We’re following the rules. We’re following the Constitution of the United States to make these changes and that’s certainly appropriate.
. . . If they want to filibuster stand and talk about it, not be in your office some place
~ Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid D-Nevada

What the majority leader is saying is he will break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate. It has been the case in the past that it took a super majority of 67 which of course meant that most rules changes occurred because the two leaders agreed to them and were proposing them jointly, instead what the majority leader is saying is that he will propose to change the rules with 51 votes, meaning his side gets to decide what the rules are.
. . . I hope that Republicans, and hopefully many Democrats who care more about this institution than some temporary exercise of raw partisan political power, will come forward over the next few weeks and speak out against this naked power grab.
~ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell R-Kentucky




It will shut down the Senate. It’s such an abuse of power.
~ New Senate GOP whip, Senator John Cornyn R-Texas

I think the backlash will be severe. If you take away minority rights, which is what you’re doing because you’re an ineffective leader, you’ll destroy the place. And if you destroy the place, we’ll do what we have to do to fight back
~ Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma

“The minority voices the Senate was built to protect.”
Oh, enough of this old saw. The idea that you need a two-thirds vote to change the Senate rules doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution, and some scholars even think it’s unconstitutional. It comes from the 1975 deal in which the total votes needed to break a filibuster was lowered from two-thirds of the Senate to three-fifths. As for the filibuster itself, it didn’t emerge until decades after the founding of the Senate.
The American system of government was built to protect minority voices, but the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected designing the Congress around a supermajority requirement. In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority."
~ Ezra Klein, Washington Post Wonkblog "Mitch McConnell’s five biggest whoppers on the filibuster"

Photobucket

We cannot allow the Senate to be dysfunctional by the use of filibusters. We’ve had over 300 filibusters in the last six years — it’s unprecedented. What we’re talking about is very basic — you want to start a filibuster, you want to stop the business of the Senate, by goodness’ sake, park your fanny on the floor of the Senate and speak. If you want to go to dinner and go home over the weekend, be prepared, the Senate is moving forward.
~ Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Illinois

Photobucket

Think of the cross marketing promotions though! "This 13th Hour of the Republican Filibuster brought to you by No Doz." And, much later, "This 27th Hour of the Republican Filibuster sponsored by Depends."
~ comment by ontheleftcoast on Daily Kos

Right now, all the general public really knows of the filibuster is what they've seen in either/or/both:
1 -- Jimmy Stewart's character in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
2. -- "The Stackhouse Filibuster" episode on "The West Wing."
Both, much loved "traditional" understandings of the filibuster and both exemplifying "lovable/likable" fictional characters, espousing noble causes...
Let these GOPuckers actually have to show up and defend their preference for the current "lazy filibuster" process...
~ comment by Marjmar on Daily Kos

Photobucket

Those republican gasbags will have to LISTEN TO EACH OTHER bargling on and on, ad nauseum, for hours and hours, and HOURS! And the best part is WE CAN TURN C-SPAN OFF WHILE THEY DO! Hah!
And is this the first time I've ever heard Sen. Coburn being concerned about the rights of minorities?
~ comment by conniptionfit on Daily Kos

Here's an idea. Senate Rule XXII, which controls the filibuster, originally required two-thirds of all senators present and voting to break a filibuster. In 1975 this was changed to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn. But what if we went back to the present and voting standard?
In that case, the majority would still have to hang around, so there's a cost to trying to break a filibuster. But the minority has to hang around too. At any point, if too many minority senators have gone home or skipped town, the majority can call a vote and break the filibuster as long as they have three-fifths of all the senators currently on the floor.
~ Kevin Drum on Mother Jones

Photobucket