this will be his "bounce back" weekend ... all white states, nebraska, kansas, maine and I'm not sure what else . .but I FEEL sure he will pick up those states .. and that will empty some more kids pockets of a couple of 26 dollars more .. ;) .............I don't know about LA. I don't know if they get to vote too well and I'm guessing maybe not . .I mean bobby Jindale ? sheeesh! I don't think too many black people would vote for him ...putting the state into bq
Truth Squad: Sanders ad earns a foul for exaggerations on work hours and the ultra-rich
The Center for Michigan | Bridge Magazine By The Center for Michigan | Bridge Magazine
on February 25, 2016 at 11:30 AM, updated February 25, 2016 at 11:31 AM
Who: Bernie for America What: 30-second TV ad, "Works for Us"; and 60-second ad, "Real Change" The Call: Foul
Launched on Feb. 19 in markets across Michigan, the two ads – largely positive in tone – push the populist economic message of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The themes are by now trademarks of his insurgent Democratic campaign, as he challenges a political and economic system Sanders says is rigged in favor of the extremely affluent. Among his prescriptions: higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, free public college tuition for all and – though not stated in these ads – universal health care. Coming a week after the March 1 Super Tuesday showdown and other Democratic caucuses and primaries in the days leading to March 8, Michigan's primary could be a key battleground for Sanders as he strives to prove his message can resonate in his battle against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in states with a diverse electorate.
Relevant text of the ads:
"While our people work longer hours for lower wages, almost all new income goes to the top 1 percent...My plan will make Wall Street banks and the ultra-rich pay their fair share of taxes...He's (Sanders) supporting veterans...He's fighting for...tuition-free public colleges."
Statements under review:
Sanders-ad.pngThe Center for Michigan | Bridge Magazine
"While our people work longer hours for lower wages, almost all new income goes to the top 1 percent."
Sanders's statement that "almost all" new income has gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of wage earners is likewise an exaggeration. Though the senator is correct in noting the increased concentration of wealth among the very affluent.
In 2013, the Pew Research Center released a study .. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/ .. of wealth inequality dating back to 1917. Built on analysis of IRS tax data by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California-Berkeley, it found the income disparity in 2007 between the top 1 percent and bottom 90 percent had reached levels not seen since 1928. Saez estimated the top 1 percent in 2012 accounted for nearly 23 percent of pretax income, compared with less than 50 percent for the bottom 90 percent. By comparison, the top 1 percent share of income in 1944 was 11.3 percent, while the bottom 90 percent received nearly 68 percent, levels that remained relatively constant for the following three decades.
A 2015 study by PEW concluded the U.S. middle class has been steadily losing ground .. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/ .. over the past decades, finding that 49 percent of aggregate income went to upper-income households in 2014, up from 29 percent in 1970. The portion going to middle-income households, meanwhile, fell from 62 percent in 1970 to 43 percent in 2014.
So there is little question the wealthiest of Americans have benefitted disproportionately compared with average wage-earners. But that's not what Sanders's Michigan ad claims; it insists that one-percenters have captured "almost all" new income, again relying on economist Saez of Berkeley. It's true that in January 2015, Saez released a paper .. http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2013.pdf .. indicating that the top 1 percent had taken in 91 percent of income gains in the first three years of recovery from the recession, which is close enough to support the "almost all" statement.
But Saez updated his data in June of last year, lowering the estimated gains of the most affluent to "only" 58 percent, a change that even Sanders acknowledged in September .. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/sanders-floor-speech-0922?inline=file .. on the Senate floor. This updated estimate shows it's still good to be rich, but that estimate does not come close to equating to "almost all" income gains.
And it begs the question: Why does Sanders gild the lily in his Michigan ad, when data supports his central argument that the ultra-rich are disproportionately benefitting in the nation's economic recovery?
"My plan will make...the ultra rich pay their fair share of taxes."
This tax shift is aimed at paying for Sanders's most ambitious proposal – a government-run system of universal health care. Among other proposals, Sanders wants to raise the top tax rates – now at 33 percent, 35 percent and 39.6 percent for households earning more than $250,000 – to 37 percent, 43 percent, 48 percent and 52 percent, the latter for those making more than $10 million. Sanders would also impose an additional 10 percent surtax on billionaires and repeal capital gains tax rates for couples making more than $250,000. Sanders pays for his healthcare plan in part by imposing a 2.2 percent "health care premium" tax, as well as a 6.2 percent payroll tax paid for by employers. And while middle-class taxpayers pay higher taxes under this plan, the Sanders campaign maintains those costs will be more than made up by savings in health care premiums.
Left unassessed, and unassessable, is whether Sanders's plan for more heavily taxing the super rich would amount to this group paying its "fair" share. What constitutes the wealthy's "fair share" is at the heart of the divergent economic worldviews of progressives and conservatives, and cannot be decided by Truth Squad.
"...supporting veterans."
Sanders' campaign website states: "?Sen. Sanders believes that just as planes and tanks and guns are a cost of war, so is taking care of the men and women who we sent off to fight the war." It omits his role as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs when reports emerged in late in 2013 that dozens of veterans died waiting for medical care in VA hospitals. One veterans official said .. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/05/the-veterans-scandal-on-bernie-sanders-s-watch.html .. Sanders "did not live up to his responsibilities" as chairman, while another said that Sanders was slow to hold hearings holding the VA accountable. "The House needed a partner in the Senate to help flesh out the problems at the VA, and unfortunately Bernie Sanders was not that partner," said Dan Caldwell, vice president for political and legislative action for Concerned Veterans of America. To be sure, Sanders helped pass a $16 billion measure approved by the Senate in July 2014 aimed at improving veterans access to medical care. But Paul Rieckhoff, founder and CEO of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said Sanders had for considerable time ignored .. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/bernie-sanders-va/ .. the appeals of organizations like his to dig into the issue. "For far too long he was apologizing for the VA. He was refusing to acknowledge the severity. He was positioning it as a smaller issue than it was while veterans were dying waiting for care," Rieckhoff stated. In May 2014, Sanders said in an interview: "Did the delays in care of these people on the secret waiting list actually cause these deaths? We don't know."
"He's fighting for...tuition-free public colleges."
It's no surprise this proposal is especially well received among younger voters, many of whom are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in college debt. This burden stems from rapidly escalating tuition rates, the causes of which are hotly debated. According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers, students paid $64 billion for tuition in 2014, compared with $21.5 billion in 2000. Sanders would pay for this plan – at an estimated cost of $75 billion a year – by imposing fees on stock trades and bonds and derivative transactions. But Sanders also expects states to pick up one third of the cost of the $75 billion plan, which could be an unrealistic assumption. And without that funding, the plan could fall apart. For example, 17 states have thus far rejected expansion of Medicaid, even though its cost is 100 percent funded by the federal government in its initial years, 90 percent after that. In order to fund free tuition, states would presumably have to cut .. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/bernie-sanders-free-college-costs/ .. somewhere else. "There's not a lot of extra money to spend on other programs," said Brian Sigritz, state fiscal studies director for the National Association of State Budget Officers.
Overall impression:
Sanders points to an issue that is receiving national attention: The growing wealth and income gap in America. He is tapping into economic frustrations of workers as well as the young over stagnant wages and rising college debt. As his plans for free-tuition college and universal health care receive a closer look during the campaign, critics are raising important questions about how these plans will be funded and whether their fundamental financial assumptions are sound.
But the question of whether his economic plans hold up under rigorous analysis is for another day, most likely when Sanders and Clinton hold their debate in Flint two days before the Michigan primary .. http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/02/flints_whiting_auditorium_to_h.html . In these ads, Sanders is not vouching for the numbers in his tax plans. Rather, he is merely highlighting what he says he will do if he becomes president; namely, impose higher taxes on the wealthy and offer free tuition for students at public colleges. He is unquestionably fighting for both.
As for his support for veterans, the term "support" is so vague as to be almost meaningless, and thus difficult for Truth Squad to assess. What presidential candidate doesn't support the troops, in some respect?
Where Sanders runs afoul of Truth Squad are his claims that people are working longer hours, and that the super rich are gobbling up "almost all" income gains. The weight of available evidence shows lack of support for both remarks. These are unforced errors, which could have been easily remedied with tweaks to the language that could more solidly support Sanders's larger messages on income inequality and an economy that hasn't been kind to the middle class. He did not make them.
Kids sit down and react to the 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump.
This episode featured the following amazing kids! NOTE: Kids that are technically 'teens' will remain on 'Kids React' until they enter high school. Dominick, 7 Lucas, 7 Sydney, 8 Gabe, 9 Maxim, 9 Emma R, 10 Chloe, 11 Jackson, 11 Kacey, 11 http://www.youtube.com/Kaceyfifieldvariety Morgan A, 12 Jaxon, 12 Jayka, 13
Republican blames Trump’s rise on Obama’s level-headedness
Bobby Jindal speaks at the American Enterprise Institute on Oct. 6, 2014 in Washington, DC. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty
By Steve Benen 03/04/16 04:40 PM—Updated 03/05/16 01:56 AM
If something bad happens, anywhere in the world, chances are pretty good that some creative Republicans will come up with a way to blame those developments on President Obama. It’s a skill the GOP has honed over the last seven years, and the party has become quite adept in this area.
Naturally, then, it was sadly predictable that Republicans would even manage to blame Donald Trump’s rise on the rascally Democratic president. Obama, we’re now supposed to believe, is even responsible for the attitudes Republican primary and caucus voters have towards their own party’s candidates.
Let’s be honest: There would be no Donald Trump, dominating the political scene today if it were not for President Obama.
I believe that voters tend to act in open-seat presidential elections to correct for the perceived deficiencies of the incumbent…. After seven years of the cool, weak and endlessly nuanced “no drama Obama,” voters are looking for a strong leader who speaks in short, declarative sentences.
But this notion that Obama must be blamed for Trump will probably linger for a while, so Jindal’s debacles notwithstanding, let’s go ahead and note the most glaring flaws in the former governor’s argument.
There’s some truth to the idea that voters, after eight years of one president, tend to look to a very different kind of leader. With this in mind, in the broadest possible sense, it’s best not to dismiss Jindal’s framing out of hand: Obama and Trump are, in fact, opposites.
Where the president is mature, Trump is a buffoon. Where Obama is smart and knowledgeable, Trump is careless and ignorant. Where the president is honest; Trump deceives. Where Obama appeals to the public’s intellect and the better angels of our nature, Trump’s candidacy is built on an ugly foundation of resentment and division.
But Jindal’s thesis nevertheless falls short on two points. The first is that the right-wing Republican is convinced that the president “created the very rancor he now rails against.” For Jindal, it wasn’t Republican extremism, or GOP officials’ refusal to cooperate or compromise with the president on any issue that created a toxic political climate, it was the president’s partisan and ideological agenda.
By any objective measure, those who’ve been conscious for the last seven years probably recognize Jindal’s observation as delusional.
The second, and perhaps more important, flaw in the Louisianan’s argument is what it expects of Democratic voters. As Jon Chait joked [ http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/jindal-obama-caused-trump-by-being-too-mature.html ], “This is your fault, Democrats. If you had elected a red-faced, racist bullying lout as president, then Republicans would be reacting today by rallying around somebody who’s intellectual, humble, and non-abusive, and we’d all be in fine shape. But nooooooo. You had to nominate a wonkish, emotionally controlled law professor, forcing Republicans to turn to an unhinged racist reality-television star in response.”
Sure, GOP voters could be more responsible, but as Jindal sees it, they have no real choice – historical models must be honored, even unconsciously, and if Democrats chose a mature and capable leader, Republicans are instinctively obligated to rally behind a childish fool.
Senator Elizabeth Warren delivers a floor speech on March 9, 2016, urging Senate Republicans to give timely consideration and an up-down-vote to President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
Warren: Senate GOP 'paying the price for their own extremism'
The Rachel Maddow Show 3/10/16
Senator Elizabeth Warren talks with Rachel Maddow about how the past seven years of Republican anti-Obama extremism in the Senate has brought about the extremism in the 2016 Republican presidential campaign that now has Senate Republicans in a panic. Duration: 10:41
Elizabeth Warren Says The GOP Has Only Itself To Blame For Donald Trump "They are paying the price for their own extremism." Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) explained to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow how the GOP's history of obstruction contributed to Donald Trump's popularity. 03/10/2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump_us_56e233b6e4b0b25c91817412 [with this Maddow segment embedded, and comments]
Elizabeth Warren: Enough Is Enough, It's Time To Stand Up To Donald Trump
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is calling on all reasonable people to speak out against Donald Trump. Jennifer Graylock/Getty Images
"Donald Trump is a bigger, uglier threat every day that goes by."
By Amanda Terkel 03/14/2016 01:54 pm ET | Updated Mar 14, 2016
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is calling on "decent people everywhere" to denounce Donald Trump, saying the GOP presidential frontrunner continues to grow into a "bigger, uglier threat every day."
Warren put up her statement in a Facebook post Monday afternoon. In the first 10 minutes after it was posted, the message was shared thousands of times.
Elizabeth Warren March 14, 2016 at [c. 11:30]am There's a history of demagogues calling those they disagree with "terrorists" and using that as justification for intimidation and violence – and that history is ugly and dangerous. There's also a history of people staying quiet for too long, hoping for the best but watching silently as the threat metastasizes. Donald Trump is a bigger, uglier threat every day that goes by – and it’s time for decent people everywhere – Republican, Democrat, Independent – to say No More Donald. There's no virtue in silence. [ https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethWarren/posts/10153602174133687 (with {over 5,000} comments)]
Violent confrontations between Trump's supporters and protesters have become commonplace at his rallies in recent months. On Friday, he canceled a planned appearance [ http://www.npr.org/2016/03/11/470154065/donald-trump-rally-in-chicago-canceled-amid-widespread-protests ] in Chicago out of safety concerns, saying he had met with law enforcement. The Chicago Police Department responded that it didn't advise Trump to call off the event.
"[I]n any campaign, responsibility starts at the top [ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/11/ted-cruz-says-donald-trump-is-to-blame-for-violence-at-his-rallies/ ]," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said. "And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse."
He also took the chance, however, to jab at President Barack Obama and lay some of the blame at his feet, saying the president has "sought to divide us on racial lines, on ethnic lines, on religious lines, on class lines."
Obama says he’s not to blame for GOP ‘crackup’ March 10, 2016 President Obama said Thursday that he is not responsible for the Republican Party’s “crackup” even though some GOP leaders have blamed him for Donald Trump’s divisive-but-effective campaign for the party’s presidential nomination. “I have been blamed by Republicans for a lot of things, but being blamed for their primaries and who they’re selecting for their party is novel,” he said during a joint news conference with visiting Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The president instead pointed a finger at the Republican Party leaders who “have been feeding the Republican base for the last seven years a notion that everything I do is to be opposed” and “that cooperation or compromise somehow is a betrayal, that maximalist, absolutist positions on issues are politically advantageous.” Obama said that “ultimately I want an effective Republican Party” that would be “prepared to govern, whether in the minority or the majority, whether in the White House or not.” He said such a party could “challenge some of the blind spots and dogmas in the Democratic Party. I think that’s useful.” But he said he was not responsible for the “circus” playing out in the GOP primaries. [...] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trudeau-obama-to-unveil-measures-for-safeguarding-arctic/2016/03/09/dd725fbc-e639-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html [with embedded videos, and comments]
*
President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau Hold a Joint Press Conference
President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hold a joint press conference from the Rose Garden during the Canada State visit, March 10, 2016.
*
Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada in Joint Press Conference
Rose Garden The White House March 10, 2016
11:11 A.M. EST
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you, everybody. Please have a seat. Well, once again, I want to welcome Prime Minister Trudeau to the White House. We just completed a very productive meeting. Although I regret to inform you that we still have not reached agreement on hockey. But it is not interfering with the rest of our bilateral relationship. (Laughter.)
As I said earlier, this visit reflects something we Americans don’t always say enough, and that is how much we value our great alliance and partnership with our friends up north. We’re woven together so deeply -- as societies, as economies -- that it’s sometimes easy to forget how truly remarkable our relationship is. A shared border -- more than 5,000 miles -- that is the longest between any two nations in the world. Every day, we do some $2 billion in trade and investment -- and that's the largest bilateral economic relationship in the world. Every day, more than 400,000 Americans and Canadians cross the border -- workers, businesspeople, students, tourists, neighbors. And, of course, every time we have a presidential election, our friends to the north have to brace for an exodus of Americans who swear they’ll move to Canada if the guy from the other party wins. (Laughter.) But, typically, it turns out fine. (Laughter.)
This is now my second meeting with Justin. I’m grateful that I have him as a partner. We've got a common outlook on what our nations can achieve together. He campaigned on a message of hope and of change. His positive and optimistic vision is inspiring young people. At home, he’s governing with a commitment to inclusivity and equality. On the world stage, his country is leading on climate change and he cares deeply about development. So, from my perspective, what’s not to like?
Of course, no two nations agree on everything. Our countries are no different. But in terms of our interests, our values, how we approach the world, few countries match up the way the United States and Canada do. And given our work together today, I can say -- and I believe the Prime Minister would agree -- that when it comes to the central challenges that we face, our two nations are more closely aligned than ever.
We want to make it easier to trade and invest with one another. America is already the top destination for Canadian exports, and Canada is the top market for U.S. exports, which support about 1.7 million good-paying American jobs. When so many of our products, like autos, are built on both sides of the border in an integrated supply chain, this co-production makes us more competitive in the global economy as a whole. And we want to keep it that way.
So we’ve instructed our teams to stay focused on making it even easier for goods and people to move back and forth across the borders -- including reducing bottlenecks and streamlining regulations. We discussed how to move forward with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and today we also reaffirmed our determination to move ahead with an agreement to pre-clear travelers through immigration and customs, making it even easier for Canadians and Americans to travel and visit and do business together.
As NATO allies, we’re united against the threat of terrorism. Canada is an extraordinarily valued member of the global coalition fighting ISIL -- tripling its personnel to help train and advise forces in Iraq, stepping up its intelligence efforts in the region, and providing critical humanitarian support. We’re working closely together to prevent the flow of foreign fighters, and today, we agreed to share more information -- including with respect to our no-fly lists and full implementation of our entry/exit system -- even as we uphold the privacy and civil liberties of our respective citizens.
In Syria, the cessation of hostilities has led to a measurable drop in violence in the civil war, and the United States and Canada continue to be leaders in getting humanitarian aid to Syrians who are in desperate need. Meanwhile, our two countries continue to safely welcome refugees from that conflict. And I want to commend Justin and the Canadian people once again for their compassionate leadership on this front.
I’m especially pleased to say the United States and Canada are fully united in combating climate change. As the first U.S. President to visit the Arctic, I saw how both of our nations are threatened by rising seas, melting permafrost, disappearing glaciers and sea ice. And so we are focusing on making sure the Paris agreement is fully implemented, and we’re working to double our investments in clean energy research and development.
Today, we’re also announcing some new steps. Canada is joining us in our aggressive goal to bring down methane emissions in the oil and gas sectors in both of our countries, and together we’re going to move swiftly to establish comprehensive standards to meet that goal. We’re also going to work together to phase down HFCs and to limit carbon emissions from international aviation. We’re announcing a new climate and science partnership to protect the Arctic and its people. And later this year, I’ll welcome our partners, including Canada, to our White House Science Ministerial on the Arctic to deepen our cooperation in this vital region.
We’re also grateful for Canada’s partnership as we renew America’s leadership across the hemisphere. Mr. Prime Minister, I want to thank you for Canada’s continuing support for our new chapter of engagement with the Cuban people, which I will continue with my upcoming visit to Cuba next week. We’re going to work to help Colombia achieve peace and remove the deadly legacy of landmines there. And our scientists and public health professionals will work with partners across the hemisphere to prevent the spread of the Zika virus and work together actively for diagnostic and vaccines that can make a real difference.
And finally, our shared values -- our commitment to human development and the dignity of all people -- continue to guide our work as global partners. Through the Global Health Security Agenda, we’re stepping up our efforts to prevent outbreaks of diseases from becoming epidemics. We are urgently working to help Ethiopia deal with the worst drought in half a century. Today, our spouses, Michelle and Sophie, are reaffirming our commitment to the health and education of young women and girls around the world. And Canada will be joining our Power Africa initiative to bring electricity -- including renewable energy -- to homes and businesses across the continent and help lift people out of poverty. And those are our values at work.
So, again, Justin, I want to thank you for your partnership. I believe we’ve laid a foundation for even greater cooperation for our countries for years to come. And I’d like to think that it is only the beginning. I look forward to welcoming you back for the Nuclear Security Summit in a few weeks. I’m pleased that we were able to announce that the next North American Leaders Summit that will be in Canada this summer. The Prime Minister has invited me to address the Canadian parliament, and that's a great honor. I look forward to the opportunity to speak directly to the Canadian people about the extraordinary future that we can build together.
Prime Minister Trudeau.
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: Thank you, Mr. President.
Good morning, everyone. It's an honor to be here. As I've reflected on the storied relationship between our two great countries, I constantly return to President Kennedy’s wise words on our friendship that, “what unites us is far greater than what divides us.” And as President Obama mentioned earlier, if geography made us neighbors, then shared values made us kindred spirits, and it is our choices, individually and collectively, that make us friends.
That friendship, matched by much hard work, has allowed us to do great things throughout our history -- from the beaches of Normandy to the free trade agreement, and now, today, on climate change. The President and I share a common goal: We want a clean-growth economy that continues to provide good jobs and great opportunities for all of our citizens. And I’m confident that, by working together, we’ll get there sooner than we think.
Let’s take the Paris agreement, for example. That agreement is both a symbolic declaration of global cooperation on climate change, as well as a practical guide for growing our economies in a responsible and sustainable way. Canada and the U.S. have committed to signing the agreement as soon as possible. We know that our international partners expect and, indeed, need leadership from us on this issue.
The President and I have announced today that we’ll take ambitious action to reduce methane emissions nearly by half from the oil and gas sector, reduce use and emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, and implement aligned greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles, amongst other plans to fight climate change.
(As interpreted from French.) We also announced a new partnership aiming to develop a sustainable economy in the Arctic. This partnership foresees new standards based on scientific data, from fishing in the high seas of the Arctic, as well as set new standards to ensure maritime transport with less emissions. The partnership will also promote sustainable development in the region, in addition to putting the bar higher in terms of preserving the biodiversity in the Arctic.
We have also decided to make our borders both more open and more safe by agreeing of pre-clearing at the Billy Bishop Airport in Toronto and the Jean Lesage Airport in Quebec, as well as the railroad stations in Montreal and Vancouver. Moreover, we’re creating a U.S.-Canada working group in the next 60 days on the recourses to assess how we will resolve errors of identity on the no-fly list.
(Speaks English.) The President and I acknowledge the fundamental and wholly unique economic relationship between Canada and the United States. We have, historically, been each other’s largest trading partners. Each and every day, over $2.4 billion worth of goods and services cross the border. Today, we reaffirmed our commitment to streamlining trade between our countries.
Overall, the President and I agree on many things, including, of paramount importance, the direction we want to take our countries in to ensure a clean and prosperous future. We’ve made tremendous progress on many issues. Unfortunately, I will leave town with my beloved Expos still here in Washington. You can’t have everything. (Laughter.)
I’d like to conclude by extending my deepest thanks to Barack for his leadership on the climate change file to date. I want to assure the American people that they have a real partner in Canada. Canada and the U.S. will stand side by side to confront the pressing needs that face not only our two countries, but the entire planet.
I’m very much looking forward to the remainder of my time here in Washington. So thank you again for your leadership and your friendship. I know that our two countries can achieve great things by working together as allies and as friends, as we have done so many times before.
Merci beaucoup, Barack.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: All right, we’re going to take a few questions. We’ll start with Julie Davis.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to ask you about the Supreme Court. You’ve already said you’re looking for a highly qualified nominee with impeccable credentials. Can you give us a sense of what other factors you’re considering in making your final choice? How much of this comes down to a gut feeling for you? And does it affect your decision to know that your nominee is very likely to hang out in the public eye without hearings or a vote for a long time, or maybe ever? And, frankly, shouldn’t that be driving your decision if you’re asking someone to put themselves forward for this position as this point?
For Prime Minister Trudeau, I wanted to ask you -- we know you’ve been following our presidential campaign here in the U.S. As the President alluded to, you’ve even made a joke about welcoming Americans who might be frightened of a Donald Trump presidency to your country. What do you think the stakes are for you and for the relationship between Canada and the United States if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz were to win the presidency and to succeed President Obama? You obviously see eye-to-eye with him on a lot of issues. What do you think -- how would it affect the relationship if one of them were to succeed President Obama? Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Even though it wasn’t directed to me, let me just -- (laughter) -- I do want to point out I am absolutely certain that, in 2012, when there was the possibility that I might be reelected there were folks who were threatening to go to Canada, as well. And one of the great things about a relationship like Canada’s and the United States’ is it transcends party and it’s bipartisan in terms of the interest that we share.
With respect to the Supreme Court, I’ve told you, Julie, what I’m looking for. I want somebody who is an outstanding jurist, who has impeccable legal credentials, who, by historical standards, would not even be questioned as qualified for the Court.
Obviously, it’s somebody who I want to make sure follows the Constitution; cares about things like stare decisis and precedent; understands the necessary humility of a judge at any level in looking at statute, looking at what the elected branches are doing; is not viewing themselves as making law or, in some ways, standing above elected representatives, but also recognizes the critical role that that branch plays in protecting minorities to ensuring that the political system doesn’t skew in ways that systematically leave people out, that are mindful of the traditions that are embedded in our cherished documents like the Bill of Rights.
So in terms of who I select, I’m going to do my job. And then my expectation is going to be that the Senate do its job as outlined in the Constitution. I’ve said this before -- I find it ironic that people who are constantly citing the Constitution would suddenly read into the Constitution requirements, norms, procedures that are nowhere to be found there. That’s precisely the kinds of interpretive approach that they have vehemently rejected and that they accused liberals of engaging in all the time. Well, you can’t abandon your principles -- if, in fact, these are your principles -- simply for the sake of political expedience.
So we’ll see how they operate once a nomination has been made. I’m confident that whoever I select, among fair-minded people will be viewed as an eminently qualified person. And it will then be up to Senate Republicans to decide whether they want to follow the Constitution and abide by the rules of fair play that ultimately undergird our democracy and that ensure that the Supreme Court does not just become one more extension of our polarized politics.
If and when that happens, our system is not going to work. It’s not that the Supreme Court or any of our courts can be hermetically sealed from the rest of our society. These are human beings. They read the newspapers; they’ve got opinions; they’ve got values. But our goal is to have them be objective and be able to execute their duties in a way that gives everybody -- both the winning party and the losing party in any given case -- a sense that they were treated fairly. That depends on a process of selecting and confirming judges that is perceived as fair. And my hope is, is that cooler heads will prevail and people will reflect on what’s at stake here once a nomination is made.
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: One of the things that is abundantly clear whenever a President and Prime Minister sit down to engage on important issues of relevance to our peoples is that the relationship, the friendship between our two countries goes far beyond any two individuals or any ideologies.
I have tremendous confidence in the American people, and look forward to working with whomever they choose to send to this White House later this year.
Alex.
Q Good morning. This meeting is happening at a unique point in the Canada-U.S. relationship. President Obama, you have very little time left here. Prime Minister Trudeau, you have several years to think about and work on Canada’s most important relationship. So I’d like to ask you a longer-term question, maybe to lay down some markers about big ideas, big things that you think the two countries could achieve in the coming years, beyond the next few months, and whether those things might include something like a common market that would allow goods and services and workers to flow more freely across our border.
And on a more personal note, you’ve had a chance to observe each other’s election campaigns and now you’ve had a chance to work together a little bit. I’d like to ask you for your impressions -- to ask about your impression of President Obama and his potential legacy, and about Prime Minister Trudeau’s potential. And if you could answer that in French, bonus points to either of you -- (laughter) -- but we’d be especially keen to hear Prime Minister Trudeau do so. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: Thank you, Alex. First of all, we very much did engage on big issues throughout our conversations and throughout our hard work this morning, and over the months leading up to this meeting today -- issues that are of import not just to all of our citizens but to the entire world.
Whether it’s how we ensure that there is no contradiction between a strong economy and a protected environment; understand how we need to work together as individual countries but, indeed, as a planet to address the challenges of climate change; how we continue to seek to ensure security for our citizens here at home, but also create stability and opportunity and health security for people around the world facing pandemics and violence and issues -- these are big issues that Canada and the U.S. have always been engaged on in various ways over the past decades and centuries, and, indeed, will continue to.
One of the things that we highlight is the fact that we have different scales, different perspectives on similar issues and on shared values is actually a benefit in that we can complement each other in our engagement with the world and our approach to important issues.
So I look forward to many, many, many more years -- it will certainly outlive the both of us -- of a tremendous and responsible and effective friendship and collaboration between our two countries.
(As interpreted from French.) The topic of our discussions this morning has been what is at stake -- climate change, security in the world, our commitments towards the most vulnerable populations. Canada and the United States are the lucky countries in many ways -- they will always have a lot to do in order to be together in the world. And this is what we are going to keep on doing in the years and the decades to come, and we hope in the centuries to come.
About President Obama, I’ve learned a lot from him. He is somebody who is a deep thinker. He is somebody with a big heart but also a big brain. And for me to be able to count on him as a friend who has lived through many of the things that I’m about to encounter on a political stage, on the international stage, it’s a great comfort to me. And it is always great to have people that you can trust, people that you can count on personally, especially when you are facing very big challenges such as what we are doing right now in the United States and Canada.
(Speaks English.) -- always pleased to hear from President Obama how he has engaged with difficult issues of the past, because he is a man of both tremendous heart and tremendous intellect. And being able to draw on his experience and his wisdom as I face the very real challenges that our countries and, indeed, our world will be facing in the coming years is something I appreciate deeply about my friend, Barack.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, Alex, was it?
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: Alex.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me just note, first of all, that the tenor of your question seems to imply that I’m old and creaky. (Laughter.)
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: Not the tenor of my answer, I hope. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, you managed it well. (Laughter.) But don’t think I didn’t catch that. It is true -- I think I’ve said before that in my congratulatory call, I indicated to him that if, in fact, you plan to keep your dark hair, then you have to start dyeing it early. (Laughter.) You hit a certain point and it’s too late -- you’ll be caught.
But look, I think Justin and his delegation -- because one of the things we learn very rapidly in these jobs is, is that this is a team effort and not a solo act -- they’re bringing the right values, enormous energy, enormous passion and commitment to their work, and perhaps most importantly, it’s clear that they are keenly interested in engaging Canadian citizens in the process of solving problems.
And I think that's how democracies are supposed to work. And their instincts are sound. And that's reflected in the positive response to the work that they’ve done so far, and I think that will carry them very far. And Justin’s talent and concern for the Canadian people and his appreciation of the vital role that Canada can play in the larger world is self-apparent. He is, I think, going to do a great job. And we're looking forward to partnering with him and we're glad to have him and his team as a partner.
And with respect to big ideas, look, to some degree, you don't fix what’s not broken. And the relationship is extraordinary and doesn’t, I don't think, need some set of revolutionary concepts. What it does require is not taking the relationship for granted. It does require steady effort. And perhaps most importantly, it requires, because we have so much in common, that we recognize on the big, looming issues on the horizon, it is vital for us to work together because the more aligned we are, the more we can shape the international agenda to meet these challenges.
Climate change is such an example. This is going to be a big problem for everybody. There are countries that are going to be hit worse by it; in some ways, Canada and the United States, as wealthier countries, can probably adapt and manage better. On the other hand, we're also those responsible for a lot of the carbon pollution that is causing climate change. If we don't agree, if we're not aggressive, if we're not far-sighted, if we don't pool our resources around the research and development and clean energy agenda that's required to solve this problem, then other countries won't step up and it won't get solved. That's a big idea. That's a really important effort.
With respect to the economy, one of the things that Canada and the United States share is a commitment to a free market. I believe, and I know Justin does as well, that a market-based economy not only has proven to be the greatest engine for prosperity the world has ever known, but also underwrites our individual freedoms in many ways. And we value our business sector, and we value entrepreneurship. But what we're seeing across the developed world -- and this will have manifestations in the developing world -- is the need for more inclusion in growth, making sure that it's broad-based, making sure that people are not left behind in a globalized economy. And that's a big idea for the United States and Canada to work together on, along with our other partners.
If we don't get this right, if we do not make sure that the average Canadian or the average American has confidence that the fruits of their labor, the opportunities for their children are going to continue to expand over time, if they see societies in which a very few are doing better and better and the middle class and working people are falling further and further behind, that destabilizes the economy; it makes it less efficient; it makes it less rapid in its growth. But it also starts destabilizing our politics and our democracies.
And so, working together to find effective ways -- not to close off borders, not to pretend that somehow we can shut off trade, not to forget that we are, ourselves, nations of immigrants and that diversity is our strength -- but rather to say, yes, the world is big and we are going to help shape it, and we’re going to value our openness and our diversity, and the fact that we are leaders in a global supply chain but we’re going to do so in ways that make sure everybody benefits -- that’s important work that we’re going to have to do together. And I know Justin shares that commitment just as I do.
Margaret Brennan.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Some of your critics have pointed to the incredibly polarized political climate under your administration as contributing to the rise of someone as provocative as Donald Trump. Do you feel responsibility for that, or even some of the protectionist rhetoric from some Democratic candidates? Do you have a timeline for when you might make a presidential endorsement? And to follow on my colleague’s question here, do you feel political heat is constraining your pool of viable Supreme Court nominees? Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s a three-fer. I think it’s important for me to nominate a Supreme Court nominee quickly because I think it’s important for the Supreme Court to have its full complement of justices. I don’t feel constrained in terms of the pool to draw from or that I’m having to take shortcuts in terms of the selection and vetting process.
With respect to your first question, I’ve actually heard this argument a number of times. I have been blamed by Republicans for a lot of things, but being blamed for their primaries and who they’re selecting for their party is novel. (Laughter.)
Look, I’ve said -- I said it at the State of the Union that one of my regrets is the degree to which polarization and the nasty tone of our politics has accelerated rather than waned over the course of the last seven and a half years. And I do all kinds of soul-searching in terms of are there things I can do better to make sure that we’re unifying the country. But I also have to say, Margaret, that, objectively, it’s fair to say that the Republican political elites and many of the information outlets -- social media, news outlets, talk radio, television stations -- have been feeding the Republican base for the last seven years a notion that everything I do is to be opposed; that cooperation or compromise somehow is a betrayal; that maximalist, absolutist positions on issues are politically advantageous; that there is a “them” out there and an “us,” and “them” are the folks who are causing whatever problems you’re experiencing.
And the tone of that politics -- which I certainly have not contributed to -- I don’t think that I was the one to prompt questions about my birth certificate, for example. I don’t remember saying, hey, why don’t you ask me about that. (Laughter.) Or why don’t you question whether I’m American, or whether I’m loyal, or whether I have America’s best interests at heart -- those aren’t things that were prompted by any actions of mine.
And so what you’re seeing within the Republican Party is, to some degree, all those efforts over a course of time creating an environment where somebody like a Donald Trump can thrive. He’s just doing more of what has been done for the last seven and a half years.
And, in fact, in terms of his positions on a whole range of issues, they’re not very different from any of the other candidates. It’s not as if there’s a massive difference between Mr. Trump’s position on immigration and Mr. Cruz’s position on immigration. Mr. Trump might just be more provocative in terms of how he says it, but the actual positions aren’t that different. For that matter, they’re not that different from Mr. Rubio’s positions on immigration -- despite the fact that both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio, their own families are the products of immigration and the openness of our society.
So I am more than happy to own the responsibility as President, as the only office holder who was elected by all the American people, to continue to make efforts to bridge divides and help us find common ground. As I’ve said before, I think that common ground exists all across the country. You see it every day in how people work together and live together and play together and raise their kids together. But what I’m not going to do is to validate some notion that the Republican crack-up that’s been taking place is a consequence of actions that I’ve taken.
And what’s interesting -- I’ll just say one last thing about this -- there are thoughtful conservatives who are troubled by this, who are troubled by the direction of their party. I think it is very important for them to reflect on what it is about the politics they’ve engaged in that allows the circus we’ve been seeing to transpire, and to do some introspection.
Because, ultimately, I want an effective Republican Party. I think this country has to have responsible parties that can govern, and that are prepared to lead and govern whether they’re in the minority or in the majority, whether they occupy the White House or they do not. And I’ve often said I want a serious, effective Republican Party -- in part to challenge some of the blind spots and dogmas in the Democratic Party. I think that’s useful.
You mentioned trade, for example. I believe that there have been bad trade deals on occasion in the past that oftentimes they have served the interests of global corporations but not necessarily served the interests of workers. But I’m absolutely persuaded that we cannot put up walls around a global economy, and that to sell a bill of goods to the American people and workers that if you just shut down trade somehow your problems will go away prevents us from actually solving some of these big problems about inequality and the decline of our manufacturing base and so on.
And that’s an area where some traditional conservatives and economists have had some important insights. But they can’t be presented effectively if it’s combined with no interest in helping workers, and busting up unions, and providing tax breaks to the wealthy rather than providing help to folks who are working hard and trying to pay the bills. And it certainly is not going to be heard if it’s coupled with vehement, anti-immigrant sentiment that betrays our values.
Okay?
Q And an endorsement, sir?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think that the Democratic voters are doing just fine working this out. I think it’s useful that we’ve had a vigorous debate among two good people who care deeply about our country and who have fought hard on behalf of working people in this country for a long time. I think it’s been a good conversation. And my most important role will be to make sure that after primaries is done I’m bringing everybody together so that we focus on winning the general election.
Q Mr. President, I'll be asking the Prime Minister my question in French, but I will repeat for you in English afterwards.
(As interpreted.) Mr. Trudeau, you have not talked about softwood lumber, and it's a major problem for the bilateral relations. Have you thought about solutions to avoid -- the conflict reopens in October. And you signed several agreements -- trade, environment -- but what can you do so that the implementations survive the November election and that all of this has to be restarted a year from now?
(Asks in English.) -- softwood lumber, which is looming over the bilateral relation? And has any avenue been explored into avoiding a new conflict in October? And to what extent is the fear of losing seats for the Democrats due to this issue kind of hampering progress on this? And that being said, you and Prime Minister Trudeau have signed a number of agreements on a number of issues. What can be done for this progress not to be lost with the arrival of a new administration and have everything have to be started all over again?
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: (As interpreted.) For months and months, we have been preparing the meeting. And this morning, we worked very hard and we made a lot of progress, and we have showed what is at stake. A lot is at stake. And we hope that this is going to be solved shortly to help enormously not only Canadian workers and Canadian economy, but also the economy of both our countries.
And among these discussions, of course, we raised the question of softwood lumber. We keep on working on that. And I'm totally confident that we are on the right track towards a solution in the next weeks and months to come.
Now, in terms of the decisions that we have taken and the work we have done today, I'm extremely confident that what we have managed to achieve, the agreements that we have taken and the solutions that we have found for the problems that we face together, I'm confident that all this is going to become a reality. Because at every stage, not only are we talking about what is good for one side or the other side, but we're talking about what is good for both countries. Our economies are so interwoven, our populations are so interconnected, that we are going to have agreement, for instance, that will facilitate crossing of borders while increasing security of our citizens. This is good for both sides. And it is where we worked so hard together. There was a lot of progress and a lot of success today.
(Speaks in English.) -- on many different issues over the course of an extremely productive meeting this morning -- issues that have been worked on intensely by our respective friends, colleagues and delegations over the past weeks and months. And certainly softwood lumber came up. And I'm confident that we are on a track towards resolving this irritant in the coming weeks and months.
But in general, the issues that we made tremendous progress on I'm extremely confident will move forward in a rapid and appropriate fashion because we found such broad agreement on issues that aren't just good for one of our two countries, but indeed both of our countries. Canadians and Americans, for their jobs, for our kids and their futures, for workers, businesses, as we tackle challenges on the economy, challenges on the environment, and understand that working together in constructive, productive ways is exactly what this relationship and, indeed, this friendship is all about.
So I'm feeling extremely good about the hard work that was done this morning, and indeed, about the work remaining to do over the coming weeks and months on the issues we brought forward today.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: This issue of softwood lumber will get resolved in some fashion. Our teams are already making progress on it. It's been a longstanding bilateral irritant, but hardly defines the nature of the U.S.-Canadian relationship. And we have some very smart people, and they’ll find a way to resolve it -- undoubtedly, to the dissatisfaction of all parties concerned, because that’s the nature of these kinds of things, right? Each side will want 100 percent, and we’ll find a way for each side to get 60 percent or so of what they need, and people will complain and grumble, but it will be fine. (Laughter.)
And in terms of continuity -- one thing I will say -- this is an area where I’ll play the elder statesman, as Alex described me. (Laughter.) And as somebody who came in after an administration that, politically, obviously saw things very differently than I did, what you discover is that for all the differences you may have in your political parties, when you’re actually in charge, then you have to be practical, and you do what is needed to be done and what’s in front of you. And one of the things that is important for the United States, or for Canada, or for any leading power in the world, is to live up to its commitments and to provide continuing momentum on efforts, even if they didn’t start under your administration.
So there were a whole host of initiatives that began under the Bush administration -- some that I was very enthusiastic about, like PEPFAR, that has saved millions of lives and prevented HIV/AIDS, or provided vital drugs to those already infected with HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world -- something that President Bush deserves enormous credit for. We continued that.
But there are also some areas where, when I was outside the government, I questioned how they were approaching it. I might have tweaked it. To the extent that it involved foreign policy, I might say to my foreign policy partners, look, we have a problem of doing it this way, but here is a suggestion for how we can do the same thing, or meet your interests in a slightly different way.
But you’re always concerned about making sure that the credibility of the United States is sustained, or the credibility of Canada is sustained -- which is why when there’s turnover in governments, the work that’s been done continues. And particularly when you have a close friendship and relationship with a partner like Canada, it’s not as if the work we’re doing on the Arctic or on entry and exit visas vanishes when the next President comes in. Of course, I intend to make sure that the next President who comes in agrees with me on everything. (Laughter.) But just in case that doesn’t happen, the U.S.-Canadian relationship will be fine.
Donald Trump’s ascendance is nothing if not surprising.
Pundits thought he would flame out early; he has done things that could have ended other campaigns; and his statements are erratic and even sometimes contradictory. Yet, he remains the leading Republican presidential contender.
Many have tried to explain Trump’s rise in the nine months since he entered the race, and now President Obama can be counted among them: He offered up his analysis of Trump and the broader fight for the Republican presidential nomination during a speech Friday afternoon at a Democratic National Committee event at Texas’s Austin Music Hall.
"We’ve got a debate inside the other party that is fantasy and schoolyard taunts and selling stuff like it’s the Home Shopping Network,” he joked.
Obama said he was unsurprised by the billionaire businessman and reality TV star’s rise.
“How can you be shocked?” he asked to laughter from the crowd, according to a transcript. “This is the guy, remember, who was sure that I was born in Kenya — who just wouldn’t let it go. And all this same Republican establishment, they weren’t saying nothing. As long as it was directed at me, they were fine with it. They thought it was a hoot, wanted to get his endorsement. And then now, suddenly, we’re shocked that there’s gambling going on in this establishment.”
The Republican Party set the conditions long ago for Trump’s success, Obama said. The billionaire just capitalized on the GOP’s own tactics, the president argued:
What is happening in this primary is just a distillation of what’s been happening inside their party for more than a decade. I mean, the reason that many of their voters are responding is because this is what’s been fed through the messages they’ve been sending for a long time — that you just make flat assertions that don’t comport with the facts. That you just deny the evidence of science. That compromise is a betrayal. That the other side isn’t simply wrong, or we just disagree, we want to take a different approach, but the other side is destroying the country, or treasonous. I mean, that’s — look it up. That’s what they’ve been saying.
So they can’t be surprised when somebody suddenly looks and says, you know what, I can do that even better. I can make stuff up better than that. I can be more outrageous than that. I can insult people even better than that. I can be even more uncivil. I mean, conservative outlets have been feeding their base constantly the notion that everything is a disaster, that everybody else is to blame, that Obamacare is destroying the country. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not. It’s not, we disagree with this program, we think we can do it better — it’s, oh, this is a crisis!
So if you don’t care about the facts, or the evidence, or civility, in general in making your arguments, you will end up with candidates who will say just about anything and do just about anything. And when your answer to every proposal that I make, or Democrats make is no, it means that you’ve got to become more and more unreasonable because that’s the only way you can say no to some pretty reasonable stuff. And then you shouldn’t be surprised when your party ultimately has no ideas to offer at all.
Despite his strong critique of the GOP, though, Obama added a caveat:
There are thoughtful conservatives — good people in the Republican Party, good people who are Republican voters who care about poverty and they care about climate, and don’t resort to insults, and are troubled by what’s happening inside their own party. I know them. I’ve talked to them. But they’ve got to acknowledge why this happened — because some of them have been writing that, “Well, the reason our party is going crazy is because of Obama.” Which is a pretty novel idea. The notion is Obama drove us crazy.
Now, the truth is, what they really mean is their reaction to me was crazy and now it has gotten out of hand. But that’s different. I didn’t cause the reaction. The reaction is something that they have to take responsibility for and then figure out how do we make an adjustment.
"Paul Ryan denounces Trump but not the Tea Party rhetoric that propelled his own political ascent," he writes. "John McCain holds Trump in contempt, but selected as his running mate Sarah Palin, the Know-Nothing of Wasilla, one of Trump’s most vivid forerunners and supporters. Mitt Romney last week righteously slammed Trump as a 'phony' and a misogynist, and yet in 2012 he embraced Trump’s endorsement and praised his 'extraordinary' understanding of economics."
Obama delivers a harsh truth about today’s Republican Party
President Barack Obama smiles during remarks at a Democratic National Committee event in Austin, Texas, March 11, 2016. Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
By Steve Benen 03/14/16 12:30 PM—Updated 03/14/16 01:26 PM
Last week, at a White House press conference, a reporter asked, President Obama, “Some of your critics have pointed to the incredibly polarized political climate under your administration as contributing to the rise of someone as provocative as Donald Trump. Do you feel responsibility for that?” He didn’t seem surprised by the line of inquiry.
But Obama isn’t just deflecting responsibility for Trump’s rise in GOP politics, he’s also directing blame where he believes it belongs. The Washington Post published [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/12/president-obamas-brutal-assessment-of-the-rise-of-donald-trump/ (the item just above)] a partial transcript of the president’s remarks on Friday at an Austin fundraiser, in which Obama made a compelling case that the 2016 frontrunner is simply capitalizing on the conditions Republican officials themselves created.
“What is happening in this primary is just a distillation of what’s been happening inside their party for more than a decade. I mean, the reason that many of their voters are responding is because this is what’s been fed through the messages they’ve been sending for a long time – that you just make flat assertions that don’t comport with the facts. That you just deny the evidence of science. That compromise is a betrayal. That the other side isn’t simply wrong, or we just disagree, we want to take a different approach, but the other side is destroying the country, or treasonous. I mean, that’s – look it up. That’s what they’ve been saying.
“So they can’t be surprised when somebody suddenly looks and says, ‘You know what, I can do that even better. I can make stuff up better than that. I can be more outrageous than that. I can insult people even better than that. I can be even more uncivil.” I mean, conservative outlets have been feeding their base constantly the notion that everything is a disaster, that everybody else is to blame, that Obamacare is destroying the country. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not. It’s not, ‘We disagree with this program,’ ‘We think we can do it better,’ it’s, ‘Oh, this is a crisis!’
“So if you don’t care about the facts, or the evidence, or civility, in general in making your arguments, you will end up with candidates who will say just about anything and do just about anything. And when your answer to every proposal that I make, or Democrats make is no, it means that you’ve got to become more and more unreasonable because that’s the only way you can say no to some pretty reasonable stuff. And then you shouldn’t be surprised when your party ultimately has no ideas to offer at all.”
It was a stinging rebuke, which had the added benefit of being accurate, though the president took time to make the case for an improved and more responsible Republican Party, which would challenge Democrats on substantive grounds, and force Dems to be better by questioning the party’s assumptions and “blind spots.”
Obama added that he knows there are “good people in the Republican Party” who are “troubled by what’s happening inside their own party.” The president urged them, however, to acknowledge the circumstances that allowed for Trump’s success in the contemporary GOP.
“The notion [in some Republican circles] is, ‘Obama drove us crazy,’” he added. “Now, the truth is, what they really mean is their reaction to me was crazy and now it has gotten out of hand. But that’s different. I didn’t cause the reaction. The reaction is something that they have to take responsibility for and then figure out, ‘How do we make an adjustment?’”
That reckoning does not yet appear close at hand.
Postscript: At the same Austin event, the president also took a bit of a victory lap, pushing back against GOP rhetoric that the nation has suffered in the Obama era. “When the cynics told us we couldn’t change the country, they were dead wrong; we proved them wrong,” he said. “Think about it: if somebody told you seven years ago we’d have 4.9% unemployment, 20 million newly insured, gas is $1.80, deficits cut by three-quarters, marriage equality a reality, bin Laden out of the picture, Wall Street reform in place you wouldn’t have believed me…. Imagine what Trump would say if he actually had a record like this – instead of selling steaks.”
embedded O'Donnell segment: Pres. Obama: I’m not to blame for Trump The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 3/10/16 Pres. Obama spoke out against claims by Republicans that he's to blame for the rise of Donald Trump to the top of the GOP primary field. Lawrence discusses with Bill Scher, Howard Dean and Maria Teresa Kumar as well as a rise in Obama’s approval rating. Duration: 12:28 http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/pres-obama-i-m-not-to-blame-for-trump-641877571644 [with comments]
this is part 1 of a 6-part post -- part 2 of this post is a reply to this post -- the '..., see also (linked in):' listing below is, subject only to further updates for any newer post(s) of note I pick up before completing this post, common to all 6 parts of this post
U.S. politicians love to pose as defenders of family values. Unfortunately, this pose is often, perhaps usually, one of remarkable hypocrisy.
And no, I’m not talking about the contrast between public posturing and personal behavior, although this contrast can be extreme. Which is more amazing: the fact that a long-serving Republican speaker of the House sexually abused .. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/dennis-hastert-sentencing.html .. teenage boys, or how little attention this revelation has received?
Instead, I’m talking about policy. Judged by what we actually do — or, more accurately, don’t do — to help small children and their parents, America is unique among advanced countries in its utter indifference to the lives of its youngest citizens.
In other words, if you judge us by what we do, not what we say, we place very little value on the lives of our children, unless they happen to come from affluent families. Did I mention that parents in the top fifth of U.S. households spend seven times .. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/the_economics_of_early_childhood_investments.pdf .. as much on their children as parents in the bottom fifth?
This was an important announcement, even if it was drowned out by the ugliness and nonsense of a campaign that is even uglier and more nonsensical than usual. For child-care reform is the kind of medium-size, incremental, potentially politically doable — but nonetheless extremely important — initiative that could well be the centerpiece of a Clinton administration. So what’s the plan?
O.K., we don’t have all the details yet, but the outline seems pretty clear. On the affordability front, Mrs. Clinton would use subsidies and tax credits to limit family spending on child care — which can be more than a third of income — to a maximum of 10 percent. Meanwhile, there would be aid to states and communities that raise child-care workers’ pay, and a variety of other measures to help young children and their parents. All of this would still leave America less generous than many other countries, but it would be a big step toward international norms.
Is this doable? Yes. Is it desirable? Very much so.
When we talk about doing more for children, it’s important to realize that it costs money, but not all that much money. Why? Because there aren’t that many young children at any given time, and it doesn’t take a lot of spending to make a huge difference to their lives. Our threadbare system of public support for child care and early education costs 0.4 percent of the G.D.P.; France’s famously generous system costs 1.2 percent of the G.D.P. So we could move a long way up the scale with a fairly modest investment.
And it would indeed be an investment — every bit as much of an investment as spending money to repair and improve our transportation infrastructure. After all, today’s children are tomorrow’s workers and taxpayers. So it’s an incredible waste, not just for families but for the nation as a whole, that so many children’s futures are stunted because their parents don’t have the resources to take care of them as well as they should. And affordable child care would also have the immediate benefit of making it easier for parents to work productively.
Are there any reasons not to spend a bit more on children? The usual suspects will, of course, go on about the evils of big government, the sacred nature of individual choice, the wonders of free markets, and so on. But the market for child care, like the market for health care, works very badly in practice.
And when someone starts talking about choice, bear in mind that we’re talking about children, who are not in a position to choose whether they’re born into affluent households with plenty of resources or less wealthy families desperately trying to juggle work and child care.
So can we stop talking, just for a moment, about who won the news cycle or came up with the most effective insult, and talk about policy substance here?
The state of child care in America is cruel and shameful — and even more shameful because we could make things much better without radical change or huge spending. And one candidate has a reasonable, feasible plan to do something about this shame, while the other couldn’t care less.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
