A growing number of prominent Republican women are worried that as members of their male-dominated party step up to defend Donald Trump against accusations of sexual assault, they are causing irreparable damage to the GOP’s deteriorating relationship with female voters.
Trump has faced questions throughout his campaign about his crass comments about women, but concern escalated this month following the release of a 2005 video in which Trump boasted that he had sexually assaulted women and subsequent allegations by 11 women that Trump had inappropriately touched or kissed them. A series of mostly male Republicans have come to Trump’s defense — dismissing the accusers as liars and, some worry, further alienating the female voters that the party desperately needs to survive.
“For next-generation professional women, the party is going to have to do something very, very drastic to change the course of where this candidate has taken us,” said Katie Packer, a deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney in 2012. “I think the leaders in our party are going to have to aggressively reject this. Come November 9, they better be prepared to make very strong statements condemning all of Trump’s behavior.”
This division within the Republican Party comes as polls suggest the nation is on the verge of electing its first female president even as misogyny remains a part of American life and culture. Ironically, it is Trump’s candidacy rather than Hillary Clinton’s that has brought sexism to the forefront of political debate.
Finally! It’s about time the problem was seen by all women. Non-GOP women have always recognized that there was a war on women. This issue became very apparent when various issues involving reproductive rights were in the forefront. There was great denial amongst Republican males. “War on women?” they scoffed. “Nonsense!” Then numerous reasons were given to negate when we knew.
GOP women now see instance after instance of disrespect shown to women, starting with the trashing of Megyn Kelly,and on to the fat-shaming of Miss Universe. They heard the famous bus genital-grabbing remarks with their own two ears. The bad behavior has been verified by 11 women who stepped forward so far to discuss in detail, their own personal experiences with Mr. Trump. They also see men who so far have refused to denounce much of the personal behavior of the GOP candidate. These same women also see many other examples of creepy behavior far too numerous to list that just shouldn’t be acceptable in the year 2016.
Listening to leadership as well as Trump supporters minimize or deny allegations of sexism and misogyny has made GOP women nervous. It has made them realize there really is a war on women. In 2016, we shouldn’t even be having these conversations. Yet alas, we still are.
I suppose we could debate the cultural, legal and moral ramifications endlessly, but beyond all of that what kind of political candidate fails to show common courtesy to 53% of the voters?
That pretty much nails the problem. I think its an even greater portion if you include all the sub groups.
I have never seen such a defective candidate in my entire life, on so many different levels.
Some fair points. The GOP has a lot to answer for, procedurally and substantively. I hope that out of the ashes something better is reborn, and something that takes its cues from what I consider the (few) more forward-looking moments (example: Peter Thiel at the RNC). It will take time, no doubt.
The Democratic Party also has some “failures of common courtesy” to address when it comes to large groups (think Roman Catholics and the Podesta emails). And the Democratic Party has role to play in being better advocates for women, whether it’s not excusing favored groups from criticism such as rap artists which extols violence, misogyny, etc, or hardline Muslims going anti-woman, anti-gay, etc. Sheltering or making excuses should be forbidden on both sides of the aisle (and for the left, that needs to include the media-entertainment complex whether it’s Hollywood or the outposts in NYC).
Speaking personally, I have been saddened by the failure to renounce Trump’s behavior, or to minimize it, by individuals close to me. It causes strain, and more innocent eyes are watching. And at some point mere words aren’t enough. Kids in particular are hypocrisy-spotting machines… they see the gulf between word and deed, or the subtler gap between what is a dealbreaker and what is tolerated even if disliked. I’m not just talking daughters, but sons, too.
A vain hope is that we see some lurching back toward civility. But I do not believe that will happen. Polarization is too high, economic struggle too present, and the appetite too small. It hits all levels, too. National, state, local (that’s a matter for a different thread).
I have been avoiding local issues like the plague. Plenty of others to quarrel. I would administer sound spankings if I were God for a day.
@MoonHowler
That may be the line of the year.
I don’t think you can blame all Democrats for John Podesta’s e-mails. You haven’t had as much reaction as you might otherwise expect because of the Russian connection to the WikiLeaks dump. Most of us never get to see the actual texts.
On the other hand, the Republican problem with women goes back at least to the gender gap of the 1980s and Papa Bush talking down to Geraldine Ferraro at the vice presidential debate.
So which is more serious: a campaign worker’s exposed e-mails or a decades-long pattern of condescension?
@NorthofNokesville
@Robin Hood
It’s a tricky game, deciding where blame goes, or if there’s a statute of limitations. Also, being “least-bad” isn’t what either party should aspire to. And the Russian connections says nothing about the veracity of the emails. I think Chris Wallace was spot-on: if the emails were false, they’d have been denied directly. And the full texts are available on several sites (if you don’t mind your IP address being tracked in perpetuity, or use TOR).
It’s also a tricky game with rhetorical questions. Which is more serious: a presidential candidate bragging about possible sexual assault, or a former president shagging his intern and being accused of rape? Or what’s pro-choice about haters lambasting Sarah Palin (another headscratcher of a choice I admit) for not having aborted her son diagnosed with Downs Syndrome? And it hits locally, too… for example, does the past of the PWC Democratic Party have anything to do with why a BOCS at gender parity still has no “blue” women?
The political angle lets the relativist game go on… I’m not as bad as X. And it let’s politically-favored groups avoid criticism. Clusters and patterns matter, but they are lagging indicators. Behavior happens at an individual level. The yardstick should not be blue or red, but right or wrong?
@Robin Hood
PS let me also suggest the “lumping” problem hurts Dems, too. Look at someone like Anthony Weiner (still causing problems), who has been serially despicable. Or the vile John Edwards, who was ready to risk presidential scandal and betrayed a suffering wife. The response should not be, “Still not Trump.” It should be “No place for it, get your act together or get out.”
Also, someone like President Obama does not deserve to be lumped in with Weiner, Edwards, or former president Clinton. Like his policies or not, he seems like a thoroughly upstanding father/husband.
Very disappointed in Mr Comey. If the FBI has evidence of wrongdoing, they need to come forward with it immediately. Dragging this on indefinitely is in no one’s interest.
I agree, Starry. The innuendo is absurd. Release what the problem is and be done with it. I expect it is nothing more than Anthony’s Weiner. When are we going to be finished with that?
The problem is that the FBI probably doesn’t know what it has other than emails between Houma and Hillary on an unauthorized server. But Comey is in a very difficult spot. If he withholds knowledge of this new trove, and then, after analysis, it turns out there is information that might have led voters to not vote for Hillary, he could be criticized. If he releases the information that he has new information now, prior to really analyzing whether any of it is significant, he is criticized. But he told Congress that if any new information came forward, he would inform them. So he took an honest decision between two uncomfortable choices. (sounds a bit like the rest of the election in that regard, doesn’t it?)
Apparently, the FBI does not even have a warrant to review these emails and they have known about this since April. Much ado about nothing.
I hope you are right.
@Eric the Half a Troll
Apparently, the FBI does in fact have a warrant.http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/10/30/breaking-fbi-obtains-warrant-to-review-clintonrelated-emails-on-weinerabedin-laptop-n2238832
I suspect this is much ado about something. Why else would Comey do this now?
Also, it has been reported that the emails in question were in a folder marked “Life Insurance”. Odd name…or is it?
Getting back in the way-back machine, going way-back to when Weiner’s 1st scandal was discussed on this very blog, I called it correctly. When everyone argued there was nothing to this sexting thing, I argued otherwise.
I suspect either Anthony Weiner, his wife, or both stashed these emails to guard against being destroyed by the Clinton Machine, if and when they became sufficient liabilities.
Now I’m not going to go so far as say they feared they’d end up like poor Vince Foster, but they know how powerful and vengeful the Clinton’s can be, so why not get a little insurance?
Whether or not this will cost Hillary (and Bill) the election, remains to be seen. We’re talking about HRC here. I hold no illusions that this might be “the thing” that brings the “real Underwoods” down. Nope, and I’m telling all of my friends not to get their hopes up either.
There’s plenty of people who are willing to overlook a lifetime of corruption, and cast their vote for her. There’s plenty of people who could care less that the Constitution and Rule of Law mean one thing for us happy little prols and something else for those in power, who will cast their vote for a criminal. She’s never said a nasty thing about another woman, if you don’t count all of those who’ve been on the receiving end of Bill’s hungry eye.
When you have two US Attorneys General “pleading the fifth” when testifying before congress, obstructing justice, impeding investigations, and engaging in conduct that would land lesser-people in jail, how can we expect justice? We can’t, and I don’t.
Eric Holder may have illegally run guns, and Lorretta Lynch may have committed serial perjury, but at least they never said something offensive about a woman.
You must be desperate.
Hillary is still viable because Trump is the other candidate. New York is threatening to put his foundation out of business for all of its corruption. He appeared at charity event and didn’t give a cent. Trump University was a scam.
He bankrupted three casinos and stiffed contractors. Undocumented workers built Trump Tower. He’s on tape talking about doing what twelve women said he did,
But he denies it all and talks about the Clintons
Notice that I went through that list without having to use squishy words like “suspect” and “may.”
@Steve Thomas
@Robin Hood
You miss the key difference: None of what you have accused him of transpired while he held public office. Bill and Hill cannot say the same. That is a key distinction.
So the state of NY is investigating him? How many active FBI criminal investigations involve the Clintons? I think we are back up to 2.
And I don’t have to parse words: We know, without a shadow of a doubt that Hillary Clinton, at the very least, violated these laws, intentionally:
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
And if we treat each email as a separate violation, there are literally thousands of counts.
So you keep arguing her “validity”.
Oh please don’t play the woman card. Also, I just don’t want to hear anything about Vince Foster. That is a lie.
Feel free to dislike the Clintons all you want but stick to facts, not lies.
@MoonHowler
As long as you want to be selective about your considerations, we have little to discuss. Did I say HRC had Foster “offed”? No. But those who cross the Clintons either end up dead (by their own hands at times) or destroyed. This is an inarguable fact.
Why was the folder marked “Life Insurance”?
Hillary is dirty. That is the opinion held by more than half of the country. The problem is, there’s a segment of the electorate who will vote for her, regardless.
You can bash Trump for being a misogynist. I can’t argue with that. He said what he said about Rosie O’Donnell being a “pig” and those other off-color things about women. If he said those things about a woman in my life, he’d get a punch in the nose.
But don’t try to defend Hillary as being some victim of a GOP War on Women. The GOP didn’t make her set up that server. The GOP didn’t make her engage in pay-to-play. Hillary did that, and in doing so, she broke the law. Anyone who has a reasonable level of reading comprehension can figure that out.
Turn the whitehouse over to a pig or a mafiosa…tough choice. One says bad things. One does bad things.
I still think she wins. She’s the “Teflon Donna” after all.
@MoonHowler
Stick to the facts? How about these facts:
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
You are assigning a cause/effect that has not been proven. I think the words “willfully and unlawfully” are the problems there.
I find someone who courts the Russians, makes fun of handicapped people and makes continual sexist remarks far more concerning.
Newsweek just reported that Trump bleached his own e-mails in the past when faced with charges in court.
I am tired of people who act like a lynch mob. Under our system we are innocent until proven guilty and you don’t see Clinton supporters chanting “lock him up” over his groping of women.
If you really respect the law then you have to withhold judgment until the investigation is complete.
@Steve Thomas
I don’t know, I have thought “castrate him” to myself. Does that count?
@MoonHowler
“I don’t know, I have thought “castrate him” to myself. Does that count?”
Eh…I don’t think that’s too over-the-top. I’ve thought that would be a fitting punishment for Bill and Weiner.
If you castrate a Weiner…is he still a Weiner?
So many men in power have been horn dogs. So many have embarrassed their wives. The bottom line is, it isn’t all the men. Many women prey on men in power and their great weakness. Seriously, if Donald Trump were 6 pack Joe, would he be with Melanie? Of course not.
Some women are attracted to money and power. Some men are foolish enough to think they are stud muffins when in fact they just have deep pockets.
I think old Anthony will always be a Weiner, regardless of what you do to him.
I still laugh at Jon Stewart on the subject…but I digress.
@Robin Hood
It’s high time the real Underwoods faced justice. Being denied that which they covet (power), would be a nice start. My dislike of these two began in 1993. You’ve only had less than a year to develop your loathing for Trump.
You are a lightweight. If Hillary survives, so will I. I have had years to develop coping skills. If Trump wins…Ha! That’s going to be fun to watch.
And just so you know…I’m not all that emotionally invested in Trump. He only won my support by surviving the primary, and I even went to the convention to support my 2nd to last choice…Cruz. I was a Walker guy, then a Rubio supporter.
I suspect you’ve been ready for Hillary from the jump. Watching her lose…wow…I suspect that’s be tough to deal with.
Steve, this is supposed to be “a place for civil debate . . .a blog for grown ups.”
You don’t know me and you can’t judge me. I volunteered in my first political campaign in 1962 and have stayed active ever since. My experience allows me to choose between imperfect human beings.
I used to watch and like The Apprentice, but the bigotry Trump began to exploit with the birthers turned me off. That was years ago.
Since we’ve been debating here I have found your propensity for personal judgments of people you have never met to be prejudicial and offensive. If that’s what you want then keyword “The Sheriff of Nottingham in PWC” and you’ll be home.
@Steve Thomas
No one here excused Anthony Weiner or minimized what he did, first scandal, second scandal or subsequent scandals. We don’t think being a sexual predator is cool.
You might want to walk that remark back about this very blog because it didnt happen. (this came up about a month ago) You might have called it correctly, I don’t recall, but Weiner certainly wasn’t cut any slack here. Elena and I both thought and think still that he is a disgusting pig.
@MoonHowler
Let me refresh your memories. Elena lept to his defense at first saying Weiner was a victim of right wing slime attacks. I commented that if it was a false attack then he should have his name cleared, but what we knew didn’t support his claims. We bet dinner. Then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th woman came out, and he was done. Same applies here. How many times do the Clintons have to be caught lying, lying about lying, before they have no credibility? I didn’t conduct official business on my server. Ok, I did, but I turned over everything required. Ok I didnt, but there wasn’t any classified information. Ok, there was, but I was told it was permitted. Ok, I wasn’t told it was permitted. I only used a single device, ok, it was three.
I can go on and on.
At least Trump owned up to his pig statements.
I dont recall her saying that. I am pretty sure *I* didnt say it because I have always found him disgusting.
Trump hasnt owned up to anything. He lies in the same paragraph. He did own up to the tape. I will sort of hand him that but how do you deny that?
I just am spending a lot of time outside.
“He did own up to the tape.I will sort of hand him that but how do you deny that?”
Minimizing it by calling what he said “locker room talk” is not owning up to it at all. He has owned up to nothing!
There is no evidence that HRC violated 18 USC §793.. Mr Thomas is a liar.
@Starryflights
Um…Starry…you do realize that the evidence cited came directly from FBI Director Comey’s July statement, right? He said the investigation’s findings of fact concluded that she had violated 18 USC §793, do you not?
I know you’re having a bit-of-fright with the very real prospect that Hillary might lose (or that Trump might win) when it looked like she was cruising to victory. I mean the whole decade-old Billy Bush tape and all. It’s like your team looks like it has an insurmountable lead with 2 minutes on the clock, they’ve got the ball. Then there’s a fumble. Next a holding penalty, and “boom” the other team is on your goal line, ready to punch it in.
And the irony is she was done in by a Weiner. She doesn’t like Weiner. How’d he get those emails? You don’t think he’s singing like a bird, trying to save his own ass?
Hillary might pull it off. But if you think all of this goes away on inauguration day, it is you who’s lying…to yourself. It has been confirmed that there are 5, FIVE, Cinco, Roku, active FBI investigations going on, which involve Hillary, the foundation, or a close confidant…and there’s a whole bunch of FBI agents who won’t let this go. She’ll be terminal from the start.
Even if she wins and the Dems take the Senate, they can’t take the house. Best she can do is scorch some earth with some SCOTUS picks.
Or Trump may win…now let your mind marinate on that.
@Steve Thomas
If there’s evidence of a crime committed by Hillary, it should be brought to a judge and jury in a court of law; o/w shut up.
It isn’t as clear as Steve wants it to be, but it is complicated. Let’s assume that the FBI’s previous analysis was correct – that there was no prosecutable evidence that HRC violated the law with her bizarre decision to take official communications into the realm of the Clinton-land servers. Now another trove of emails appears. There isn’t any option other than to look at them to see if previous determinations remain operative. A lot of these emails will be duplicates of the earlier set. Some of them may implicate Houma Abedin in unlawful activity for her putting classified information on her pervert husband’s computer. But one would have to look at them one by one to know whether there was classified material, to know whether any of it was transmitted or handled in ways that violate the law, and whether Mrs. Clinton, as opposed to others in the chain, was culpable. Because of the number of emails, this could take a while.
It’s a bloody shame that this might affect the election ( I personally find Trump so completely ineligible to serve in any public office, that nothing about Mrs. Clinton could affect my vote so long as Mr, McCullum and write-ins are possibilities), but there is no one to blame but Hillary Clinton and the people around her for this. Just as the Republican Party has to accept responsibility for putting forward the only candidate who could make Mrs. Clinton a viable possibility, the Democratic Party, if Trump is elected, must accept responsibility for putting the Nation at so great a risk by nominating Hillary Clinton. There were other choices, and the server issue was known and understood before the nomination was locked in. Any of those choices could have easily dispatched Mr. Trump.
It is very complicated. I feel about Trump as you do. No one short of Hitler would make me vote for him.
He is so unacceptable I just have to choose to ignore the email situation. It doesn’t mean I like it. It is just less offensive than anything to do with Trump. The American people are to blame for it all in my opinion.
Folks, not trying to change anyone’s mind (doesn’t work), but defenders of HRC should recognize this is serious, and the usual defensive tactics of blaming the Russians, blaming the guy we used to love Comey, blame the VRWC, etc, are likely to make the situation worse.
What makes it harder to fight is that, really, what’s been revealed so far does not provide very much new information about HRC. It’s about her closest advisors, including the likely WH COS. And we see a similar pattern as the boss: do what you want, play dumb/silent when its pointed out, let allies attack when its escalated. The challenge is, everyone more or less knows this is how the game is played, and how the Clinton camp plays it. The narrative over the last few weeks had been, “Yeesh, this is who DJT really is?” Now the narrative is hitting a new equilibrium: “Remember, this is who she really is, too.”
And it’s all about association – Huma (previously a somewhat sympathetic character, given her husband’s idiocy) is in trouble; the most compromised official in the mix (AG Lynch) is carrying political water and probably regretting with all her heart that tarmac meeting with Bill; the proxies are falling out of their tree (and looking unhinged). And the secondary damage is starting to stick. Donna Brazille’s issue lends credence to the entire body of Podesta emails (as does CNN’s firing of her), which are credible anyway (no denials, flimsy deflections, etc). It also shows a subset of DJT’s loudmouth criticisms also deserve some credence: he was raving about debate cheating. Here it is. And, honestly, who knows if HRC knew about this or condoned it. It expect not, on both counts. But this is her crew, and a taste of what an administration would be like.
My read on the impact:
1. This is real. Look at the election odds at Tippie: two weeks ago, DJT was at <9%. Now he's at 40%. I still think he loses, but the PV, EV, and specific state counts will be closer.
2. A lot of people resigned to doing a "split ballot" – protest at top, GOP generally down-ballot – will grudgingly vote for Trump. While Trump was imploding, HRC looked good by default. She didn't have to act, she just had to look polished and professional (which she did). Different game now – and her actions won't play to the frustrated middle.
3. Divided government seems very likely if not assured, and the Senate may be back in play for the GOP. October 1, GOP House and Senate odds were 38%, GOP House / Dem Sen odds were 33% (tied or Dem-lock was ~30%). As the Trump carnage worked through the states, GOP control odds dropped to 9%, split House/Sen peaked at 69%, and the D control part of the remainder peaked at 12%. Yesterday, GOP control odds were 26%, split 40%, tied Sen 23%, and Dem control back to 10%. And these odds tend to lag the topline as state-level and district-level polls trickle in.
Last thought: the most interesting person to watch, by a wide margin, is President Obama. His silence has been conspicuous, and eloquent. He knows he can't go after Comey, and defended his integrity. He also knows he's in late-stage legacy shaping, which at this point is more about style than substance, with the exception of who gets elected. But he's not going to besmirch his remaining days in office by stepping into a quagmire with a whiff of Watergate, nor will he throw the last non-tainted law enforcement executive under the bus (Lynch is compromised, and so is Comey's deputy with big money ties to McAullife). I also think Obama is playing it much, much, much smarter than most Dems – if those calling for Comey's head got their wish, what do they think would happen? It's called a special prosecutor.
Interesting week ahead.
I am so sick of this election I could scream. I am about ready to turn off all devices and go to the mountains until next Wednesday. I would, except I don’t camp. Sigh.
@MoonHowler
On this we can agree…and I do camp…I just have to work.
I had my fun poking at those backing Hillary.
And I will repeat what I have said many times here. Regardless of who wins, this country is doomed, because our political system is broken, the media us broken, and the electorate is broken. Honestly, could we have picked more stark representations of this with these two nominees? And what about the 3rd parties? Johnson? Stein? Sweet Buddha on a rubber raft!
Coulda been Webb vs. Kasich. Either one would be acceptable to the middle. We could have debated the finer points of their economic or foreign policies or their records of achievements. Which one would be better
Instead we debate whose sins are greater. Not what they will do for the country, but what terrible things they’ve done or said.
I’m finished commenting till the wailing and gnashing of teeth is done. We’re so screwed because neither can fix it.
I really like Bill Weld and have since he was Mass. governor. I kept wondering why he was #2 man instead of #1 with the libertarians.
Right now it boils down to the messenger with me. I find Trump so fundamentally unacceptable from that which has come out of his own mouth that I cannot see past that.
I announced last summer who I would be voting for. I have not asked anyone else to join me nor have I pushed or endorsed that person. It’s a solo journey.
@MoonHowler
Do what I did. I voted today. Election is a done deal for me.
I voted a month ago absentee. No turning back now.
I am not defending or damning Hillary. I don’t know the facts. Neither does anyone else, apparently, just a bunch of guessing.
I think everyone has to decide for himself what their tolerance point is. I can take a lot of emails over what I have heard coming out of Trumps own mouth.
When I was growing up we had a lot of Westerns on TV and at the movies. One theme that got repeated emphasis was law enforcement having to confront a lynch mob stirred up by some hotheads who saw no point in waiting for a judge and jury.
Donald Trump, Congressional Republicans and Faux News remind me of those lynch mobs. Our country was recovering from Joe McCarthy and Jim Crow was still putting up a hell of a fight. But their echoes are still with us.
J. Edgar Hoover abused the FBI to blackmail Martin Luther King and label civil rights and peace activists as Communists. If Comey can’t stand up to the lynch mob in his own agency then he is enabling the heirs of the Hoover legacy.
The President broke his silence and said innuendos and leaks are not appropriate to investigations. Comey wrote Congress about e-mails that had not yet been read and rendered opinions about what had been read to placate Republicans earlier. That’s why people are changing their minds when new facts emerge. We can do that.
@NorthofNokesville
@Robin Hood
Try an experiment. Post something pro-Trump on social media. Or put a Trump yard sign up. You will find the lynch mob tactics are bi-partisan.
Also, RH, come on, this is all one-sided. The DoJ is clearly colluding and providing cover… when a sitting AG meets with a former president, that’s an issue. And the Deputy director is similarly compromised. You can cry “Hoover” and the right can retort, “Watergate” with politicized administration leadership stopping the FBI from doing their job. Jarrett could play Haldeman well.
Obama’s turnabout (he changed his tune versus breaking silence) is disappointing, but not surprising given the stakes and the precipitous drop in the polls (ironically, Obama spoke about the initial FBI email investigation before he had full information, even laid out the “no intent” line that Comey eventually used, but I suppose consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds… and this isn’t right-wing pubs asserting, unless the New Yorker quals as such). Perhaps Obama fits into your westerns on the TV, since he saw no point in waiting, either.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/if-hillary-wins-shell-be-grateful-for-comeys-move
Now the tweeting of material is very problematic, but unless you’ve got inside information, we don’t know who is responsible for that.
I don’t think this will change the outcome, but it will leave no doubt about the fetid nature of the choice between two bad options – and it illustrates how broken and dirty both sides play. No illusions.
In September I had Democratic stickers ripped off my car for the first time since I began driving in the 60s. The decline in civility is there but I repeat that I don’t hear chants of “lock him up” when Trump’s sexual aggression is mentioned. There’s a difference in the scale of the coarseness and Trump shares some of the responsibility from the day he announced.
You have devoted most of two paragraphs to suspicions without evidence. Why not save us some time and just chant “get a rope”?
Obama is a law professor and he’s concerned about due process, which he should be. We all should.
@NorthofNokesville
” “get a rope”?”
Sorry RH. Comparing the voicing of suspicion to the killing of African Americans is disgusting. New low for you, truly.
I’m not sure the Lynch/McCabe situation rises to Watergate levels when properly understood (not impossible) – the point was to match analogies with your “Hoover” rhetoric. Some people use rhetorical tactics, then turn around and try to deny their opponents. It’s hypocrisy, and in a place for civil debate, needs pointed out.
It’s also saddening. Voices on both sides feel the scale and severity of what they’re opposing somehow means no limits, anything is acceptable. Nietzsche spotted it in his own time, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”
Obama’s inconsistency has been pointed out by others in the mainstream media, including the article I linked.
Trump does bear some of the responsibility. It’s disgusting. He’s not alone.
I was referring to the lynch mobs in the Westerns I mentioned earlier, but it’s true they were used as a symbol of the savage resistance to civil rights advocates of the time. Having grown up in the South I hear echoes of that past in the rhetoric of the alt-right. The arch-segregationist governor Mills Godwin was a former FBI agent.
How unfortunate it is that the agency lets a few fanatics ruin its reputation repeatedly.
The Guardian is out with a report describing the New York FBI office as a hotbed of agents whose politics affect their judgment. They were credited with leaking stories about the investigations of Clinton to Faux News which Trump has kept in his speeches even after the Faux reporter apologized for exaggerations. They were credited with forcing Comey’s hand about the Weiner laptop e-mails and Rudy Giuliani tipped Faux News on camera.
Lecturing others about civility bears risks. We live in a county where school board members find threatening notes and confederate flags in their mailboxes. If I’ve had some stickers stripped off my car I don’t need a lecture about comparative coarseness and a homework assignment to post something in support of Trump to see what happens.
I liked what Melania Trump had to say about cyberbullying. Now if she could just get through to her husband that would be really great.
@NorthofNokesville
Re civility
Unfortunately, the school board was harassed both both “camps.” Confederate flags and public cat-calling of “racist.” It was all around a bad scene.
One more dose of reality . . . McCabe was put on the case after his wife ran for State Senate. Does the alt-right believe in time travel too?
@NorthofNokesville