• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди228
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы49
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации10
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Нельсон Рокфеллер
18 октября, 01:22

President Obama And The House Freedom Caucus Agree On Something

WASHINGTON ― As President Barack Obama closes out the final months of his presidency, with Donald Trump and his spectacularly offensive take on American politics dominating every news cycle, the president is noting a bit of a shift in the Republican Party. Obama keeps arguing that Trump is not an aberration of the GOP, but a product of it. And at an annual dinner for Ohio Democrats last Thursday night, Obama continued this theory by laying some of the blame on GOP leaders for “feeding their base all kinds of crazy for years.” While conservative members of Congress were not exactly willing to accept that narrative, they were, surprisingly ― on the record, off the record and on background ― willing to go along with some of Obama’s thinking about Trump, the House Freedom Caucus, and the changes in the Republican Party. In an interview with New York magazine earlier this month, Obama argued that early in his presidency, conservatives inside and outside of Congress vilified him so badly that they made gridlock and dysfunction with the president a staple of party purity, tainting his ability to work with Republicans for the rest of his terms. And Obama seemed to place much of the blame on one person: Sarah Palin. “I see a straight line from the announcement of Sarah Palin as the vice-presidential nominee to what we see today in Donald Trump, the emergence of the Freedom Caucus, the tea party, and the shift in the center of gravity for the Republican Party,” Obama said. As Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp put it, “There’s a lot to unpack there.” Huelskamp is exactly the type of Republican Obama speaks of so derisively. He’s a member of the Freedom Caucus, as well as the current Tea Party Caucus chairman, and he was even recently defeated in a primary, in part because some Republicans thought he was too conservative. But for all the misgivings about a man who’s among the most hated Republicans inside of GOP leadership suites, Huelskamp is by no means out of the loop. He has a Ph.D. in political science from American University, and he read the New York magazine interview with Obama. “The section where he talks about the Democrats who were willing to die on the sword for Obamacare?” Huelskamp said, geeking out over the interview. “How many Republicans would do the same? I think you’d be hard-pressed to find 20 Republicans.” As fascinating as he found the piece, the one thing Huelskamp and every other Freedom Caucus member we talked to thought was totally off was that Obama would credit Palin for the populist backlash leading to Trump and their group. “Where Obama is wrong is this: This disdain for the mainstream Republicans among conservative voters ― it’s not new,” Huelskamp said. Most members don’t know when the anti-Washington animus imbuing their group meaningfully materialized, but they certainly would date it to before Sarah Palin ever arrived. “He actually needs to take that line back to the late ‘60s when the conservative movement actually began,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) told HuffPost. Huelskamp also seemed to roughly concur with that timeline, pointing to the backlash against so-called “Rockefeller Republicans” in the ‘60s and ‘70s (referring to liberal Republicans in the mold of former New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who later served as vice president under Gerald Ford). Although other members weren’t willing to put an exact date on whatever has a rebalancing in the Republican Party, no one thought it was Palin’s doing. “The frustration with Washington predates any one group or politician but comes from years of failed promises from elected officials,” Freedom Caucus chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said. Still, the most surprising element about asking Freedom Caucus members to comment on Obama’s thoughts was not how much they disagreed with the president. (If you needed a reminder of how much disdain these conservatives have for Obama, Duncan wanted us to be sure to include a line from him asking, “Could you draw a line from Marx through Roosevelt to Obama?”) The shock was how much they saw in common between Palin, their group and Trump. Rep. Dave Brat, the Virginia Republican who famously took down former Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a primary in 2014, sees similarities between the issues that brought him to Congress and the issues that brought Trump the GOP nomination. “It was definitely a precursor,” Brat said of his election. “I ran on similar themes that were narrower then but they’ve just blown up exponentially.” First among those issues, as anyone who ever heard Laura Ingraham talk about the Brat-Cantor race knows well, is immigration. Brat demonstrated in stark terms that GOP leaders were a bit ahead of their voters on wanting immigration reform, and Brat was able to seize on that anger to mobilize Republican primary voters. (There were certainly a number of other issues unique to Brat’s race, but immigration was the central issue.) Brat also thinks some of the anti-establishment themes present in his election are also dominant in the Freedom Caucus and Trump’s campaign. “I was going to go up and challenge the system,” Brat said, “but Trump is big enough that he can break the system.” Freedom Caucus members have garnered a reputation for their refusal to go along with GOP leaders, to say nothing of their distaste for working with Democrats and the president. But, as one Freedom Caucus member noted, the HFC has not been the most fertile ground for Trump support.  Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) was the only HFC member to endorse Trump before he became the presumptive GOP nominee, and as this one member of the group noted, the HFC was generally split between Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “Our movement in the Freedom Caucus was not a Donald Trump movement,” the member said. And yet, other HFC members were willing to accept similarities between the roots of their group and the roots of Trump. “The continued appeasement of Obama spurred the rise of the Freedom Caucus, but it also spurred the rise of Donald Trump,” Duncan said. Duncan added that many of the same frustrations leading to Trump brought members of the HFC to Congress in the first place, as well as motivated them to band together. “The Freedom Caucus became a necessity when Congress and House leadership failed to do conservative things ― when they failed to actually land a punch or two on the progressive in the White House,” Duncan said. What actually led to the Freedom Caucus is a much broader conversation. As Jordan, the group’s chairman, has put it numerous times, the Freedom Caucus is “about doing what you said you were going to do.” Duncan attributed the group to voters “failing to see what they got for their money, so to speak,” after they elected large Republican majorities in 2010 and 2012. And while Duncan noted that Trump support among the conservatives in the HFC was a bit mixed ― “I don’t think anybody in the Freedom Caucus believes 100 percent of what Donald Trump says” ― he could see some similarities between the HFC, Trump, the tea party and Palin. “The tea party is just a title for the broader conservative movement,” Duncan said. Still, the misgivings about Trump are very real in the group. They’ve seen Republicans say they want to dismantle Obamacare and substantively address debt and spending, only to have Republicans turn around and approve more debt and more spending, and not even propose a health care law alternative. Embodying the uneasiness, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said he couldn’t really make a judgment on Trump because the GOP nominee had never held a political office before. “If Barack Obama is right and Donald Trump proves to be like the House Freedom Caucus, then Trump will make a great president,” Brooks said. But he said drawing comparisons between Trump and the HFC was premature. “I hope Barack Obama is right, which is unusual for me,” Brooks said. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

14 октября, 22:44

Like Nixon In 1968, Pence Could Become The Consensus GOP Candidate in 2020

Before Donald Trump selected Mike Pence to be his Vice Presidential Runningmate, Pence was locked in a tight race to retain his job as Indiana Governor, sporting job approval ratings of under 50 percent. If Pence had run for re-election and lost, his expiration date as a viable Presidential candidate would likely have passed. On the other hand, if Pence had won re-election, and if Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump were to lose his Presidential bid, Pence would be one of a litany of potential Republican Presidential candidates seeking his party's 2020 nomination. If this were the scenario, Pence would have to spend at least two years balancing his job as Governor with his Presidential campaign. If his subpar job approval ratings were to sustain, he would face an embarrassing backlash at home like then Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal did in 2016. Pence is now in the electoral Catbird Seat. The GOP is split asunder between the establishment and insurrectionist bloodlines. Establishment Republicans have either disassociated themselves from Trump or are distancing themselves from the insurrectionist nominee. Contrariwise, Trump supporters are vociferous adherents of the real estate mogul's message, and are indignant at the establishment for not being four square for Trump. Should Trump lose his Presidential bid, Pence is the only candidate who can bridge the internecine divide in the GOP to become the consensus GOP candidate in 2020. While Pence was one of the most conservative members of the GOP during his 12-year stint in the U.S. House of Representatives, he won the support of many establishment Republicans, being elected as Chairman of the House Republicans Caucus. Like most establishment Republicans, Pence voted for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq, supported NAFTA, and even called for "a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas." In addition, Pence believes that if Russia "continues to be involved in this barbaric attack on civilians in Aleppo, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the (Syrian President Basher al-) Assad regime." These positions are divergent from Trump, making Pence palatable to establishment Republicans. After Trump was caught on tape speaking of women in sexually explicit terms, many establishment Republicans reached their boiling point and unendorsed Trump. Some Republicans, like U.S. Representative Bradley Byrne of Alabama, called for Trump to "step aside and allow Governor Pence to lead the Republican ticket." Trump's influence on the GOP will not likely be ephemeral. Come the 2020 Presidential cycle, the more than 14 million voters who selected Trump in the GOP Primary will likely frown upon potential candidates like Ohio Governor John Kasich who did not endorse Trump, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who disinvited him to a campaign event, and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) who spoke at the party's national Convention imploring voters "to vote your conscience" rather than singing Trump's accolades. These voters will likely see Pence as the logical heir apparent to the Trump mantra and will award him for his fidelity to Trump. Based on his recent debate performance, the GOP establishment garners a propitious view of Pence. If Trump loses in November, few Republicans will blame Pence. The argument might even be made that Pence could have won the election if he were at the top of the ticket. There is a similitude between Pence and Richard M. Nixon. Nixon was the epitome of the moderate Republican Establishment. In 1960, then Vice President Nixon made a deal with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the titular head of the party's liberal wing, adding language to the GOP platform sympathetic to Rockefeller in return for his unequivocal endorsement. U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), a leading voice with conservatives, branded the agreement "the Munich of the Republican Party." The agreement, labeled "The Treaty of Fifth Avenue," infuriated some conservatives. Nixon lost that election in a squeaker. By 1964, the insurrectionist wing became ascendant, as conservative flamethrower Barry Goldwater wrested the party's nomination. The party's establishment feared a Goldwater nomination. That year, Rockefeller ran against him in the primary and sent out a mailer asking: "Who do you want in the room with the H Bomb Button?" Goldwater made little effort to mitigate his rhetoric, offering his candidacy as "a choice not an echo." He horrified the party's high command by exclaiming at his party's convention: "Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." After he secured the nomination, potential nominees for 1968 abandoned Goldwater. Rockefeller and Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton, who both lost the 1964 nomination, did not endorse Goldwater. Michigan Governor George Romney stated that he "accepted" Goldwater's nomination but would not "endorse him." In his own re-election bid, Romney's campaign mailed out about 200,000 mock ballots showing voters how to mark their ballots for Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson for President and Romney for Governor. Nixon however became a resolute supporter of Goldwater. He even gave the speech at the Republican National Convention nominating Goldwater and became a Goldwater surrogate on the campaign trail. Nixon held the Goldwater banner high, singing Goldwater's' praises across the country. This gained Nixon respect and admiration from insurrectionists who had viewed him with suspicion. After Goldwater suffered a seismic defeat, both establishment and insurrectionist Republicans spoke of a Nixon nomination in 1968. The establishment wanted a mainstream figure and looked back fondly on Nixon, believing he deserved another chance. Insurrectionists grew inflamed with those Republicans who did not support Goldwater in 1964, and were grateful that Nixon did not bow to political pressure and distance himself from Goldwater. Goldwater himself showed his gratitude by endorsing Nixon for the 1968 nomination as early as 1965. Nixon spent much of 1966 on the hustings, campaigning for Republican Congressional candidates of all ideological persuasions, earning political chits. Nixon was awarded with the nomination in 1968, soundly defeating Rockefeller and Romney who had alienated the insurrectionists by not endorsing Goldwater in 1964. Nixon was the consensus candidate, winning support of both GOP establishmentarians and insurrectionist voters. Should Trump lose the upcoming election, Pence would be wise to follow a strategy similar to the one employed by Nixon. Like Nixon, he will not be constrained by a full-time job. He can spend 2018 campaigning for Republican candidates across the nation, collecting IOU's, and keeping his name in the news. By 2020, he could become the one candidate to win support from both bloodlines of the Republican Party, ultimately winning the nomination. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

12 октября, 14:00

Can a President Trump Keep His Business Intact?

There’s a federal law on the books that could discourage him from holding onto his assets.

10 октября, 13:45

Трампа могут убить

Отказавшись добровольно сняться с выборов, республиканец поставил себя под удар

11 сентября, 14:09

How 9/11 Paved the Way for Trump v. Clinton

For decades, two New Yorkers running head-to-head for the presidency would have been unthinkable.

29 августа, 02:30

Monday Smackdown Watch: "Where the Ducks Are" "Lyndon Johnson Was the Real Segregationist in 1964!" Edition

**Live from the Journamalists' Self-Made Gehenna:** I see an extremely strange, weird, and wrong white-washing of Barry Goldwater by Louis Menand in the _New Yorker_... Goldwater, according to Menand, was: "[no] kind of racist... a lifelong opponent of racial discrimination... did not want to campaign for the segregationist vote." And...

22 августа, 10:00

Колонки: Дмитрий Дробницкий: Дело Манафорта, или Украина – родина «слонов»

С самого начала у Манафорта была весьма узкая задача. Задача, с которой он весьма успешно справился. Теперь пришло время новых людей. Так кто же такой Пол Манафорт и какую функцию он выполнял в штабе Дональда Трампа? Я думаю, многие украинские чиновники и журналисты почувствовали себя обездоленными на прошлой неделе, когда в США подал в отставку глава штаба республиканского кандидата в президенты Пол Манафорт. Ведь именно благодаря этому политическому консультанту и лоббисту Украина ненадолго стала одним из факторов предвыборной борьбы в Соединенных Штатах. Дело, разумеется, не в том, что Манафорт с 2004 по 2010 г. консультировал Рината Ахметова и Виктора Януковича. Этот давно известный факт не давал Украине никаких очков, потому что работа на Януковича использовалась американской либеральной прессой в качестве одного из доказательств «тесных связей Трампа с Россией». Логическая цепочка была удивительно изящной: Янукович был пророссийским президентом Украины (обычно добавлялись слова о его изгнании после победы прозападных сил в 2014-м). Манафорт работал на Януковича. Теперь работает на Трампа. Значит, Трамп связан с Россией. Я не преувеличиваю. В ходе этой избирательной кампании в Америке многие средства массовой информации действительно пали так низко. Когда WikiLeaks обнародовала электронную переписку руководства Демократической партии, свидетельствовавшую о нечестной игре против Сандерса на праймериз, СМИ говорили не о кознях истеблишмента, а о том, что взлом почтового сервера «почти наверняка» был осуществлен русскими, так что «очевидно», что Москва играет на стороне Трампа. Но вернемся к украинским делам. Работа Манафорта на Януковича так и не имела бы никакого отношения собственно к Украине, если бы не расследование издания The New York Times, согласно которому американский консультант получал оплату за свою работу в Киеве «черным налом». СМИ немедленно забыли о том, что Манафорт – это маркер пророссийской ориентации Трампа, и взялись муссировать тему коррупции и уклонения от уплаты налогов. Проблема, однако, заключалась в том, что никаких доказательств получения Полом черного нала из кассы Партии регионов не было. Не было до того времени, когда на помощь американским товарищам пришли украинские государственные учреждения, в частности, Национальное антикоррупционное бюро (НАБУ), которое опубликовало на своем сайте сканы документов, которые вроде как и были недостающими доказательствами. Документы эти были охарактеризованы в Киеве как «напоминающие по своей структуре учетные листы», а американская телекомпания ABC News сразу же окрестила их «гроссбухами», намекая на бухгалтерские книги, в которых ведется учет денег мафии – образ, широко растиражированный Голливудом. То, что в украинских СМИ уже появились публикации с разоблачением скандальных документов (в частности, не удалось найти оригиналов «учетных листов»), ничуть не смутило те американские медиа, которые ухватились за возможность разоблачить «коррумпированное окружение Трампа». Телекомпания CNN даже сообщила о том, что ФБР начинает специальное расследование «украинского коррупционного дела», сделав, правда, оговорку, что следственные действия касаются Виктора Януковича. Пола Манафорта также обвиняют в том, что он лоббировал интересы правительства Украины в Вашингтоне без регистрации иностранного агента на территории США, что является нарушением американского законодательства о лоббизме. Однако фирма Манафорта действовала не напрямую, а через две другие конторы – Mercury LLC и Podesta Group Inc. И вот тут случился конфуз. Дело в том, что Podesta Group принадлежит братьям Подеста, один из которых (Тони) управляет фирмой, другой (Джон) является одним из менеджеров предвыборной кампании Хиллари. В прошлом эта лоббистская структура была тесно связана с Фондом Клинтонов. Манафорт потребовался Трампу в тот момент, когда несогласные с ним республиканцы, не таясь, плели против него заговоры (фото:Rick Wilking/Reuters) Но украинские власти и медиа продолжали исправно снабжать проклинтоновские СМИ компроматом на Манафорта. Американскому политконсультанту приписали идею антинатовских митингов в Крыму в 2006 году, которые привели к отмене совместных учений украинского флота и кораблей Североатлантического альянса под названием «Морской бриз». Он также якобы всячески подогревал межнациональную рознь на Украине с целью снизить влияние «наиболее демократических общин» и выставить Виктора Януковича единственным лидером, способным объединить страну. Издание The Daily Beast даже сделало вывод о том, что хаос, творящийся сейчас на Украине, – дело рук Януковича и его советника Манафорта. Ни больше ни меньше. Украина и дальше готова была всеми силами помогать кампании Клинтон, но вот беда! Пол Манафорт больше не является главой штаба Трампа. И что бы ни говорили в СМИ, «украинское коррупционное дело» вовсе не является причиной смены менеджмента кампании Большого Дональда. С самого начала у Манафорта была весьма узкая задача. Задача, с которой он весьма успешно справился. Теперь пришло время новых людей. Кампанию возглавили Стив Бэннон и Кэлльян Коноуэй. Так кто же такой Пол Манафорт и какую функцию он выполнял в штабе Дональда Трампа? * * * Весной 1976 года в офисе вашингтонской юридической фирмы Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease появился 27-летний юрист, выпускник Джорджтаунского университета Пол Манафорт. У молодого специалиста были блестящие рекомендации, так что он имел все шансы устроиться на работу адвокатом. Одновременно с ним в офис пришел известный политический консультант Джеймс Бейкер. Он искал молодые таланты – ему нужны были люди для работы с делегатами итоговой конференции республиканцев. После недолгой беседы с Манафортом Бейкер одолжил его у своих друзей-юристов. Ситуация в стане «слонов» (полуофициальное название Республиканской партии) в то время была сложной. Действующий президент Джеральд Форд получил власть после отставки Ричарда Никсона, который чудом избежал импичмента из-за Уотергейтского скандала. При этом Форд не был избранным вице-президентом – его назначил Никсон после отставки Спиро Эгню, также став жертвой Уотергейта. Таким образом, Соединенными Штатами с 1974 по 1976 г. правили два неизбранных человека (Форд назначил своим вице Нельсона Рокфеллера) – беспрецедентный случай в американской истории. Джеральд Форд поначалу не хотел избираться на второй срок. Однако правая оппозиция во главе с Рональдом Рейганом сильно пугала партийный истеблишмент, а другого сильного кандидата у руководства «слонов» не было. После недолгих споров были назначены праймериз, и Рейган с самого начала показал очень неплохие результаты. Стало понятно, что итоговая партийная конференция будет очень тяжелой. Так и вышло. Хотя Форд и собрал больше голосов на праймериз, надлежащего большинства у него не было, и Рейган собирался дать ему бой. В этой ситуации критически важной становилась работа с неопределившимися и «не приписанными» делегатами – в то время не все делегаты от штатов были обязаны голосовать в соответствии с волеизъявлением избирателей. Непосредственно в зале, где проходило мероприятие, и в кулуарах развернулась настоящая охота за делегатами. Манафорту были поручены 8 весьма проблемных южных штатов. Любопытный факт: в команде Рейгана тогда играли такие ныне известные политики, как Джон Кейсик и Рон Пол. А сын Рона Пола Рэнд (тогда ему было 14 лет), ныне сенатор от Кентукки и бывший кандидат в президенты-2016, нес постер Рейгана во главе колонны от штата Техас. Пол Манафорт на удивление быстро разобрался в хитростях проведения партийных конференций и был очень успешен в «охоте». Форд тогда выиграл у Рейгана с минимальным отрывом, но впоследствии проиграл всеобщие выборы. Манафорт наконец устроился в фирму в Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease на постоянной основе, однако в 1980 году его снова призвали на партийную работу, на сей раз уже в команду Рональда Рейгана. И снова его задачей было гладко провести партийную конференцию. Теперь он играл против истеблишмента, который пытался протолкнуть своего кандидата Джорджа Буша-старшего, несмотря на то, что тот приостановил свою кампанию еще в мае. Рейган выбрал Буша своим вице, и ситуация окончательно склонилась в его пользу. В 1988 году Манафорт работал уже на Буша-старшего, а в 1996 году – на республиканского кандидата Боба Доула. Быть просто юристом Полу довольно быстро наскучило. И он открыл в себе еще один талант – лоббиста. В 1980 году он стал соучредителем консалтинговой фирмы Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly и с тех пор вращался в Вашингтоне, представляя как американские группы интересов, так и зарубежные. В 1985 году он подписал крупный контракт с лидером ангольского повстанческого движения УНИТА Джонасом Савимби. С тех пор он подправил имидж многих сомнительных лидеров – из Заира, Сомали, Индонезии, Пакистана, Ливана и др. Его перу принадлежит и стратегия предвыборной кампании Эдуара Баладюра во Франции в 1995 году. В 2004 году, после оранжевой революции, пришла очередь Украины. * * * Партия регионов и лично Янукович были крайне разочарованы российскими и украинскими консультантами, которые работали на него на выборах 2004 года. Манафорта привез в Киев Ринат Ахметов, используя свои бизнес-контакты. Для Виктора Януковича американский консультант делал примерно то же, что и для других своих клиентов – улучшал его имидж на Западе. Кстати говоря, назвать Манафорта пророссийским советником было бы по меньшей мере большим преувеличением. До самого окончания своего контракта в 2010 году Пол всячески советовал Януковичу идти на сближение с европейскими и евроатлантическими структурами. Дальше – сплошная серая зона. Во всяком случае, мне не удалось проверить с использованием нескольких независимых источников информацию, которая появилась в последнее время. Достоверно известно лишь, что в сентябре 2014 года Манафорт снова прибыл в Киев. Некоторые издания пишут, что он помог создать «Оппозиционный блок» и работал на него вплоть до конца 2015 года, однако так ли это на самом деле, сказать сложно. Издание The New York Times утверждает, что офис фирмы Манафорта работал в Киеве аж до мая 2016 года, но какие услуги и кому он оказывал, доподлинно не известно. Знал ли Пол Манафорт, что из себя представляла украинская политика? Понимал ли он, как там «делались дела»? Почти наверняка да. Замешан ли он был в коррупционных схемах? Не знаю. Но думаю, что он вполне мог организовать чистый платеж своей фирме – то есть по схеме, которая «не ловится» американским законодательством. Но что говорить о коррупционных схемах, когда сам лоббизм в его нынешнем виде – узаконенная коррупция! И в Африке, и на Украине Манафорт делал ровно то же самое, что делают американские лоббисты в незападных странах – получал деньги от тех, кто платил, и представлял их интересы в Вашингтоне. А уж хорошие это парни или не очень – деньги не пахнут. Лоббистские – точно. В американской политике вообще стало слишком много денег от сомнительных групп интересов, в том числе и зарубежных. И это одна из тех проблем, которую вынес на первый план в своей предвыборной кампании Дональд Трамп. Будучи богатым бизнесменом, он знал всю эту систему изнутри. Как он однажды выразился, «я покупал и продавал политиков». Позже он заявил: «Я слишком хорошо знаком с системой. Поэтому только я могу ее исправить». Разумеется, Трамп давно знаком с Полом – они просто не могли не пересечься, учитывая, сколько денег Большой Дональд пожертвовал политикам. Манафорт потребовался Трампу в тот момент, когда несогласные с ним республиканцы, не таясь, плели против него заговор за заговором, стремясь любыми средствами не допустить его номинации на итоговой партийной конференции. С приходом Пола ситуация довольно быстро выправилась. Руководитель Республиканского национального комитета Рейнс Прибус заявил, что правила будут соблюдены в полном объеме (на деле это означало победу Трампа), а спикер Палаты представителей Пол Райан, поторговавшись, все же согласился с тем, что Трамп победил честно, так что он и должен стать кандидатом в президенты. Совместными усилиями попытка антитрамповского мятежа на партийной конференции была подавлена. Работа Манафорта была закончена. Как говорится, мавр сделал свое дело, мавр может уходить. Организацией работы на местах в последние месяцы перед выборами занялись другие люди. Поэтому все разговоры американских экспертов о том, что отставка главы штаба является признаком «развала кампании», лишены всякого смысла. Более того, большинство из этих экспертов прекрасно знают, что у Пола Манафорта была по большому счету одна задача – обеспечить проведение партийной конференции в соответствии с планами Трампа. Так что это в основном пропаганда. Смогут ли новые руководители штаба Большого Дональда сделать все как надо, покажет время. А пока я могу поздравить Украину. На неделю она стала… если не родиной «слонов», то, по крайней мере, источником слухов об одном «слоне», который забрел на ее политическое поле в поисках прокорма. Теги:  США, отставки, выборы в США, Хиллари Клинтон, Дональд Трамп Закладки:

11 августа, 14:00

Republicans Need to Get Ready for the Trump Aftershock

Win or lose, the GOP’s presidential nominee will trigger a lasting power shift in the party.

05 августа, 19:27

If Trump Should Lose The Election In A Landslide, The GOP Will Likely Survive

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is becoming an albatross around the necks of members of his party. Down-ballot GOP candidates are put in the awkward position of constantly distancing themselves from the "most" recent linguistic pyrotechnics touched off by Trump. The Real Estate mogul has suggested that Gonzalo Curiel, the Latino judge presiding over a lawsuit involving Trump University, could not be unbiased because he harbors "an inherent conflict of interest." More recently, Trump has questioned why the mother of a fallen Muslim soldier stood beside her husband at the Democratic National Convention without saying anything. Trump has also excoriated the work of a fire marshall for limiting attendance at a Trump campaign rally. Political pundits are ruminating about the demise of the Republican Party. Former President George W. Bush reportedly told former aides: "I'm worried that I will be the last Republican president." Many political observers believe Trump will lose the presidential election in an electoral landslide and take the Republican Party down with him. However, these pundits and GOP soothsayers underestimate how fast the pendulum swings in American politics. The Democratic and Republican Parties have been the two major parties in the U.S. since the 1860s, and have been given a political execution date a litany of times, only to rise up from the ashes like a phoenix and return to prominence. In 1928, the popular Republican U.S. Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover was elected president in a landslide. The Republican Party was in the eighth year of holding the presidency. Amid times of economic prosperity, the incumbent president, Calvin Coolidge, was enjoying stratospheric popularity among his countrymen. The Republican Party was hegemonic, controlling both houses of the U.S. Congress since 1919. The only state Hoover lost outside of the then Democratic Solid South was Massachusetts. In accepting the GOP nomination, Hoover offered the grandiloquent statement: "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of this land... We shall soon, with the help of God, be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this land." Hoover barely needed to campaign, delivering just seven radio addresses. However, in 1929 the prosperity Americans enjoyed under Republican presidents came to a screeching halt. The stock market crashed, an economic depression ensued, and Americans leveled their collective blame at Hoover. In 1930, the once comatose Democratic Party won control of the House, picking up 52 seats. That Democratic House majority held for 60 of the succeeding 64 years. The Democrats also picked up eight Senate seats. Two years later, the once popular Hoover lost re-election in an electoral route, winning only six states. In sharp contrast, the Democratic Party rose from dialysis to electoral supremacy, holding the White House for twenty consecutive years. In 1964, the Republican Party high command was in a state of panic as the nomination of the ultra conservative U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) was coming to fruition. While the country was apprehensive about the potential of a nuclear war, Goldwater had cavalierly joked about the use of nuclear missiles: "I don't want to hit the moon. I want to lob one into the men's room of the Kremlin and make sure I hit it." At one point, a poll showed Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson defeating Goldwater 79 to18 percent. His main primary opponent, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, unsuccessfully tried to stoke fear in the GOP electorate by sending out a mailer asking: "Who do you want in the room with the H Bomb button?" Like Trump, Goldwater did not make an effort to mitigate his rhetoric. Instead, he doubled down on it. He offered himself as "a choice not an echo." At the Republican National Convention, Goldwater exclaimed: "Let me remind you that extremism in the Defense of Liberty is no vice." And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." On Election Day, Johnson swamped Goldwater, winning 44 states. Johnson even won traditional Republican citadels like Utah, and Idaho. He became the first Democrat to break the hammerlock the GOP held on Vermont. Two year later, with the nation mired in the Vietnam War, riots on the city streets, rising inflation, and a feeling that Johnson was overreaching domestically, the party of Goldwater picked up 47 seats in the House, the most the Party had won since 1946. Two years later, instead of nominating another conservative firebrand like Goldwater, the party nominated a centrist in former Vice President Richard M. Nixon. With Johnson suffering from a job approval rating of less than 50 percent, Nixon was able to tether the Democratic nominee, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, to Johnson. Nixon promised to restore law and order averring: "The most important civil right is the right to be free from violence." Nixon's moderate message was palatable to Middle America, and Nixon ushered in an era when the GOP held the White House for all but four of the next twenty-four years. In 1972, the Democrats were in the same boat as the Republicans were in 1964. The discontented "new left" became a major force in the Democratic Party. They challenged the old guard, which favored a muscular foreign policy coupled with a munificent social services regime. For the new left, the flagship issue was getting U.S. troops out of Vietnam. Establishment candidates like U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and Edmund Muskie (D-ME) were late in opposing the war. They had supported the war early on. U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD) captured the hearts and minds of the new left by highlighting his early opposition to the war. His campaign slogan was "Right From The Start." Like Trump, McGovern was given little chance of winning at the start of the campaign. In fact, when he entered the race, McGovern's chances of winning the nomination were 200-1 against him. However, the pundocracy gravely underestimated the power of the new left within the party, and McGovern pocketed the nomination. This was after a failed last-ditch move by moderate Democrats, spearheaded by Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, who nominated a traditional Democrat, U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA), at the party's national convention. In the General Election, McGovern's dovish views alienated many traditional Democrats. In addition, his proposal to truncate the U.S. military budget and his plan to bestow every American with a $1,000 income supplement, were seen as too radical for moderate voters. Consequently, many down-ballot candidates distanced themselves from McGovern. Some supported Republican President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon won the election in a 49-state landslide, garnering 94 percent of Republican voters, 66 percent of Independents, and an astounding 42 percent of Democratic voters. However, just two years later, Nixon was forced from office due to his role in the Watergate imbroglio. The Democratic Party took advantage of the situation, picking up 49 seats in the House and four in the Senate. The 1976 presidential contest saw a recrudescence of the moderate bloodline of the Democratic Party, and the moderate Jimmy Carter, who had tried to stop McGovern four years earlier, was awarded the nomination and went on to win the Presidency. Intellectual graveyards are littered with prognostications of the death of either the Democratic or Republican parties. After a party reaches a low watermark, it does not sink. Instead, it manages to rise up and eventually seize the reigns of power again. Should Trump suffer an electoral thrashing and take down-ballot candidates with him, Republicans will likely detach themselves from Trump, win seats in the 2018 mid-term elections, and reorient their brand with a less pugnacious standard barer in 2020. Trump's legacy may be that he will be regarded as the ideological forefather of a new brand of conservatism, a force to compete with the conservatives of the party establishment. While establishment Republicans will continue to sing from the song sheet of comprehensive immigration reform, foreign interventionism, and free trade, insurrectionists in the Trump mold, without mentioning Trump, will intone from a hymnbook of closed borders, foreign non-intervention, and economic nationalism. Herbert Hoover and Lyndon B. Johnson teach us that when a political party reaches it's political ceiling, it can take a dive rather quickly. Contrariwise, Barry Goldwater and George McGovern teach us that when a political party suffers an ignominious shellacking, there is no place to go but up. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

29 июля, 06:05

America Has Finally Put A Woman At The Top Of The Ticket

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); PHILADELPHIA ― In 1968, Hillary Clinton, known at the time as Hillary Rodham, was taking in the excitement of the Republican National Convention in Miami. The young Republican had jumped at the chance to volunteer for Nelson Rockefeller’s last-minute effort to take the nomination from Richard Nixon and attend her first political convention. “The Republican convention was my first inside look at big-time politics, and I found the week unreal and unsettling,” Clinton wrote in her 2003 memoir.  The 20-year-old Rodham probably never anticipated that 48 years later, she’d be at another political convention ― this time standing on the stage at the Democratic National Convention, making history as the first woman to ever receive a major party’s presidential nomination.  “Tonight, we’ve reached a milestone in our nation’s march toward a more perfect union: the first time that a major party has nominated a woman for president,” Clinton said Thursday night. “Standing here as my mother’s daughter, and my daughter’s mother, I’m so happy this day has come. I’m happy for grandmothers and little girls and everyone in between. I’m happy for boys and men, too – because when any barrier falls in America, it clears the way for everyone.” “After all, when there are no ceilings, the sky’s the limit,” she added. “So let’s keep going, until every one of the 161 million women and girls across America has the opportunity she deserves to have. But even more important than the history we make tonight, is the history we will write together in the years ahead” While more than 200 women have pursued the presidency since 1872 ― when Victoria Woodhull became the first woman to run for the highest office in the land ― no one has come as close as Clinton.  Clinton presented the 2016 election as a moment of reckoning for America, a time when “powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart.” “We have to decide whether we all will work together so we all can rise together,” she said. “Our country’s motto is e pluribus unum: out of many, we are one. Will we stay true to that motto? Well, we heard Donald Trump’s answer last week at his convention. He wants to divide us ― from the rest of the world, and from each other. “ “Don’t believe anyone who says, ‘I alone can fix it,’” she added. “Yes, those were actually Donald Trump’s words in Cleveland. And they should set off alarm bells for all of us.” Thursday night was an event that many women have been waiting for their whole lives, and there were plenty of tears ― both in the arena and from afar ― for the big, historic moment when Clinton came out to greet her daughter, Chelsea, onstage.  Watching my 93 year old grandmother, a lifetime feminist and activist, cry at @HillaryClinton speaking. pic.twitter.com/qCr7yPOcG5— Alana Mooch (@alamooch) July 29, 2016 "When there are no ceilings the sky is the limit." So glad my granddaughters are watching Hillary Clinton tonight! pic.twitter.com/w4U0T1moiB— Janice Hahn (@Rep_JaniceHahn) July 29, 2016 Suzanne Miller, 66, from Washington, D.C., said her 92-year-old mother in central Pennsylvania was a lifelong Republican. But this spring, she changed her party registration so that she could vote for Clinton. “She’s thrilled, at 92, to be able to vote for a woman,” Miller said. “She never, ever thought she’d see this day. She is so excited and so thrilled that she changed her party after all those years.” “This is looking at the fruits of my labor for 30 years, and feeling very proud,” said Ellen Malcolm, the founder of EMILY’s List, which works to elect pro-choice Democratic women and has become one of the most powerful political action committees since its start in 1985.  It’s been a long journey for Clinton. She first came to national attention as a student at Wellesley College in 1969, when her peers selected her to deliver the school’s first-ever student commencement speech. The student body president spoke for her generation, saying that although they weren’t yet in positions of power and leadership, they did have “that indispensable element of criticizing and constructive protest.”  Her comments were a direct rebuke of the speech Sen. Edward Brooke (R-Mass.) had delivered right before she took the stage, as he had argued against the effectiveness and need to protest. Clinton made The New York Times, The Washington Post and Life magazine. She began to get noticed, speaking around the country. But she really began to draw attention as a political spouse ― albeit an untraditional one. Although Clinton now faces skepticism from the progressive wing of her party, she was often seen as a liberal feather-ruffler in the establishment. People didn’t like that she wanted to keep her maiden name while her husband was governor of Arkansas; it was later inconceivable to people that she would lead a health care task force as first lady. Along the way ― from her days in Arkansas to her time as first lady, from her election to the U.S. Senate to her years as secretary of state ― Clinton has, in many ways, been the case study for sexism in politics. She has faced intense scrutiny over what kind of a woman she is: her hair styles, her clothes, the sound of her voice, whether she’s likable enough.  The atmosphere for women running for office has changed dramatically over the years, but they still face hurdles. Even during this election cycle, people have criticized Clinton by saying she needs to smile more and stop shouting ― despite the fact that her male challengers have never faced similar comments. And it is those struggles ― and Clinton’s endless ability to overcome them ― that have bound her supporters to her. Many of the women who have shown up to Clinton rallies and to the convention in Philadelphia say they relate to her, and that they want to see her finally come out on top.  Vicki Saporta, 63, from Washington, D.C., was the first female organizer for the Teamsters union. She said she constantly struggled to be accepted by others in the movement, and that she was put through test after test after test ― only to find her male colleagues resentful when she succeeded.  “I understand what it’s like to pave the way for other women and how difficult it can be to be a first ― and how much extra you have to do in order to succeed,” Saporta said. “She was the first person in the public eye, in a traditional role, in a traditional state, who didn’t say, ‘I’m sorry, but I’m going to do this.’ She just did it,” said California delegate Andrea Villa, who was covered in pro-Hillary buttons and a T-shirt that read, “Well-Behaved Women Rarely Make History.” “I’m emotional and sentimental about this because I was the first woman mayor of Ville Platte, [Louisiana,] and here I am witnessing the first woman nominee who will eventually be president of the United States,” said Jennifer Vidrine, 57. The fact that the first female nominee is also eminently qualified also makes these women proud. They stress this over and over, so that Clinton doesn’t get dismissed as just a “token” pick. After all, many of them have been accused of not being as qualified as their male counterparts ― and women still don’t make as much as men do for the same work.  “I was hoping she would finally get her turn,” said Roberta Goldman from Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, who said she’s been a Clinton fan for a long time. “To me, she’s smarter than any president I’ve experienced, to be honest. ... She’s amazing! I don’t know if we’re going to get anybody else like that in a long time.” “What’s so wonderful this time, for Hillary in particular ... is the most qualified. We are going to be in such capable hands. It’s going to be so inspiring for the rest of us to be more engaged,” said Cleveland resident Terri Hamilton Brown, 54, who said she never thought she’d see a black president, let alone a black president potentially succeeded by the nation’s first female president.  But Clinton’s long record of public service has also made her open to criticism that she’s part of the establishment ― something that’s especially dogging her this election, with the rise of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Her supporters consider this another damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t moment: Would the country choose a woman to be president if she weren’t this qualified? And how do you get qualified without being part of the system for so many years? The fact that the first female president would be part of a political family is also not surprising, since that’s how so many women broke barriers in politics. Until the 1970s, one of the most common ways for a woman to enter politics was by following her husband. According to Pew Research Center, 90 women served in the House between 1916 and 1980; 34 of them were elected to fill their husband’s seat or replaced him on the ballot after he died. This country has, traditionally, been more comfortable with female politicians when they know their husbands. Jan Cebula, a nun from Iowa who gave her age as “over 65,” sat in the very last row of the top section of the arena. The view wasn’t the best, but she said she’s overjoyed that “this is finally happening.” “I’m a little bit older. So it wasn’t an aspiration to be president when we were growing up,” Cebula said. Asked what she would have said if someone had suggested a female president when she was young, she stared blankly for a few seconds. “You know, to be real honest with you, they wouldn’t have thought of it.” “Women have so many more opportunities today,” she added. “What happens then is young women and girls see those role models and then it really does a lot for them.” Laura Bassett and Jennifer Bendery contributed reporting. Want more updates from Amanda? Sign up for her newsletter, Piping Hot Truth. Enter your email address: -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 июля, 18:13

Ted Cruz Goes Rouge

Modern national political conventions are usually public relations promotions where a cavalcade of politicians sing the praises of the party's nominee. Losing candidates thank their supporters and tell them to fight for the nominee just as hard as they fought for them. The July 20 address given by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who unsuccessfully sought his party's nomination, was certainly uncharacteristic. Cruz was booed by supporters of the party's nominee, Donald Trump, for urging voters to "vote their conscience" rather than endorsing Trump. The contest between the two had resulted in a bloodletting, with Trump giving Cruz the moniker "lying Ted." This is a moment which will go down in the annals of American political history along with other instances of tension and disunity at a party's convention. In 1948, the young Minneapolis Mayor, Hubert Humphrey, proposed a plank in the party's platform committing the Democratic Party to support desegregation. Humphrey inflamed Southern delegates by averring: "the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." The Party supported the plank, precipitating the exit of the Alabama and Mississippi delegations from the Convention. Discontented States' Rights Democrats formed the State's Rights Democrat Party, a.k.a., the Dixiecrat Party. Despite the chasm, Democratic President Harry S. Truman was elected to a full term. In 1952, the Republican Party had been locked out of the White House for almost 20 years. New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey had been the nominee of the party in the last two elections. He represented the party's moderate bloodline. U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), who supported his conservative opponent, U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft (R-IL), pointed directly at Dewey, who supported the moderate candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower, exclaiming: "we followed you before and you took us down the path to defeat!" The reception in the hall was mixed, with Eisenhower supporters booing and Taft supporters cheering. Eisenhower won the nomination and the Presidency. In 1964, the Republican Party was set to nominate U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). His main primary opponent was liberal Nelson Rockefeller of New York. Goldwater represented the ultra conservative wing of the party. Rockefeller used the occasion to excoriate the far right elements that supported Goldwater, telling conventioneers: "These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror, [they have] no program for America and the Republican Party. . . [they] operate from dark shadows of secrecy." The Goldwaterites hissed at Rockefeller. Rockefeller did not endorse Goldwater in the General Election. The divide in the GOP, coupled with the fear among voters that Goldwater was too extreme, contributed to a 44-state defeat at the hands of Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. In 1972, the Democratic Party establishment was disconsolate that they were about to nominate the insurrectionist liberal U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD). Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter spearheaded a "Stop McGovern" movement. Carter nominated one of McGovern's vanquished rivals for the nomination, U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA). Jackson, a traditional Democrat, had performed poorly in his bid for the nomination, only winning his home state caucuses. However, Jackson did not officially drop out of the race. Carter's effort to promote Jackson failed and McGovern pocketed the nomination. Many Democrats did not attend the Convention for fear of being associated with the nationally unpopular McGovern. In 1992, Democratic former California Governor Jerry Brown refused to endorse his party's nominee, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. During a bitter primary, Brown had accused Clinton of "funneling money" to his wife's law firm for state business. Clinton had replied: "Your not worth being on the same platform as my wife." However, to the chagrin of the Democratic Party's high command, party rules afforded the opportunity for any candidate whose name was placed in nomination to address the delegates. A flustered Democratic Party Chairman, Ron Brown, begrudgingly opined: "I have had a number of conversations with Jerry Brown and Jerry is being Jerry . . . . We expect everybody who speaks at the Convention to be supportive of the ticket." However, rather than endorsing Clinton, Jerry Brown used the time to lambaste the political system. Also that year, at the Republican National Convention, Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld challenged the party's views on reproductive rights, stating: "I happen to think that individual freedom should extend to a woman's right to choose. I want the government out of your pocketbook and your bedroom." Many in the predominately socially conservative crowd disagreed and booed. Ted Cruz did not bring himself to offer even a tepid endorsement of the man who gave him the moniker "lying Ted." Any moment like this, where a convention speaker does not parrot talking points about why the party's nominee should be elected, has a deleterious effect on the party as a whole, exposing party divisions before a national audience. Convention organizers yearn for consistency, not drama and division. Cruz is clearly singing from a different hymnbook. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 июля, 16:08

Cruz and Trump: He Who Wields The Knife

The Brits have perfected it. Insider coups, where a formerly beloved and fearless leader is knifed and replaced. Thatcher, Major, maybe Blair, Cameron. Coup Rule #1 is don’t wound the King, kill him. Rule #2 is that no one likes an assassin. And they rarely inherit. Comes now Ted Cruz. He’s an ideologue who leads and pursues both Movement Conservatives and social conservatives, the hard right, and he got about a quarter of the Republican electorate. Note his strengths. His base is secure. No one will sneak in to his right. If the future of the Republican Party is defined by ideological purity and economic and social reaction, he’s your guy. But, he needs a path to 51% of the Republican electorate in 2020. There’s little reason to think that the Republican electorate is as pure or reactionary as Cruz. Trump, on many economic issues, is something of a moderate, tax-the-hedge-funds, don’t touch Social Security and Medicare. Republican voters want outsiders more they than want more tax cuts for the 1% and budget cuts. And he’s neither likable or collegial. Those things are fixable, if somewhat delicate. But Cruz’s convention speech cooked his goose. It is one thing for the Republican Party to be divided. It’s another to be the poster child for division and disloyalty. Look at the Bushes, even Kasich and Rubio. Disloyal? Yes. Rubbing your nose in it? No. Cruz’s reasons don’t stand up, politically or in the face of the withering reaction of convention delegates, even non-Trumpists. First, it’s about family: “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father.” Then it’s about himself: The Establishment wants him to “sit down, shut up, just support the team.” He’s not a “servile puppy dog.” ““If that’s the price, I ain’t gonna do it.” He didn’t even try to make it about ideas or principles. He made himself the spokesman for widespread qualms in the GOP about Trump. He stuck in the knife in front of the world. He did publicly what lots of others were doing privately. Even his Texas base was repulsed. “All he did is help Hillary, he knows that.” In sum he violated both Rule 1 and Rule 2. Trump is not officially dead, strangely still breathing. And Cruz is Brutus, or Boris Johnson, or Nelson Rockefeller in 1964. It’s not a fixable problem. Cruz is finished. But the grins emanating from the Kasich, Bush and Rubio camps are broad and toothy. The dirty work has been done and their boys didn’t have to do it. For all intents and purposes the 2016 election is over and these guys are lining up for 2020 nomination. Republicans cannot close the gap without unity. The Convention failed. Disunity and electoral disaster have a face. Ted Cruz. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 июля, 04:21

"A Convention of Hangmen ..."

"A convention of hangmen who subscribe to the principle that the executioner has his rights as well," says a famous writer covering the Republican National Convention. Delegates supporting the victorious candidate boo and hiss a defeated rival. The nominee talks loosely about using nuclear weapons. The party's nominee declines to repudiate such extremist organizations as the Ku Klux Klan. White supremacists across the country have rallied to his support. One of the tiny number of African American delegates at this gathering of what once was the Party of Lincoln says that black delegates were "shoved, pushed, spat upon, and cursed with a liberal sprinkling of racial epithets." "I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler's Germany," a prominent African American says of his experience at the Republican National Convention. The party's nominee speaks of the "abuse of law and order in this country, the total disregard for it, the mounting crime rate." The convention features abundant fear-mongering and talk of the need to restore "law and order," much of it with unmistakable racist overtones. The pent-up frustrations and fears of the people who were attracted to this movement center on an elite who, it is argued, are selling out America. The targets of their extreme loathing are those who reached the top of the American political system who appeared in the Right's worldview to be traitors of one sort or another. The movement that has seized control of the party and its national convention labels itself "conservative," but it isn't. It seeks not to conserve, but to reverse the changes of the modern world and go back in time to an earlier era in America. It is a revolt against the modern world in most of its manifestations. Its adherents have no tolerance for modern (im)morality, for internationalism, for government social programs or government regulation of the market, for racial or religious diversity, or for an understanding of the world based on modern science. They are staunchly opposed to pluralism. They were, in a word, singularists. All of this sounds like a perfect description of the party's 2016 Convention, where Rudy Giuliani went wild screaming about President Obama, people chanted "Lock her up!" in reference to Hillary Clinton, Dr. Ben Carson linked Hillary to Lucifer, a Trump adviser said Hillary should be shot by a firing squad for treason, and on and on ... In fact, though, it is a summary of the party's 1964 Convention, when an insurgency seized control of the Republican Party, cheered "extremism in defense of liberty," booed Nelson Rockefeller off the stage, and mistreated the miniscule number of black delegates. The quote on now knowing what it felt like to be a Jew in Hitler's Germany is from Jackie Robinson. He had integrated the national pastime; now he was witnessing the dis-integration of his national party, whose support for members of his race had quite suddenly become something of a past time. The quotation about a convention of hangmen is Norman Mailer writing about the 1964 Republican Convention in the November 1964 issue of Esquire. Fifty-two years ago, the Republican Party made a pact with the devil by adopting a "Southern Strategy" appealing to racists, xenophobes and religious bigots. This week the devil came to Cleveland to collect his due. {Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College. He is completing a book, "The Times They Were A-Changin' - 1964: The Year 'The Sixties' Began."} -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 июля, 15:10

This Probably Won’t Be The Craziest Republican National Convention In History

You can find speculation about what unusual things might occur during the upcoming Republican National Convention in Cleveland all over the internet. But a little convention craziness might be more common than you think. The Republican Party’s first presidential nominating convention was held in Philadelphia on June 17, 1856. The event brought together a diverse group of people with a united focus on preventing the spread of slavery into the nation’s Western territories. Since then, the party has grown and changed ― and quite a few interesting moments have come from the conventions. Here are some of them. 1864 (Baltimore): The aim of that year’s event was to preserve the union, so they called it the National Union party convention in hopes of encouraging Democrats, especially those who supported President Abraham Lincoln’s war plans, to participate. 1876 (Cincinnati): Abolitionist Frederick Douglass gave the featured speech at the convention, in which he addressed the struggles of freed slaves: “You say you have emancipated us. You have; and I thank you for it. You say you have enfranchised us. You have; and I thank you for it. But what is your emancipation? What is your enfranchisement? What does it all amount to, if the black man, after having been made free by the letter of your law, is unable to exercise that freedom, and, after having been freed from the slaveholder’s lash, he is to be subject to the slaveholder’s shot-gun?” 1888 (Chicago): Douglass received one vote, making him the first African-American to win a vote to be the presidential nominee of a major party. 1912 (Chicago): President William Taft was ultimately chosen as the nominee, but former President Theodore Roosevelt was gunning for another chance at the White House. The establishment supported Taft, but Roosevelt and his supporters showed up at the convention in hopes of taking the nomination. When Roosevelt realized he wouldn’t succeed, he and his supporters left without voting. The new Progressive “Bull Moose” Party nominated Roosevelt later that summer. 1916 (Chicago): The Republican and Progressive parties met concurrently in the Windy City in an attempt to come to a consensus on a candidate and platform. However, the Progressives were intent on nominating Roosevelt again, and the Republicans were set against his nomination. In the end, the parties selected separate candidates, but Roosevelt later withdrew from the presidential contest after meeting with GOP nominee Charles Evans Hughes. 1924 (Cleveland): This was the first national party convention broadcast via radio.  1940 (Philadelphia): Wendell L. Willkie, who had never run for public office before, was a relatively unknown candidate just months before the convention. However, he gained momentum and secured the nomination on the sixth ballot. 1964 (San Francisco): The top nominees represented the divide in the party: Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater led the conservative wing of the party, while New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller pushed for a more progressive agenda. Rockefeller was booed by conservatives in the audience when he pushed for a platform against extremism. And after he won the nomination, Goldwater fired back in his acceptance speech, saying, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” 1976 (Kansas City, Missouri): California Gov. Ronald Reagan challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford, who had never been elected vice president or president, for the nomination. Neither candidate had enough support to win the nomination on the first ballot. Reagan, in an attempt to lure liberals and centrists to his side, did something that hadn’t been done before. He announced his vice presidential running mate before the convention: liberal Pennsylvania Sen. Richard Schweiker. His campaign then proposed a rule change to require Ford to name his running mate in advance, too, in hopes that Ford’s choice would send more votes Reagan’s way. The rule change was rejected, and Ford narrowly won the nomination. Ford, however, invited Reagan to the podium, where his poetic speech wowed the crowd and was seen to usher in the new generation of the party. 2000 (Philadelphia): The nomination of George W. Bush gave the nation a chance to have its second father-son presidential pair.  2008 (St. Paul, Minnesota): The first day of the convention was held as an abbreviated session because of the threat of Hurricane Gustav, which was expected to hit Louisiana. Once the convention proceeded, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin became the second woman chosen for the presidential ticket of a major party. 2012 (Tampa, Florida): For the second consecutive GOP convention, a hurricane derailed the first day. The events were condensed into the remaining three days. 2016 (Cleveland): This year’s convention might be another memorable one. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

14 июля, 16:24

Дональд Трамп представит свою тень // Завтра может стать известно имя возможного вице-президента США

Завтра миллиардер и кандидат в президенты США Дональд Трамп объявит, кто займет должность вице-президента в случае его победы на выборах. В числе наиболее вероятных кандидатур — бывший спикер палаты представителей 73-летний Ньют Гингрич, еще в конце 1960-х работавший одним из помощников Нельсона Рокфеллера; 53-летний губернатор штата Нью-Джерси Крис Кристи, рейтинг которого из-за скандалов опустился на рекордно низкий уровень, и губернатор штата Индиана 57-летний Майкл Пенс, отличающийся весьма консервативными взглядами.

13 июля, 13:34

«Я что, так много хочу?»: история Хиллари Клинтон

Возможно, следующим президентом США впервые станет женщина – причем уже успевшая обжить Белый дом в статусе первой леди. Сегодня весь мир гадает, одолеет ли Хиллари Клинтон своих соперников, и если да, то какое положение займет при ней ее муж Билл, учитывая их весьма непростые отношения

11 июля, 18:52

Procrastinating on July 11, 2016

**Over at [Equitable Growth](http://EquitableGrowth.org): Must-Reads:** * **Dani Rodrik**: [The Abdication of the Left](http://equitablegrowth.org/?p=27911) * **Sandra E. Black et al.**: [The long-term decline in US prime-age male labour force participation and policies to address it](http://equitablegrowth.org/?p=27888) * **Robert Kaiser**: [The Disaster of Richard Nixon](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/disaster-of-richard-nixon/) * **Paul Krugman**: [The Great Capitulation](http://equitablegrowth.org/?p=27884) * **Barry...

11 июля, 04:07

Links for the Week of July 17, 2016

**Most-Recent Must-Reads:** * **Atif R. Mian, Amir Sufi, and Emil Verner**: [Household Debt and Business Cycles Worldwide](http://equitablegrowth.org/?p=28080) * **Quentin Skinner**: [Liberty before Liberalism and All That](http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/liberty-before-liberalism-all-that/): "The _Digest of Roman Law['s]_... fundamental distinction drawn at [its] outset... * **Elizabeth A. Stanton**: [Negishi Welfare Weights: The Mathematics of Global Inequality](https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/negishi-welfare-rights.pdf) *...

10 июля, 23:51

1968 And 2016

No, it's not 1968, despite the racial strife and political turmoil. "When we start suggesting that somehow, there is this enormous polarization and we're back to the situation in the 1960s -- that's just not true,'' President Obama said last week. "You're not seeing riots and you're not seeing police going after people who are protesting peacefully.'' Not to mention the fact that there is no antiwar movement convulsing the country. Still, there are some revealing parallels between 2016 and 1968. The 1968 election occurred at a time of wrenching cultural and political change -- black power, women's liberation, gay rights, student protest. 1968 also saw a furious backlash against those changes (the George Wallace campaign). What is Donald Trump but the leader of a resistance movement in defiance of the growing power of minorities, immigrants, women, young people, gays and the unchurched? Of course, the electorate in 2016 is vastly different from what it was in 1968: less white, better educated, less religious and with more empowered women. All of which works to the Democrats' advantage. The narrow winner of the 1968 election was Republican Richard Nixon. Nixon wasn't running as a racial backlash candidate in 1968. That came later, in 1972, when he used his southern strategy to fold the Wallace vote into the GOP. The evidence? Nixon's worst state in 1968 was Mississippi (Nixon 14 percent, Wallace 63 percent). Nixon's best state in 1972 was Mississippi (Nixon 78 percent). In 1968, Nixon was a candidate of the center. He was perfectly positioned in the Republican contest, between Nelson Rockefeller on the left and Ronald Reagan on the right. And again in the general election, with Wallace on his right and Hubert Humphrey on his left. Moreover, wherever Humphrey and Wallace went, a riot seemed possible. By taking as few positions as possible (he was reported to have a secret plan for ending the Vietnam war), Nixon promised stability to a country in turmoil. He pledged he would ``bring us together.'' 1968 was a rare year in which voters were looking for an experienced political insider, someone who knew how to make government work. No one was more of an insider than the former congressman, senator, vice president and presidential candidate. Nixon was resurrected from the political dead -- after losing the presidential race in 1960 and the race for governor of California in 1962, Nixon told the press, "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more.'' He was brought back to political life because he offered something voters in 1968 desperately wanted: order. There is no Nixon figure who can plausibly promise to "bring us together'' this year. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are polarizing figures. If voters are looking for experience and a steady hand -- qualities they saw in Nixon in 1968 -- Clinton has the advantage. It's her strongest asset, according to Gallup. Twice as many voters say Clinton "has the experience it takes to be President'' (62 percent) as say that about Trump (31 percent). The Democrat is also seen, though by a smaller margin, as someone "who would display good judgment in a crisis'' (48 percent say that applies to Clinton while 37 percent believe it applies to Trump). Like Nixon in 1968, Clinton is a charter member of the political establishment. She's been a Washington political figure for 23 years. In 1968, Nixon had been in Washington for 21 years. Up to now, Clinton's standing with the establishment has been a weakness that her opponent, Bernie Sanders, skillfully exploited in the Democratic primaries. In a race against Donald Trump, being seen as experienced could work to her advantage. But Clinton has a problem Nixon didn't have in 1968. When voters are anxious and dissatisfied, they tend to favor the party out of power. That meant the Republicans in 1968. But Clinton is from the President's party. That puts her on the wrong side of the "change'' issue. Last month's Pew poll asked voters "Do you think Hillary Clinton would change the way things work in Washington?'' A majority of voters said Clinton wouldn't change things much. And Trump? Voters think Trump would change things all right, but most of them believe he would change things for the worse. That's the reason why so many voters are dissatisfied with the choices this year (according to Pew, the lowest level of satisfaction in two decades). Voters are desperate for change -- as they were in 1968 -- but they face a choice between a candidate who won't change things and a candidate who will change things for the worse. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

09 июля, 17:47

Weekend Reading: David Frum (2009): The Goldwater Myth

**David Frum** (2009): *[The Goldwater Myth](http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/)*: >Conservatives live in thrall to a historical myth, and this myth may soon cost us dearly. The myth is the myth of the Goldwater triumph of 1964... [when, supposedly,] after years of watered down politics, Republicans turned to a true conservative, Arizona Senator Barry...