HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TheDormouse » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »

TheDormouse

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Feb 24, 2016, 04:38 PM
Number of posts: 1,168

Journal Archives

Shenanigans at polling stations is nothing new - ask your grandparents

August 2, 1986

WASHINGTON — Four witnesses Friday disputed Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist's sworn testimony that he had not harassed or intimidated minority voters in the early 1960s....

Sydney Smith, now a La Jolla, Calif., psychoanalyst, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had seen Rehnquist approach two black men waiting in line to vote in the 1960 or 1962 election in Phoenix, challenge their ability to read and tell them, "I would ask you to leave." ...

James Brosnahan, a San Francisco lawyer, told of being called at the 1962 election to a south Phoenix precinct as an assistant U.S. attorney to investigate complaints about challenges being made to black and Latino voters.

Brosnahan, whom Rehnquist has acknowledged knowing, said he is "certain" that Rehnquist was acting as a challenger at the polling place and that "a number of people" waiting to vote pointed him out as a person causing problems. "I have no doubt about that," Brosnahan said....

Manuel Pena, an Arizona Democratic state senator, told of being involved in a "close confrontation" with a Republican challenger at the Nov. 3, 1964, election at a Phoenix precinct. He said he recognized the challenger at the 40% Latino precinct as Rehnquist from a newspaper picture he saw a few years later.

Charles Pine, a former state Democratic Party chairman in Arizona, said Rehnquist "is currently suffering from a conventient lapse of memory" in denying voter intimidation. Pine said he saw Rehnquist at the 1962 election approaching voters and asking them: "Are you qualified to vote?"
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-02/news/mn-973_1_justice-rehnquist

A Phoenix lawyer and longtime Democratic activist, who said he did not want to be identified because he expected Justice Rehnquist to be confirmed as Chief Justice, said that at the 1962 election he was photographed by William Rehnquist as he and another Democrat approached a voting precinct in a minority community. Photographing Voters

''We asked him what he was doing, or perhaps he just told us, 'I'm taking pictures of everybody,' '' the lawyer recalled. ''We asked if that wasn't harassment. He just laughed and said, 'There's no film in the camera.' ''
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/04/us/rehnquist-in-arizona-a-militant-conservative-in-60-s-politics.html

William H. Rehnquist was an attorney in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona in the 1950s and 1960s. He was active in the Republican party, and served as Barry Goldwater's campaign manager in the 1964 presidential election. He worked in the Justice Department during the Nixon administration, and was appointed to the Supreme Court by Nixon in 1972. Reagan appointed him Chief Justice in 1986. In all, Rehnquist served 33 years on the Supreme Court.

Hillary: I could compromise on abortion if it included exceptions for mother's health

From an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd that apparently was broadcast the week of September 29, 2015 on MTP Daily.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html#ooid=N1ODF1dzpHyB52_cmPb77qDHRLMY2We_

CHUCK TODD: Are there reasonable restrictions that you would ever support on abortion?

HILLARY CLINTON: I've said that there were.

CHUCK TODD: What are they?

HILLARY CLINTON: And that's under Roe v. Wade, that there can be restrictions in the very end of, you know, the third trimester. But they have to take into account the life and health of the mother.

I remember in '96, Chuck, my husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions. And he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. You know, women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem, women whose life is threatened themselves if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.

And so, you know, again, I am where I have been, which is that, you know, if there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional restrictions that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that. And that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional actions.

https://www.nbcumv.com/news/hillary-clinton-tells-chuck-todd-her-organizing-principle-%E2%80%9Cdefend-our-security-our-interests

What are candidates allowed to use any remaining funds for after an election?

What does US law permit candidates, or their campaign organizations, to do with any uncommitted funds that may remain after the candidates win, lose, or, especially, drop out of election races?

I realize that in many high-profile races, it is more likely for the campaign to be indebted rather than to have surplus funds, and I realize that one of the main reasons that candidates drop out of races is that they have run out of money. But I am asking about the occasional cases in which the campaign actually still has surplus cash on hand.

Can the candidate give the money to another candidate? If so, does it have to be in the same election race or can it be for a future race?

Can the candidate reserve the money for a future race of his or her own, even if there are no definite plans to run again?
If so, what happens to the money if the candidate doesn't ever run again?

Etc.

Human Rights Campaign endorses Mark Kirk (R) over Tammy Duckworth (D) for Senate

In January, even before the Iowa Caucus, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT rights organization, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. At the time, the Sanders campaign said, "It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record."

Hillary supporters said Sanders just had sour grapes, while Bernie supporters pointed out that when the membership of organizations are allowed to vote on endorsements, Bernie does well, but when the leadership of organizations make the decisions unilaterally, they choose Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511046133

So now, how to explain the Human Rights Campaign's decision to endorse Republican incumbent Sen. Mark Kirk over Democratic challenger Rep. Tammy Duckworth in the Illinois Senate campaign?

As David Nir has noted in Daily Kos:

Kirk's record on gay rights is far weaker than that of his Democratic opponent, Rep. Tammy Duckworth—according to no less an authority than HRC itself. In 2013-14, Kirk earned just a 78 percent score on HRC's report card, and in 2009-10, he managed an atrocious 39 percent. (Kirk has no rating for 2011-12, presumably because he missed many votes while recovering from a stroke.) By contrast, Duckworth, who was first elected to Congress in 2012, notched a perfect 100 percent in 2013-14. In what universe does it make sense for an advocacy group to support the candidate who is unambiguously worse on their key issues?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/21/1504481/-Shameful-Gay-rights-group-endorses-Republican-Mark-Kirk-over-Democrat-Tammy-Duckworth

Human Rights Campaign endorsed Hillary ... and Mark Kirk (R)

In January, even before the Iowa Caucus, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT rights organization, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. At the time, the Sanders campaign said, "It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record."

Hillary supporters said Sanders just had sour grapes, while Bernie supporters pointed out that when the membership of organizations are allowed to vote on endorsements, Bernie does well, but when the leadership of organizations make the decisions unilaterally, they choose Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511046133

So now, how to explain the Human Rights Campaign's decision to endorse Republican incumbent Sen. Mark Kirk over Democratic challenger Rep. Tammy Duckworth in the Illinois Senate campaign?

As David Nir has noted in Daily Kos:

Kirk's record on gay rights is far weaker than that of his Democratic opponent, Rep. Tammy Duckworth—according to no less an authority than HRC itself. In 2013-14, Kirk earned just a 78 percent score on HRC's report card, and in 2009-10, he managed an atrocious 39 percent. (Kirk has no rating for 2011-12, presumably because he missed many votes while recovering from a stroke.) By contrast, Duckworth, who was first elected to Congress in 2012, notched a perfect 100 percent in 2013-14. In what universe does it make sense for an advocacy group to support the candidate who is unambiguously worse on their key issues?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/21/1504481/-Shameful-Gay-rights-group-endorses-Republican-Mark-Kirk-over-Democrat-Tammy-Duckworth

The real problem with Hillary's speech transcripts

Here's the deal with those transcripts of speeches to Wall Street firms that Hillary Clinton still refuses to release. It's not that there's likely to be anything anybody wasn't expecting in them. At worse, if they were released she would be mildy embarrassed for everyone to see that she gives a variation of the same speech all the time--and gets paid very handsomely for it.

No, the real problem is that her stonewalling over what's almost certainly nothing makes her look secretive and dishonest in some viewers' eyes. If she has nothing to hide, why is she hiding this information?, they will say.

Just release the transcripts, and the story goes away.

Why are Millennial women so in love with Bernie?

Or, should that be, Why is Hillary having such a hard time attracting Millennial women?

Sanders now leads Clinton among younger voters by 54%-37%, an even bigger advantage than the 11-point edge he held in January's survey. Millennial women now back Sanders by a jaw-dropping 61%-30% while the divide among Millennial men is much closer, 48%-44%.

...

The online survey, taken by Ipsos March 3-10, polled 1,541 adults ages 18 to 34.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/14/poll-millennials-clinton-sanders-trump-president/81612520/

If I were a GOP operative, I'd try to stir up factional rivalry among Dems

Because divide-and-conquer is ALWAYS a winning strategy.

Republicans must be licking their chops watching Dems insisting that the opposing Dem candidate is so odious that they will not vote for him or her no matter what.

Because if enough potential Democratic voters get turned off and stay home on election day--or write in a name that has zero chance of winning--Republicans WILL win.

Like they won in 2010 and 2014. Look what that did to the Demcratic majorities that had been in the House and Senate after Dems unified behind a candidate and turned out in record numbers in 2008. After the disasters of 2010 and 2014, Republicans now have majorities in both Houses of Congress and many state legislatures, as well as governorships of many states. The Democratic president can get only a fraction of his agenda enacted because he has no control over Congress. He can't even get a Supreme Court nominee appointed.

And as a result of the 2010 election, the GOP got to redraw congressional district maps to give themselves a massive leg up in all future congressional elections for this decade.

Flint, Michigan lead poisoning crisis -- Water management files may have been stolen

"Mystery still surrounds an unsolved December break-in at an executive office inside City Hall where Flint water files were kept.

As of Friday, March 18, there were still no suspects in the case, and officials say it may never be known what -- other than a TV -- was taken.

But the city's new police chief Tim Johnson says it's too suspicious that there was a break-in where important documents were kept, just as investigations began heating up and decision makers were beginning to be held accountable.

'It was definitely an inside job....' Johnson said.

The office was not assigned to any city employees at the time of the break-in, city officials have said.

'It was somebody that had knowledge of those documents that really wanted to keep them out of the right hands, out of the hands of someone who was going to tell the real story of what's going on with Flint water,' he said."

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/03/break-in_where_water_files_sto.html

Hillary: Don't call me a "Liberal"

https://www.youtube.com/v/g1_gR278FCg&start=53&autoplay=1

Chris Matthews: You became a real liberal.

Hillary Clinton: (pause) I like to say "progressive." (smiles)

Matthews: Well, that's the new word ... Well, why do people change the word if they like the word? What was wrong with liberal?

Clinton: Nothing is wrong with it. You know--

Matthews: "Progressive" covers such a broader front. It goes all the way over to Democratic socialism all the way over to moderate, I mean, progressive...

Clinton: No, it doesn't go as far as socialism. I'm sorry, it does not cover that.

Matthews: For you it doesn't.

Clinton: No.

http://info.msnbc.com/_news/2016/03/15/35266445-
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »