Mission Accomplished! (Wow. Thank you, Matea Gold.)
In, I’m guessing, four or five posts here at AB in the six weeks or so, since hedge fund billionaires Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah Mercer were profiled in two or three articles because they’re providing substantial funding to Trump’s campaign and for the last few months have served as his puppeteers—steering both his campaign and his fiscal and regulatory policy plans (and therefore whom he will nominate to the federal bench and to the relevant slew of administrative agency officials)—I’ve pleaded for some real attention to this from political news and commentary journalists.
And from Clinton and her campaign.
It’s finally happening. Clicking on the Washington Post site just now and seeing as featured article Matea Gold’s piece there today titled “The rise of GOP mega-donor Rebekah Mercer” had the feel of an out-of-body experience. I couldn’t believe it.
As I’ve said repeatedly in my references to this duo, their capture of the Trump campaign and fiscal and regulatory policy plans explains why so few Establishment Republicans (Paul Ryan, for example) are renouncing support of Trump.
Also as I’ve said repeatedly, all Clinton has to do to win the Rust Belt (and, I believe probably Florida, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, too) is run a few ads apprising the public that Trump indeed has billionaire puppeteers—two of them. And exactly who they are and what they want. And where and how they live.
Clinton’s obsessive focus on Trump’s two most obviously scary traits—his dangerousness in foreign-policy matters and his alt-right mania—have been, in my opinion foreseeably, insufficient. Everyone already knows these things about Trump, which is why so many independents and moderate Republicans won’t vote for him. Incessantly reminding Republicans and independents of this, and repeatedly saying that these aspects of Trumpism isn’t traditionally Republican, gains her nothing, or close to nothing.
And presumably it was her fear of losing Republican support that caused her and her campaign to remain silent—throughout the summer and well into September—about Trump’s puppet-puppeteer relationship with billionaire far-right donors, and these two billionaire far-right and alt-right donors in particular. Wouldn’t wanna risk causing Meg Whitman to rescind her support for Clinton, I guess.
But now, finally, ridiculously belatedly … no more. I’m guessing that Gold’s piece today was prompted by a very legitimate request from the Clinton campaign. How legitimate? Can anyone really say in good faith that the public is not entitled to learn of this information through in-your-face political news media attention?
I’m thrilled. And I also want to say this: My main sources of news are the New York Times and the Washington Post; I have online subscriptions to both. And throughout this campaign season, dating back to the truly wonderful coverage of the Sanders campaign by the Post’s John Wagner and certainly continuing through the general-election campaign to date, the Post’s straight political and political-analysis reportage has been excellent, and the Times’ has been, in my opinion, subpar.
In any event, I sure welcome a finally-enlightened Clinton campaign. And some real news emphasis on the Mercers. Normally, when I read a commentary or a statement by a major pol, or some such, that appears to reflect a recent AB post of mine, I joke here that, say, “Obama reads Angry Bear!”, or the like. But this time I think maybe my posts here imploring Clinton and the news/commentary media to tell the public, very loudly, about the Mercers and their puppet/puppeteer role in the Trump campaign and what that would mean in a Trump administration.
I mean, who knows? Clinton’s taking a few (very entitled) sick days right now and maybe has happened upon this awesome blog called Angry Bear. If so, she should take up a related suggestion of mine: asking rhetorically what the Mercers think about Citizens United.
And about Citizens United. Which the Mercers apparently fund (as they do Brietbart). And whose founder and president for the past 16 years is now, at their suggestion, Trump’s deputy campaign manager. As a native Rust Belter I’m sorta thinkin’ that maybe some on-the-fence voters in the upper Midwest would like to know that. So tell them, Hillary Clinton.
Tell. Them.
Yeah, let’s bring up issues before the Trump campaign actually is forced to the table to explain their platform. How are you supposed to attack anything but the wall, Putin and racism when nothing else seems to be concrete?
The debates will settle that(one can hope), and then we can move, “finally, ridiculously belatedly … “, to a more substantive campaign from Clinton.
Even if the debates turn into the total clusterf!ck I expect, it will still begin the actual debates of the platform and who is behind them.
That way we can have Sanders, Warren, Obama and Biden showing they are behind Clinton while those people behind Trump will be exposed.
Guess you missed the point of Citizens United, EMichael. No wonder you were so hostile to Sanders’ campaign, centered as it was on the obvious fact that the major donors call the policy shots.
Most people do get that. Really. They, unlike the Fab Five Supreme Court justices, recognize the connection between policy and who is funding the officeholders’ campaigns.
The very point of apprising the public of what billionaire is funding the Trump campaign is that people do get the connection. Citizens United opinion is extremely unpopular. A big reason for Trump’s support is that people think he’s funding his own campaign and won’t owe anyone anything. He’s owned by two people who have other ideas than those of the Rust Belt working class.
Your claim to the contrary is dismaying. But then, Trump’s concrete tax plan does include such things as repealing the estate tax and cutting the tax rate of the Trumps and the Mercers, and corporations, dramatically. No one knows that. We have a Democratic nominee who isn’t mentioning it. Or anything else specific about Trump’s policy proposals.
Her campaign is almost comically out of touch with huge numbers of voters’ interests. It’s absolutely awful.
Of course, I did read this morning that her campaign’s communications director just put out a statement that Clinton realizes that she needs to make major changes in how she campaigns. The solution: She’s gonna tell everyone how much she’s always cared about kids and families and how she wants to help kids meet their “god given” potential.
Millennials will be energized if they know that Clinton considers kids’ potential to be god-given. Because they’re so, y’know, religious as a generational group. And because they love it when a pol overtly panders to religious folk.
So we can relax.
Bev,
Our problem is a failure to communicate. I am sure we are both responsible for that, but I feel your bern has clouded your thinking.
Example?
Right in your second sentence.
” No wonder you were so hostile to Sanders’ campaign, centered as it was on the obvious fact that the major donors call the policy shots.”
I was not hostile to the Sanders campaign(other than the amateurish way it was run, but certainly not the policies). The idea that you think I was, is proof that your judgement has been clouded by your fanaticism for Sanders.