Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.


The Clinton campaign has been strangely remiss in not publicizing the Trump campaign’s aggressive screening of journalists at Trump’s events—especially its denial of press credentials to several news media organizations, including the Washington Post and Politico.

But this report by Paul Farhi, the Washington Post’s media reporter, this morning, titled “Post reporter barred, patted down by police, at rally for Trump running mate,” but published in the Post’s Style section for whatever reason, is out of early 1930s Europe:

Donald Trump’s campaign has denied press credentials to a number of disfavored media organizations, including The Washington Post, but on Wednesday, the campaign of his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, went even further.

At Pence’s first public event since he was introduced as the Republican vice-presidential candidate two weeks ago, a Post reporter was barred from entering the venue after security staffers summoned local police to pat him down in a search for his cellphone.

Pence’s campaign expressed embarrassment and regret about the episode, which an official blamed on overzealous campaign volunteers.

Post reporter Jose A. DelReal sought to cover Pence’s rally at theWaukesha County Exposition Center outside Milwaukee, but he was turned down for a credential beforehand by volunteers at a press check-in table.

DelReal then tried to enter via the general-admission line, as Post reporters have done without incident since Trump last month banned the newspaper from his events. He was stopped there by a private security official who told him he couldn’t enter the building with his laptop and cellphone. When DelReal asked whether others attending the rally could enter with their cellphones, he said the unidentified official replied, “Not if they work for The Washington Post.”

Donald Trump’s running mate has been in public office since 2000, mostly in Congress, and is a favorite among social conservatives.

After placing his computer and phone in his car, DelReal returned to the line and was detained again by security personnel, who summoned two county sheriff’s deputies. The officers patted down DelReal’s legs and torso, seeking his phone, the reporter said.

When the officers — whom DelReal identified as Deputy John Lappley and Capt. Michelle Larsuel — verified that he wasn’t carrying a phone, the reporter asked to be admitted. The security person declined. “He said, ‘I don’t want you here. You have to go,’ ” DelReal said.

The security person wouldn’t give his name when DelReal asked him to identify himself. He also denied DelReal’s request to speak to a campaign press representative as he escorted the journalist out.

Officials of the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department were unavailable for comment Wednesday night.

Trump has banned nearly a dozen news organizations whose coverage has displeased him, but reporters have generally been able to cover his events by going through general admission lines.

The incident involving DelReal marks another in a series of run-ins between the news media and the campaign.

In June, Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger was ejected from a Trump event in San Jose by a campaign staffer and a private security guard after he tried to cover the rally without the campaign’s permission. In February, a photojournalist from Time magazine, Christopher Morris,was roughed up by a Secret Service agent as journalists rushed to cover a protest at one of his rallies. And Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, yanked and bruised the arm of a reporter for Breitbart News, Michelle Fields, when she tried to question Trump after a speech in March.

DelReal’s experience on Wednesday elicited a rebuke from Post Executive Editor Martin Baron.

“First, press credentials for The Washington Post were revoked by Donald Trump,” he said. “Now, law enforcement officers, in collusion with private security officials, subjected a reporter to bullying treatment that no ordinary citizen has to endure. All of this took place in a public facility no less. The harassment of an independent press isn’t coming to an end. It’s getting worse.”

Officials from the Pence campaign initially said they were unaware of the Waukesha incident when asked for comment Wednesday night. But after a cursory investigation, one official, who declined to speak on the record, said that no members of the campaign’s staff were involved. He said volunteers went too far.

“It sounds like they misinterpreted what they were supposed to be doing,” the official said. “This is not our policy.”

In a statement, Pence press secretary Marc Lotter said, “Our events are open to everyone, and we are looking into the alleged incident.”

“It sounds like they misinterpreted what they were supposed to be doing,” the official said? “This is not our policy?”

Some of them were doing what they were supposed to be doing—the volunteers at the press check-in table, for example.  Others surely knew that they were doing something they weren’t supposed to be doing, because they are public law enforcement officials, yet they did it anyway.

And then there is that middle category—the private security people—whose interpretation of what they were supposed to be doing wasn’t mere happenstance.

I don’t know who other than Clinton and her daughter will be speaking tonight in the primetime hours.  But I sure hope this night, with so many millions of people watching, will tell the public about this.  Even maybe someone who isn’t scheduled to speak tonight, and who could just take the stage to do that and only that.

My preference would be Bernie Sanders.  Or Elizabeth Warren.  But really, almost anyone could do it effectively.  It would take only about five minutes—and could be profoundly informative to so many people who don’t know about this.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but Bernie would be particularly effective, given his father’s family’s losses in the Holocaust.  And Elizabeth Warren would be because she could note, with some authority notwithstanding that although a former Harvard law professor she did not teach constitutional law, that what we undoubtedly are looking at if Trump is elected is a series of profound constitutional crises.

This is stunningly important stuff, folks.


UPDATE: Can’t decide whether this is equally important, but it isn’t stunning.  In the least.

Then again, New Jersey isn’t all that far from Virginia.  And they both have to worry about hurricanes during the hurricane season!

Okay, I won’t make you click that link.  Trump said on Twitter last night that Tim Kaine was a lousy governor of New Jersey.  I presume Trump’s complaint is that Kaine didn’t show up much for work there.

Added 7/28 at 11:24 a.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (37) | |

Whole Foods, Half-Wit

What a spot-on article Run 75441’s piece, “Healthcare Reform; Socialism or Fascism?” is. And what an informative Comments thread.  (Wow, Cynthia, who knew? I sure didn’t.)

And, folks, don’t miss this takedown of Mackey, called “Dear Whole Foods CEO, This Is What a Fascist Looks Like,” by Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks, via ReaderSupportedNews.  

But I have my own suggestion to Mackey: Consider expanding your company to other countries. Australia, maybe.  Germany.  Canada.  Sweden. France. Britain.  Norway.  Holland.  Maybe even Israel and Poland, both of them countries whose healthcare system Mitt Romney praised last summer.  

Or maybe Switzerland, where–as another reader commented in the earlier thread, in noting your praise of the Swiss health system, Mr. Mackey–you can see a fascist (or is it a socialist?) system at work, while admiring the beautiful mountainscape and maybe even skiing in it.

And while you’re there, break a leg.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (0) | |

Project for a New American Century

Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

This is your Bush foreign policy program in a nutshell. As developed and endorsed by the following team already in place back in 1997. Lots of familiar names, in fact you have pretty much the whole Bush national security team. Less Condi and Powell, which is instructive in itself.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Never heard of the Kagans before the drumbeat to war picked up? Think Zalmay Khalilzad just happened to be available when the time came? The events of 2001 on just didn’t happen, they were shaped. By people with a program. This one.

Step one in the program below the fold.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq Jan 26, 1998

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.


. Still imagine that we went to war with Iraq based on 9/11? That the decision to go to war was really made by the Decider sometime in February 2003? That if Saddam had just been a little more cooperative this unpleasantness would have been avoided? Sorry, no way. This decision was made by the people who signed this letter along with those who signed the Statement of Principles above. And note the one name that is glaringly absent, though his brother made the cut. Looks like they had to settle for the second choice when it came time for a figurehead.

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

(In reading the Statement did you get the odd feeling like something was missing, that a couple of future team members weren’t there? Say like Bolton, Perle and the other Kagan? Well have no fear, they were on board all along.)

Tags: Comments (0) | |

How to be a Communist and a Fascist at the Same Time

by Bruce Webb

Those of us with a passing knowledge of the development of Communism and Fascism within the larger context of the Popular Revolution vs Reaction tend to scratch our heads when people accuse Obama and his whole program of being both. After all in Europe, the historical cradle of each, the movements have seen to be the Left and Right anchors of a political spectrum that has various democratic flavors in between: Social Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Christian Democrats and the like. But that is the result of looking at his through a narrow lens focussing on who is in or out of political power and/or which party is holding the balance. There are alternative analytical schema that break this down in very different ways. To illustrate the mind-set that animates some, but by no means all, of the fervent opposition to Obama I would like to give you this from a review of Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom

This spell-binding book is a classic in the history of liberal ideas. It was singularly responsible for launching an important debate on the relationship between political and economic freedom. It made the author a world-famous intellectual. It set a new standard for what it means to be a dissident intellectual. It warned of a new form of despotism enacted in the name of liberation. And though it appeared in 1944, it continues to have a remarkable impact. No one can consider himself well-schooled in modern political ideas without having absorbed its lessons.

What F.A. Hayek saw, and what most all his contemporaries missed, was that every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship–and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to freedom.

Nazism, he wrote, is not different in kind from Communism. Further, he showed that the very forms of government that England and America were supposedly fighting abroad were being enacted at home, if under a different guise. Further steps down this road, he said, can only end in the abolition of effective liberty for everyone.

Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.

For followers of Hayek’s tradition the enemy is statism and their bulwark, their strength is capitalism. To argue as many leftists do that opponents of health care reform or of increases in minimum wage or any other intevention by the State to improve social or economic justice are just arguing against their own material interests, and that in doing so they are just siding with the bosses fall on deaf ears. Once you have internalized the twin equations Capitalism=Freedom & Statism=Tyranny you can well understand why Movement Conservatives first rejected the Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republicans who espoused Goo-Goo approaches (‘Goo-Goo’ being an old, somewhat derisive term for the Good Government movement). For people who followed Hayek the Interstate Highway System was not an instrument for good, the fact that it was government initiated, funded and maintained made it more like a Superhighway to Serfdom.

Not all the fury being exhibited has its total roots in this Hayek-Friedman-Libertarian soil, there are clearly cultural and racial roots to much of it as well. But if you think that somewhere behind that shouting face is the committment to one of the original rallying cries of Movement Conservatism, that of Barry Goldwater in his acceptance speech in 1964: ‘I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Not my own cup of tea, I kind of believe in steady pursuit of justice. I just want to point out that this is not just mindless anger, there is at least some coherentness behind it. An insurance claims rep is an agent of capitalism and so an ally of Freedom. A government health care bureaucrat is an agent of statism and so an enemy of Freedom. Making an operational argument that either one is getting between you and your doctor doesn’t cut any ice. Either you are for Freedom or against Freedom, if that comes with some personal sacrifice sobeit.

Tags: , , Comments (0) | |