NYT Has An Old Foe Opining

Guest/Oped

      This mornings commentary hits home David M. Shribman is the former political editor of the Salem Evening News a local paper back in my home state of Massachusetts who hails from a town called Swampscott, Massachusetts. Just as scary Mr.Shribman is currently the executive editor of the left wing crap paper here in Pittsburgh, Pa the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
    Well the New York Times tapped him to write his filth in an OPED this morning entitled "How to Save Clintonism" to be completely honest I don't even think Democrats want Clintonism saved whatever that is lol.
    Shribman starts "Pittsburgh — SINCE their premiere on the national stage a quarter-century ago, Hillary and Bill Clinton have been the closest of partners in politics. Through some rocky times they have turned to each other on vital projects, as in 1993, when Mr. Clinton asked his wife to lead an ultimately failed effort to establish universal health care. And then last week, Mrs. Clinton, her campaign straining to build momentum, said that her husband would be “in charge of revitalizing the economy” in a second Clinton White House.

With that announcement, Mrs. Clinton underscored that the couple had partnered in another joint venture: trying to refurbish Clintonism, the political creed that defined his two terms as president.

Celebrated by its supporters as a synonym for peace, prosperity and a common-sense centrism, Clintonism was — and is still — derided by its detractors on the left as corporatism and on the right as a shorthand for scandal and impeachable offenses. As Mrs. Clinton tries to unite her fractious party and turn her focus to Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, she is also looking to what can be salvaged and what must be discarded from her husband’s legacy.

  God help us the Clinton political creed and common sense centrism what is Shribman smoking LMAO.

  It goes on "What, then, might Clintonism 2.0 look like?

In its original form, Clintonism was an effort to pull the Democratic Party — which had lost five of the six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988 — back into political relevance. Forged out of Mr. Clinton’s years as governor of Arkansas, it involved more than just tweaking Democratic orthodoxy. Mr. Clinton wanted to help big corporations thrive, favored trade policies that unions loathed and spoke of reining in welfare and fighting crime.

The approach brought him victory over President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and then helped him navigate a hostile, Republican-controlled Congress after 1994. His health care agenda was blocked, but he managed to “triangulate” between Republicans and Democrats well enough to enact other major parts of his agenda, from a trade deal with Mexico and Canada to welfare reform to a crime bill.

Even Republicans, who pilloried and then impeached the president for his sexual escapades, admired Clintonism for its political suppleness. The 42nd president left the White House with high approval ratings after serving during years of economic growth. Many liberals felt bruised, even betrayed — there were some high-profile repudiations of the president, especially when he signed a welfare overhaul in 1996 that set time limits on benefits. But no one doubted that he had given new life to the party when he left office in 2001.

But Clintonism 1.0, designed to carve out a middle ground, may prove obsolete in 2016, when the center might not hold. Senator Bernie Sanders is trying to push Mrs. Clinton left on the issues of income disparity, student loan debt and health care costs. And even as Mr. Trump assails the liberal goal of immigration reform, he has also voiced the frustration of white working-class voters who, like liberal Sanders partisans, are angry about stagnating wages and trade.

  Bernie doesn't have to try and push Hillary to the left they both are already there.

  It ends "So even as Mrs. Clinton anoints the former president as her partner on economic issues, she is moving unmistakably away from some of his major policies.

Mr. Clinton was an ardent supporter of international trade agreements and regarded the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as one of the signature achievements of his two terms. In signing the pact at a 1993 ceremony he called it “a force for social progress as well as economic growth.”

But both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump assert that free trade has destroyed American jobs. As a result of their criticism, Mrs. Clinton, who once described the Trans-Pacific Partisanship negotiated by Mr. Obama as the “gold standard” of international trade pacts, has withdrawn her support for it.

Mrs. Clinton is also on the defensive about her ties to Wall Street and about the high-paid speeches she delivered to Goldman Sachs. Two decades ago, those ties were symbols of the party’s openness to business interests. But now Mr. Sanders is attacking them as tarnished emblems of the party’s drift from its New Deal heritage and its roots in the working and middle classes of American life. And Mr. Trump has jumped on her Goldman speeches as evidence of hypocrisy and secretiveness.

Clintonism 1.0 also has created concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s ability to energize core Democratic voters. Faced with criticism from the Black Lives Matter movement, she has called for ending “the era of mass incarceration” of black and Latino youths that was created in part by the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed and that she supported as first lady. Even so, Mrs. Clinton seems to have won the black vote handily throughout the primaries, according to exit poll data.

Young voters in particular seem unmoved by the moderate promise of Clintonism — Mrs. Clinton won only 17 percent of voters 18 to 29 in last month’s primary in the swing state of Pennsylvania. And while she was in the vanguard of the last phase of feminism, she seems less relevant to the new generation of young women who are critical to a new Clinton electoral coalition.

Advertisement

The results of the Kentucky primary last week — where Mrs. Clinton barely squeaked out a victory over Mr. Sanders after having prevailed there by 35 percentage points over Barack Obama in 2008 — underscore just how much she is struggling to consolidate the party’s base. The persistent disenchantment with her campaign among Sanders voters raises questions about whether Mrs. Clinton might look to expand her vote by reaching out to moderate Republicans and independents who are uncomfortable with Mr. Trump.

It does not help that Mrs. Clinton lacks her husband’s panache, one of their many stylistic differences.

“He relishes campaigning, and she does it because she has to,” said Edward G. Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania and a longtime ally. But he insists that the two have the same outlook and ideology. “They are similar in their values,” Mr. Rendell said in a recent interview, “and they are similar in what they care about.”

Those shared values are in many ways at the core of Clintonism 1.0 and 2.0. Both Clintons are animated not just by a center-left approach to campaigning and governing, but also a devout faith in expertise, particularly of the academic sort, and in the power of policy. And both are dedicated globalists: As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton holds the record for number of countries visited in office, 112, while her husband made twice as many international trips as Ronald Reagan and three times as many as Richard Nixon.

It is in that global outlook that Clintonism might benefit Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. At a time when Mr. Trump is vowing to restrict immigration and trade, and also reduce support for NATO and other international organizations that have been bulwarks of American foreign policy, Mrs. Clinton may find support among moderate Republicans and business interests for her vision of a more open, internationalist America.

Will that be enough to overcome weariness with the very idea of another Clinton White House?

If there was “Adams fatigue” for John Quincy Adams in 1824 because his father had been president, it didn’t prevent his election. Neither did “Bush fatigue” stop George W. Bush from winning a hair-thin victory in 2000 — though it might have helped vanquish his brother Jeb in the primaries this year.

But for Mrs. Clinton the challenge is probably greater because, unlike the children of presidents, she was there by her husband’s side, his partner, during two turbulent terms. So while she can share in much of the credit for the achievements of Clintonism, she must also bear the weight of its mistakes.

“The brand has been badgered,” said L. Sandy Maisel, a Colby College political scientist. “The people who have been saying terrible things about the Clintons have been saying them for 24 years now.So even as Mrs. Clinton anoints the former president as her partner on economic issues, she is moving unmistakably away from some of his major policies.
  I don't know about everyone else but Ive had enough of both of these used car salesman meaning the Clintons

NYT Reporters Don't Get It On Trump And Women

  This morning instead of giving my take on the Bullshit of the New York Times editorial page I saw a cool story to Opine about since all the buzz is going around on how Donald Trump treats women.
  On the very front page of this mornings crap fest that is the NYT reporters MICHAEL BARBARO and MEGAN TWOHEY have a headline entitled "Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump
Behaved With Women in Private" or their take on Mr.Trump.
 It begins "Donald J. Trump had barely met Rowanne Brewer Lane when he asked her to change out of her clothes.Donald was having a pool party at Mar-a-Lago. There were about 50 models and 30 men. There were girls in the pools, splashing around. For some reason Donald seemed a little smitten with me. He just started talking to me and nobody else.He suddenly took me by the hand, and he started to show me around the mansion. He asked me if I had a swimsuit with me. I said no. I hadn’t intended to swim. He took me into a room and opened drawers and asked me to put on a swimsuit.

Ms. Brewer Lane, at the time a 26-year-old model, did as Mr. Trump asked. “I went into the bathroom and tried one on,” she recalled. It was a bikini. “I came out, and he said, ‘Wow.’ ”

Mr. Trump, then 44 and in the midst of his first divorce, decided to show her off to the crowd at Mar-a-Lago, his estate in Palm Beach, Fla.

“He brought me out to the pool and said, ‘That is a stunning Trump girl, isn’t it?’ ” Ms. Brewer Lane said.

Donald Trump and women: The words evoke a familiar cascade of casual insults, hurled from the safe distance of a Twitter account, a radio show or a campaign podium. This is the public treatment of some women by Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president: degrading, impersonal, performed. “That must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees,” he told a female contestant on “The Celebrity Apprentice.” Rosie O’Donnell, he said, had a “fat, ugly face.” A lawyer who needed to pump milk for a newborn? “Disgusting,” he said.

But the 1990 episode at Mar-a-Lago that Ms. Brewer Lane described was different: a debasing face-to-face encounter between Mr. Trump and a young woman he hardly knew. This is the private treatment of some women by Mr. Trump, the up-close and more intimate encounters.

The New York Times interviewed dozens of women who had worked with or for Mr. Trump over the past four decades, in the worlds of real estate, modeling and pageants; women who had dated him or interacted with him socially; and women and men who had closely observed his conduct since his adolescence. In all, more than 50 interviews were conducted over the course of six weeks.

Their accounts — many relayed here in their own words — reveal unwelcome romantic advances, unending commentary on the female form, a shrewd reliance on ambitious women, and unsettling workplace conduct, according to the interviews, as well as court records and written recollections. The interactions occurred in his offices at Trump Tower, at his homes, at construction sites and backstage at beauty pageants. They appeared to be fleeting, unimportant moments to him, but they left lasting impressions on the women who experienced them.What emerges from the interviews is a complex, at times contradictory portrait of a wealthy, well-known and provocative man and the women around him, one that defies simple categorization. Some women found him gracious and encouraging. He promoted several to the loftiest heights of his company, a daring move for a major real estate developer at the time.

He simultaneously nurtured women’s careers and mocked their physical appearance. “You like your candy,” he told an overweight female executive who oversaw the construction of his headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. He could be lewd one moment and gentlemanly the next.

In an interview, Mr. Trump described himself as a champion of women, someone who took pride in hiring them and was in awe of their work ethic. “It would just seem,” he said, “that there was something that they want to really prove.”

Pressed on the women’s claims, Mr. Trump disputed many of the details, such as asking Ms. Brewer Lane to put on a swimsuit. “A lot of things get made up over the years,” he said. “I have always treated women with great respect. And women will tell you that.”

But in many cases there was an unmistakable dynamic at play: Mr. Trump had the power, and the women did not. He had celebrity. He had wealth. He had connections. Even after he had behaved crudely toward them, some of the women sought his assistance with their careers or remained by his side.

For Ms. Brewer Lane, her introduction to Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago was the start of a whirlwind romance — a heady blur of helicopter rides and high-end hotel rooms and flashing cameras.

“It was intimidating,” she said. “He was Donald Trump, obviously.”

The Alpha Trump

Mr. Trump grew up with an influential role model for how to deal with women: Fred C. Trump, his powerful and unyielding father.

 

The elder Mr. Trump exerted control no matter how big or small the decision, as Ivana Zelnickova learned over dinner one night in the late 1970s. Her boyfriend, Donald Trump, had invited her to join his siblings and parents at Tavern on the Green, the ornate restaurant in Central Park.

When the waiter came to take orders, Ivana made the mistake of asking for what she wanted. Fred Trump set her straight, she recalled in a previously unpublished interview with Michael D’Antonio, the author of “The Truth About Trump.” Fred would order steak. Then Donald would order steak. … Everybody order steak. I told the waiter, “I would like to have fish.” O.K., so I could have the fish. And Fred would say to the waiter: “No, Ivana is not going to have a fish. She is going to have a steak.” I said, “No, I’m going to have my fish.” And Donald would come home and say, “Ivana, why would you have a fish instead of a steak?” I say, “Because I’m not going to be told by somebody to have something which I don’t want.”

Mr. Trump defended his father’s conduct. “He would’ve said that out of love,” he said. If his father had overruled her fish order, Mr. Trump said, “he would have said that only on the basis that he thought, ‘That would be better for her.’ ”

The elder Mr. Trump did not hide his more traditional views on gender. When his son hired a woman, Barbara A. Res, as his head of construction in the 1980s, Fred Trump was mystified and annoyed.

Fred did not like the idea that Donald had hired me. “A woman?” Donald told me that. But I could tell by the way Fred treated me. He used to say that all the time: “You don’t know what you are talking about.” When I would complain to Donald about Fred, he would say, “Fred didn’t want me to hire you or didn’t think it was a woman’s job.”

Mr. Trump said it was a different era. “My father,” he said, “probably never would have seen a woman in that position.”

Mr. Trump still holds up his parents as models, praising his stay-at-home mother for understanding and accommodating a husband who worked almost nonstop.

“My mother was always fine with it,” he said, recalling her “brilliant” management of the situation. “If something got interrupted because he was going to inspect a housing site or something, she would handle that so beautifully.”

“She was an ideal woman,” he said. 

 

 

 Note Because of issues with my computer I am going to have to cut this post short but as you can see my point is that the NYT is obviously not going to differentiate in this biased story on how Trump really treats women.
 But The NYT will never run a story of how the Clinton's yes both of them BillyBoy and Hillary utterly destroyed the lives of countless number of women of whom BillyBoy had extra marital affairs with

 

 

NYT Now Running Their Mouth On the Vacancy At The US Supreme Court

Opinion/Editorial

   Just brilliant now the morons at the editorial board of the New York Times now are trying to make a stink about the vacancy at the US Supreme Court since the death of the late great Constitutionalist Justice Antonin Scalia.
  The only reason why they are opining about this issue is because the high court heard it's last case apparently this past Wednesday and it gives them another reason to go into their usual bullshit reason to go into leftist attack mode.
  Their lead crap piece this morning "Rescue the Supreme Court From Limbo" they just want more left wing bile coming out of the 8 justice court.
  It begins "Eight justices heard oral arguments in the final case of the Supreme Court’s term on Wednesday. When will the court return to full strength?

That question is as urgent today as it was immediately after the death two and a half months ago of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the initial wave of outrage at the Senate Republicans’ hard-line refusal to consider replacing Justice Scalia has ebbed, making it that much easier for Republicans to keep the seat empty through the presidential election. If they succeed, the court will go nearly two terms, and possibly longer, without a ninth member.

The consequences of the impasse have been growing graver by the day. Already the justices have split 4 to 4 in two cases, leaving important legal issues unresolved. In one, the court failed to decide a major labor case involving the longstanding right of public-sector unions, which represent millions of American workers, to charge collective bargaining fees to nonmembers. By the term’s end in late June, it’s likely that several more cases will have ended in tie votes, including possibly the fights over abortion restrictions in Texas, access to birth control and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration."

  The only outrage is the outrage that you idiots at the NYT editorial board create and to your buddies at the alphabet soup media and as usual when the GOP does something right you have to include them.

 It goes on "It could get worse from here. So far, the justices’ docket for the term beginning in October is smaller than usual, and the eight-member court may hesitate before taking on high-profile cases on controversial topics that are more likely to result in split votes. Already, major cases involving restrictive voting laws in North Carolina and Texas, pharmacists who want the right to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions for religious reasons, and Mr. Obama’s efforts to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants are before the court or could be soon. All could languish in legal limbo.Republicans haven’t been satisfied simply to hobble the court’s ability to function. In recent weeks, they have gone to remarkable lengths to impugn the integrity of the justices and thus the legitimacy of the court. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has attacked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who delighted conservatives at his own confirmation hearings by comparing judges to umpires calling balls and strikes. But last month, Mr. Grassley, who should be spending his time scheduling confirmation hearings, instead lashed out at the chief justice, claiming that “a number of his votes have reflected political considerations, not legal ones” — presumably referring to Chief Justice Roberts’s two votes upholding aspects of the Affordable Care Act."

  Face it NYT your buddies aren't in control in the Senate save a few RINOs.

  It ends "Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, who is challenging Mr. Obama’s immigration actions, also complained about the court, saying that because it “has shed its clothing as being guardians of the law,” it “deserves to be swept up into the political process.”

None of this has anything to do with the qualifications of Mr. Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whom conservatives have long praised as someone they would happily confirm. The battle is purely about ideological control of the court, which has had a conservative majority for decades.

How does the insanity end? If the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and Mr. Grassley hold to their promise not to give Judge Garland a hearing or a vote, it will probably take a president and Senate of the same party to nominate and confirm a new justice after Inauguration Day in January. But if the president and the Senate are of different parties, there is every reason to believe that the current blockade will continue indefinitely. If Donald Trump wins the White House, even Mr. Grassley admits that his Supreme Court nominee would be “a gamble.”Mr. Grassley and his fellow Republicans gambled that anger over their inaction would fade as the news cycle rolled on and the public’s attention turned to the presidential campaign. Maybe Republicans are willing to take such gambles because they believe they don’t have anything to lose. But the American people do."

  See what I put in red bold type OMG!!! hold the presses the NYT actually said something correct holy crap they can be correct once in a while.